Northern Illinois University
Supportive Professional Staff Council Meeting
MINUTES
Thursday, February 14, 2008
Sky Room, 10:00 A.M.
Present
Nancy Apperson, Susan Armbrust, Sam Baker, Bobbie Cesarek, Abby Chemers, Andre
Crittenden, Norden Gilbert, Debbie Haliczer, Sabrina Hammond, Leslie Hecht, Jack King, Todd
Latham, Steve Lux, Grant Olson, Michelle Pickett, Donna Prain, Derrick Smith, Donna Smith,
Michael Spires, Michael Stang, Rachel Turner, Connie Uhlken
Absent
Monique Bernoudy, Megan Chiavini, Dan House, Lynn Richards
I. Call to Order. SPS Council President Cesarek called the meeting to order at 10:05 AM.
A. The agenda was approved with an addition to announcement: D) Library Dean’s
Search: Spires.
B. A motion was made and seconded to approve the minutes of the January 10, 2008,
meeting. Motion carried.
Attendance was taken and a quorum was confirmed.
II. Announcements
A. Student Climate Survey. Cesarek noted that the Student Climate Survey is available
and encouraged SPS participation. She also was pleased to report that the different
constituencies on campus (Student Association, Faculty Senate, OS Council, and
SPS Council) were asked for input on 10 questions and she received a nice note
from President Peters for the SPSC’s involvement. Discussion followed regarding
questions that could’ve been asked such as how well students are dealt with as
individuals and quality of the environment and food. Prain asked if they will be
evaluating responses according to employment classifications and Cesarek said that
they will. [Note: After the tragic events of 2/14/08, this survey was suspended
indefinitely.]
B. New SPS Second Representative to the University Council. Cesarek announced
that Hammond will replace Leake in this position.
C. Evaluation of the Executive Secretary of the UC and President of the Faculty Senate
(Paul Stoddard). Cesarek reported that as a member of the University Council she
has the opportunity to evaluate Executive Secretary of the UC and President of the
Faculty Senate Paul Stoddard. She stated that her evaluation included the fact that
he does a very good job, is level headed, listens to every perspective, and is very
mindful of others.
D. Library Dean’s Search. Spires reported that a notice went out for university
community participation in the open forums. The candidates are: Myrna McCallister
(Indiana State University), Patrick José Dawson (University of California-Santa
Barbara), Edward Owusu-Ansah (Kingsborough Community College, City University
of New York), Carole Kiehl (University of California-Irvine).
1
III. Committees of the Council
A. Awards: Haliczer reported that she just completed the delivery of the notices to the
recipients of the SPS Presidential Award. The next task is to send notices to the
nominees who did not receive the award as well as all the nominators. Hammond
will be sending reminders to the SPS list serve regarding the SPS certificate of
recognition. The Council next voted on the recipient for the SPSC service award.
The results were a tie between Gilbert and Ostenburg and both will receive the
award.
B. Communications: No report.
C. Constitution and Elections: Gilbert presented Council members with a time line for
the next Council election, with February 18, 2008, being a tentative start date for the
election process. Discussion followed regarding what should be included in the
solicitations regarding current representation. Haliczer noted that in the past the
representatives who are completing their terms were listed as well as the
representatives with time left on their terms. It was also clarified that there is no limit
on the number of people each person may nominate. Cesarek encouraged Council
members with expiring terms to remain involved and/or encourage colleagues to
become involved.
D. Finance: No report.
E. Legislative: King reported that Ken Zehnder, Associate Director, External Affairs, will
be at the March Council meeting. King added that Zehnder was in Springfield and
that the governor’s budget speech would be February 20, 2008.
F. Technology Resources: Ostenburg provided Council members with several
handouts: SPS divisions and employee distribution, department changes since last
year, list of departments, SPS vice presidents, SPS employees per SPSC division,
and SPSC representation. It was clarified that the SPSC divisions are not indicative
of the university’s divisions. There was some discussion about what Council division
the new departments should be in. The list of Council representation was discussed,
specifically the fact that it wasn’t clear who exactly was up for reelection, and some
Council members thought that they were listed incorrectly (either up for reelection
when they aren’t, or vice versa). The list of Council members who are no longer with
the university and their replacements was also discussed. Gilbert noted that he will
work with Ostenburg on these two issues. Cesarek noted that Council members now
have the capability of communicating with their constituents via e-mail. Ostenburg
confirmed that this is the case, but he still needs to send the instructions for sending
out those e-mails.
G. Workplace Issues: Haliczer reported on mandatory supervisory training and that
HRS is preparing a proposal to present to Peters and Provost Alden. She added that
the proposal covers everything the Council has discussed with regards to this issue.
The training would be one workshop introducing a range of expectations for
supervisors such as rules, policies, and information on other supervisory workshops.
Ostenburg asked how the mandatory workshop would differ functionally from other
workshops, would it be mandatory for current or new supervisors, and was there a
minimum number of employees who are supervised for inclusion in the training.
Haliczer stated that it would include what every supervisor needs to know, e.g.,
general policies and procedures, specific policies and procedures with regards to
different employment classifications, expectations of how to treat people, and
employment law. She responded that the proposal is for all current and new
2
supervisors and that it will be mandatory for all supervisors, no matter how many
employees they supervise, unless the employees are only students. Cesarek asked
if the training would start from the top down and Haliczer responded that it would
start with deans, vice presidents, and administrators. The final decision about the
training will be made by the president’s cabinet. Human Resource Services is
supportive of the proposal. She next reported that there is a new bereavement
policy that does not specifically list the family relations with the number of days an
employee may take for the leave. Regarding morale issues, committee members
would like to wait to proceed until after they review the survey results.
