PRELIMINARY STAFF COUNCIL MINUTES
June 29, 2000

Members Present:
Teresa Andrews, Cathy Denton, Sandy Forest, Donna Harvey, Jane Loney, H. Roger Morris, Lisa Ruddell, Trudy Walter, Kim Wells, Mary Ann Wild

Members Absent:
Juli Crecilius, David Kaiser, Elizabeth McMahan, Cari Winstead

Substitutes:
None

Guests:
None

President Trudy Walter called the meeting to order and asked Kim Wells to take roll.

Teresa Andrews read the treasurer's report 4/19/00 - 5/16/00. Total all accounts: $2208.98. Total all accounts 5/17/00 - 6/20/00 $2,423.62 Roger Morris made a motion to approve the treasurer's report. Kim Wells seconded the motion. All were in favor.

Old Business

Minutes of previous 3 months were read. Teresa Andrews made a motion to approve and Cathy Denton seconded the minutes.

Results of proposal submitted to Mark Mixner. - Overall they were pleased with the proposal. They feel they will not be able to respond to all issues before December or February. Equity Study - Ann Lee is currently doing an informal evaluation with service maintenance. Barbara Cocke and Cindy Hayes are involved in this project. Bonus Award - Mark and the Chancellor were worried about the reaction from faculty and professional staff.

Mark did have a suggestion for staff that serve on various campus committees. It would be helpful to campus personnel if when serving on a committee, respected individuals either reported back to staff council or submitted a written review of the committee's work and actions.

Suggestion Folder - There was a list of 12 questions in the suggestion folder and staff council dedicated the June 21 meeting to answering these questions.

New Business:

1. What is going to happen to the Market Day project?
   As was reported in the previous minutes, we can barely meet the $2000 monthly minimum and we felt it would be extremely difficult to meet the new $2500 minimum, so Market Day will be discontinued. (Actually I believe Market Day "dropped" us. It wasn't our decision to make.) Also the current volunteers have decided to retire and no one has stepped forth to run this project.



2. What ever happened to the sick pay bank idea?
   See attachment from Janet Cooper at the bottom of this document.



3. Would it be acceptable to put a few promotional words in the meeting minutes for important issues needing volunteer support?
   While we were a bit unclear as to exactly what the questioner was referring to we have absolutely no problem including events which require volunteer support such as the Relay for Life which has been in the minutes on several occasions. We encourage visitors to the meetings and welcome suggestions at the end of every copy of the minutes.



4. What is the time line for the salary issues resolved (e.g. what comes next in the process, then what follows next, the next. Etc)?
   Per the response from Mark on the submitted proposal, they will try and have a response to us by December.



5. Is there some reason that minutes for the past three months' meeting were issued at one time? It might help getting Staff Council issues supported if all staff were kept current on issues as they occur.
   Due to the fact that no one wanted to take on the job as staff council secretary, two people (Kim Wells and Mary Ann Wild) volunteered as co-secretaries. Kim usually takes the minutes and Mary Ann usually types them. (I, Kim, in an effort to share the responsibilities, said I would type the minutes for those three months. I realize I have let my fellow staff members down. In my defense during this secretary term I have had 3 surgeries - including 2 hand surgeries and 3 rounds of hospital tests.) We do try to do the minutes in a timely matter as our jobs permit. Also, the minutes are usually sent out to the staff council members for corrections and revisions so the rest of the staff receives the most accurate representation of the meetings possible. As you can see this is a time consuming process.



6. When a Staff Council member is absent on a regular basis how does that affect those staff members being represented by that absent person? On the other hand, is there any impact as a result from absent Council members.
   There are several people from each of the areas represented by Staff Council. Members do try to obtain subs when they can't attend a meeting; visitors are also welcomed. One member did try to resign this past year because of job related duties, and Staff Council did not want said person to resign. When nominated to serve on Staff Council, many people decline. We have never had a month when we didn't have enough members present for a forum. Also, if someone is willing to be a sub they can tell a staff council member so we will be aware of anyone willing to sub.



7. With elections coming up in the fall, what criteria must be satisfied for eligibility of being a Staff Council member?
   Six months employment at IUS and elected by classifications. We would encourage all members of the staff to please vote. If you are interested in being a staff council member please let others know so they may vote for you. The list and labels are ready for nominations. When Libby returns from vacation, we hope to get the nomination forms mailed.



8. Are there any old issues not mentioned these three months of meeting minutes that are being worked on in the background?
   No. Any issues discussed or addressed at the meeting are included in the minutes. Again all meetings are open to all staff and all staff is encouraged to come.



9. Are managers and/or supervisors required to allow staff members participation in Council projects that require time away from work?
10. Are there any guidelines to follow regarding manager/supervisors requirements for the time away from work for council participation? If so, could a brief list be published about this?
    According to the campus policy written by the Chancellor, staff members are allowed up to 2 hours a month for Staff Council. Workload and discretion of the supervisor also come into play. Ann Lee is willing to intervene if anyone has a problem getting release time for Staff Council.



11. What fundraisers will be utilized to maintain funds for Staff Council supported projects?
    We are more than open to suggestions. If there are no major fundraisers; then it will not be feasible to fund the scholarships. Pampered Chef cookbooks, used jewelry sale, 50/50 raffle, white elephant sale and a craft show are some of the suggestions that were made. Again, we will be more than happy to hear about any ideas and people willing to work on and chair committees for staff council projects.



12. When will these questions be addressed and/or some response published?
    We address all suggestions we receive at the next meeting. Some of them can be resolved at that meeting, or if not we try to assign someone to look into the matter before the next meeting.

Kim Wells made a motion to adjourn. Mary Ann Wild seconded. All were in favor.

Please Remember: We?re here for you?if anyone wants to attend a meeting or present an idea, please feel free to attend. Staff council meetings are open to all full-time appointed staff.

Special Note: The suggestion folder is on the bulletin board by Human Resources. Please use it to let us know what we can do for you.

THE NEXT STAFF COUNCIL MEETING WILL BE JULY 19, 2000 AT 1:30 P.M. LOCATION: HOWARD MINTON ROOM

[ Top ]

INCOME PROTECTION
TASK FORCE REPORT

In early 1999, an ad-hoc task force was assembled to discuss ?income protection? opportunities for University Staff employees. Members of this task force consisted of representatives from campus Human Resource Offices, Staff councils and unions, and the University Benefits Office. This task force met four times, with the last meeting in early 2000, identifying the below considerations and conclusions. (A list of task force members is attached.)

Steve Keucher of the University Budget Office attended several meetings to assist task force members in understanding the University?s management of fiscal affairs and limits for reallocating funds across units.

1. Identify the scope of any "income protection" issues for Staff employees



2. Identify potential solutions to "income protection" issues, with an analysis of pros and cons



3. Determine if there is a consensus for recommending one or more potential solutions

Task force members identified a variety of specific and anecdotal situations where employees had exhausted their accumulated paid time-off (sick leave and vacation), and had to take leave without pay. Examples of these situations include (illustrative only):

1. employees with serious medical conditions that require time-off for treatment and/or surgery, including new employees with little accrued time-off and employees with long periods of University service



2. employees who take time-off for delivery of a newborn and then are diagnosed with a serious medical condition requiring additional time-off for surgery



3. employees who need to take time-off to care for a family member with a serious illness or injury

While some members knew of specific individuals impacted by the above types of situations, there were no institutional numbers of individuals or frequency available for consideration by the task force.

Task force members identified two conceptional options for consideration, as follows:

1. Short-Term Disability (STD) Coverage : where there would be an insurance payment to replace income for employees in the event he or she is unable to work due to a serious injury or illness. Such insurance coverage would be integrated with existing Sick-Leave/PTO time-off policies and the University?s LTD (long-term disability plan), so that STD coverage would begin after a specific waiting period (i.e., 10 working days), where Sick Leave or PTO accruals would be used, and only continue up to the earliest opportunity for LTD coverage (90 days of disability).



2. Leave Donation Plan : where employees who had exhausted their paid time-off accumulations could receive paid time-off from a ?bank? of leave donated by other employees. Criteria to receive paid time-off from this "bank" would include the employee?s serious medical condition or a crisis with the employee?s family.

For each concept, a list of variables and implementation factors was assembled. These lists of variables and factors were then used to further discuss these two concepts.

Task force members and guests identified the below issues and/or obstacles related to the consideration of each concept.

Short-Term Disability (STD) Coverage

To be affordable on a per employee basis, a STD plan would have to be mandatory across all covered employees.

Employees would only accept a mandatory STD plan if it was paid for by IU, and IU would only pay for such if it was "cost neutral."

Employees would not give-up Sick Leave or PTO accruals to fund a new STD plan.

The difference in Sick Leave accruals for Non-exempt employees and PTO accruals for Exempt employees would make it difficult to develop a single STD plan

The meaningful number of employees with significant Sick Leave balances would not receive value from a STD plan. (Policies that allow for accumulations of Sick Leave are a form of short-term income protection.)

While conceptually a STD plan would provide a few months of income protection for employees with a disabling illness or injury, it would not address: a long-term period for employees who have not enrolled in the University?s LTD (long-term disability) plan; or employees who need to take off from work due to a family crisis.

Leave Donation Plan

Some task force members felt that such a plan was unnecessary and/or not a priority for Staff employees.

Some task force members felt that it would be unacceptable to allow donations to a "bank" from only Vacation accumulations, and that employees at their campus would want to make donations from their Sick Leave accumulations. (In that Sick Leave accumulations are meant to be a type of "insurance" protection for employees and not an unrestricted entitlement, it would be unacceptable to the University to allow "donations" from Sick Leave.)

While the University records accumulated Vacation/PTO leave, it does not accrue funds for such liability. This is a significant issue, since there would be no funds to accompany any donations to a "bank." (Most departments would need funds to cover expenses for both additional paid time-off from a "bank" and a replacement person.)

The difference in the Vacation Leave policy for Non-exempt employees and the PTO Leave policy for Exempt employees would make it difficult to develop a single Leave Donation Plan.

The donation of Vacation or PTO leave accruals that would otherwise be lost due to maximum limits would represent an additional cost for the University, and would not be cost neutral.

The following illustrates a variety of procedural issues that represent a challenge; each issue is fairly minor by itself, but together they are meaningful: definition of "family crisis" for eligibility of "withdrawals"; treatment of individuals who abuse normal Sick Leave accruals; availability of "bank" across organizational units (department, campus, or University); employee eligibility to withdraw leave from the "bank," such as probation status, prior donations to the "bank," prior withdrawals, etc.; and new record-keeping requirements.

Task force members did not reach a consensus that there was a universal need for a new ?income protection? plan for Staff employees, especially with the University?s current accruals for sick/vacation/PTO paid time-off. There was no expressed interest in a mandatory STD plan, and it was generally felt that such a plan would not meet the scope of issues dealing with a family crisis. While a Leave Donation Plan was desirable at a few campus locations, it was evident that employee preference to use Sick Leave vs. Vacation for donations and the lack of funds to accompany such donations are very problematic for further consideration.

[ Top ]