H. Vice President: Latham noted that there still seem to be some committees that have
not met. He added that he could try to answer questions, but suggested that Council
members contact the committee representatives directly. He reported that
employees should be considerate of parking due to the snow on campus. Hammond
reported that the Parking Appeals Committee looked at 24 snow-related appeals.
She said all but the parking tickets issued for handicap violations were granted. The
departure of Laura Lundelius, Coordinator of Parking and Traffic, was discussed.
Hammond noted that this is a difficult department to manage and Lundelius was a
fantastic lady to work with. She will be leaving at the end of February. Cesarek
asked if there was anyone stepping into the position and Hammond responded that
there was no one who she was aware of.
IV. Old Business
A. Comments regarding Steve Cunningham’s January presentation–open forum.
Cesarek asked if Council members had any comments or thoughts on Cunningham
and Celeste Latham’s visit to the Council in January and there were none.
B. SPS Survey. Spires presented the Council with the results from the last SPS survey
which will also go to Peters and Cunningham. He profusely thanked those who
helped work on the survey including Haliczer, House, Cynthia Nelson, and Karen
Schnite. He reported that the response rate was higher than last time, 42.5% versus
27%. Spires attributed this to the reminder e-mails and incentives for participation.
He pointed out that one of the positive results was that SPS were overwhelmingly
positive about professional development; having access to educational opportunities,
training, workshops, conferences, and travel reimbursement. One of the moderate
results was a general satisfaction with working conditions. Areas of concern
included employee dissatisfaction with compensation and advancement. Spires also
noted that professional autonomy kept coming up in the results and it appears that
there was a direct correlation between professional autonomy and high job
satisfaction. He added that the second highest indicator of job satisfaction was
satisfaction with compensation and benefits and job advancement. Spires talked
about the distribution of respondents with regards to their time of employment at NIU
as well as their time in their current positions. Prain asked if there was a valid
sampling, and Spires answered that with a 42% response rate, there is no need to
be concerned about sampling error. He noted that 80 of 362 respondents had some
type of workplace issue; 54 of those respondents took some sort of action. Spires
pointed out that there was a significant increase in the awareness of campus
resources, but the Faculty Personnel Advisor is a resource respondents knew the
least about. Lux asked if the instrument would be included with the results when
they are sent to Peters and Cunningham and Spires responded that it would be.
Discussion followed regarding job satisfaction among respondents and the length of
time they have been at NIU. Cesarek spoke about working conditions and that many
SPS have had their jobs changed and/or have had duties added. She added that
making sure job descriptions are up-to-date is essential and that even if there is no
3
increase in salary, often a new job title helps with job satisfaction. Cesarek thanked
everyone who participated in the process and reported that she would work on
dedicating resources for future surveys.
C. Spring “After Hours” – ad hoc committee -- (tentative dates 4/3, 4/10, 4/17, or 4/24).
Chemers, Lux, Olson, and Turner volunteered to serve on this committee.
D. Wellness Fair – ad hoc committee – date – March 26, 2008. Cesarek asked Council
members to consider involvement in the Wellness Fair. Discussion followed
regarding options to manning an SPSC booth, including putting literature out at a
table or sharing a booth with the OSC, and how many SPS stopped by last year.
Apperson noted that her office prefers that there are no unmanned tables during the
Wellness Fair. Hammond asked how many SPS are reached and Cesarek asked if it
was worth Council members’ time and efforts. Spires suggested that the Council put
more effort into reaching SPS at its own events such as the “Between Hours” lunch
and the “Spring After Hours.” Apperson noted that a different group of SPS could be
reached through the Wellness Fair. She added that about 1,500 people attend with
an equal distribution among students and different employment classifications.
Cesarek asked that if the Council did participate, would there be a message to
convey or would the Council simply be in attendance. A suggestion was made to
highlight workplace issues. The Council voted on whether or not to participate in the
Wellness Fair by hand vote and determined there would not be participation this
year.
V. New Business
A. NIU emergency closing, timing of notification. Spires suggested that the Council
convey to the administration its displeasure with how the weather-related closing on
February 6, 2008, was handled. The late notice—7:00 a.m.—was inconvenient for
many employees who were already on the road or at work, and there was confusion
about who are essential personnel, when nonessential personnel were supposed to
be at work, and whether or not those who did not go in at all had release time for the
whole day. Spires also reported that Marquette sent out text messages at 4:00 a.m.
regarding their closure. It was suggested that the Council encourage the
administration to be more proactive when making decisions about closures, and to
be more specific in the message. Discussion followed regarding the timing of the
message and the fact that employees need to know if they are essential personnel.
Stang stated that the definition of essential personnel can change depending on the
situation. Prain also noted that the message can get misinterpreted when it is aired
by the media. Being more specific would alleviate a lot of confusion. Apperson
noted that canceling classes but not the university really only affects employees with
the least amount of autonomy, e.g., civil service. Those employees feel the
obligation to report to work despite weather conditions more than other employment
classifications. Uhlken added that there are students who need to report to places
as well such as nursing students to hospitals. Cesarek read the e-mail from
Cunningham that stated that employees would not be charged benefits for the
closure on February 6, 2008, and several Council members expressed their concern
that they did not receive that message. It was clarified that the e-mail was sent only
to deans, directors and chairs, and discussion followed as to why it wasn’t just sent
to all employees. The Council decided to send a letter to the administration
encouraging them to make such closure decisions, whenever possible, by 6:00 a.m.
VI. University Committee Reports
4
The following reports were provided to the Council: Faculty Senate–president’s e-report
and University Council–president’s e-report.
VII. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 12:10 p.m.
Minutes respectfully submitted by Donna Smith, SPSC Secretary.
5