Northern Illinois University
Supportive Professional Staff Council Meeting
MINUTES
Thursday, March 13, 2008
Sky Room, 10:00 A.M.
Present
Susan Armbrust, Sam Baker, Cliff Bottigliero, Bobbie Cesarek, Kay Chapman, Abby Chemers,
Andre Crittenden, Norden Gilbert, Missy Gillis, Debbie Haliczer, Sabrina Hammond, Gail Jacky,
Todd Latham, Steve Lux, Mark McGowan, Grant Olson, Jonathon Ostenburg, Lyndon Perkins,
Scott Peska, Michelle Pickett, Donna Prain, Judy Santacaterina, Donna Smith, Michael Spires,
Michael Stang, Rachel Turner
Absent
Frankie Benson, Monique Bernoudy, Dan House, Al Mueller, Derrick Smith
Guest
Tim Griffin
I. Call to Order. SPS Council President Cesarek called the meeting to order at 10:05 AM.
A. The agenda was approved with the following additions/corrections:
1. Announcements, add Operating Staff Council meetings, Cesarek.
2. Announcements, add Benefits Choice Period, Haliczer.
3. Old Business, add Policy on University Service.
4. New Business, Abby Chemers will report on the state budget and legislation
instead of Ken Zehnder.
B. A motion was made and seconded to approve the minutes of the February 14, 2008,
meeting with a deletion of a phrase from III.G., third sentence. Motion carried.
Attendance was taken and a quorum was confirmed.
II. Announcements
A. SPS Awards Ceremony. Cesarek announced that the awards ceremony will be April
15 in the Duke Ellington Ballroom from 2:00 – 4:00, with the program beginning at
2:30. Haliczer passed around a copy of the invitation that will be sent out.
B. Letter to President Peters. Cesarek reported that she did send a letter to Peters on
behalf of the Council commending him and the administration/cabinet on their
extraordinary efforts after the shootings.
C. Visiting Operating Staff Council. Cesarek stated that she has been invited to attend
the Operating Staff Council meetings and she has extended the same invitation to
their president, Jay Monteiro. They usually meet on the same days as the SPSC but
start earlier, so she will attend their meeting early, and Monteiro will join the SPSC
meeting when their meeting is over.
D. New member. Cesarek introduced Gail Jacky who is replacing Vicki Clarke.
E. Benefits Choice Period. Haliczer alerted the Council to anticipate complications with
the Benefits Choice Period and that it may not happen in May or it may happen in
1
two stages. Haliczer suggested that employees be on the lookout for
announcements through their Groupwise e-mails.
III. Committees of the Council
A. Awards: Haliczer reported on the nominations for the SPS certificate of appreciation
and discussed the criteria. An SPS member contacted Haliczer about the fact that
the criteria make it sound like SPS are more like faculty, particularly regarding
publishing. Haliczer then presented the Council with a revised set of criteria, which
she stated were basically the same with some additions and with publications moved
to the last item on the list. Cesarek asked, based on the work SPS does, was there
anything missing from the list. It was decided that “significant contributions” is a
broad enough criterion to cover anything that might be missing specifically. Gillis
pointed out that an employee would not need to meet all of the criteria and that they
could receive the certificate if they met even one criterion. Ostenburg asked about
adding contributions to the community as a criterion. Discussion followed regarding
past recipients who have made a contribution to the community and that if an
employee is serving the community that they are ultimately serving NIU as well. It
was also noted that contribution could be misread to mean a monetary contribution.
It was decided that contribution to the community could be included, especially if it
was an interaction through NIU as outreach and/or considered as part of the
nomination, not as the sole reason for consideration. Spires suggested that the list
of criteria not be numbered to avoid the appearance that one is more important than
another. Haliczer made a motion, seconded by Lux, to approve the revised set of
criteria for the SPS certificate of recognition. Motion carried unanimously. Haliczer
then passed around the list of recipients. In addition to the individuals nominated
under the regular criteria, there will be a set of certificates to recognize the response
by a number of individuals and teams to the events on February 14, including four
groups of staff members who were nominated for going above and beyond the call of
duty and for their teamwork. She pointed out that some of the individuals on these
teams are not SPS, but they will get a certificate of recognition as being part of these
groups. Haliczer noted that this list is not inclusive and in her remarks at the awards
ceremony she will acknowledge that there were so many people who went above
and beyond in the days and weeks after February 14; this is just a representative
group. She also pointed out how much the individuals who will receive the
outstanding service award continued to do extraordinary work after the shootings
and how their efforts illustrate just how deserving they are of the award. Jennice
O’Brien and Daniel Ihm worked around the clock updating the website and providing
support to Public Affairs, Margie Cook spearheaded the efforts to shield the families
and campus community from protesters, and Judy Santacaterina was called upon to
speak at the memorial service. Spires made a motion, seconded by Baker, to accept
the list of nominees for the SPS certificates of appreciation. Motion carried
unanimously. Cesarek expressed her appreciation for the committee’s work. Lux
asked about the procedure for notifying recipients and is the list confidential until
then. Haliczer stated that a letter will go to the recipients of the certificates from
Cesarek and herself and yes the results should remain confidential until the Council
is notified that the letters have gone out. Olson stated that he was not opposed to
the list of recipients for the certificates, but so many teams and individuals stepped
up, he saw people doing amazing things to maintain cohesiveness. Haliczer agreed
and added that she sees the groups receiving the awards as examples of what was
going on all over campus; there were so many people doing so many things that
were not in their job descriptions. She added that the committee had soul-searching
discussions about how many people would be left out. Ostenburg pointed out that
these were people and groups who were nominated. It’s unfortunate that not all the
groups and individuals who did extraordinary things were nominated and could be
2
recognized. Pickett noted that how the presentations are handled will go a long way
to helping the audience understand the context of the awards and certificates. Gillis
added that every year there are so many deserving employees who do not get an
award because they don’t get nominated. The committee can only work with the
names of the nominees. Gilbert observed that this could be a topic for the
mandatory supervisory training. There are many supervisors who are good at
nominating and recognizing their employees and other supervisors who are not good
at this. Chemers brought up Chief Grady. Haliczer noted that he is the only SPS
employee in Public Safety, and the committee discussed his exemplary
contributions. However they felt that he received a lot of national recognition and
they wanted to include others who had not been so recognized.
B. Communications: Lux reported that the committee is working on its policies and
procedures. The committee will be evaluating the SPSC website and looking at
usage and plan to do a brief survey in the fall to determine what SPS would like to
see in the SPSC website. He added that the committee decided to step back from
doing a summary of the minutes or an update since the minutes are getting posted to
the website. Lux also noted that when it’s appropriate, the survey results will be
posted to the website.
C. Constitution and Elections: Gilbert reported that the call for nominations was
delayed a week, but he had enough time built in to the time line that elections are still
on schedule. A statement will be solicited from each candidate and will be included
on the ballot. He added that there are only 4 nominations for Division 3, Liberal Arts
and Sciences, but had 6 nominations for Division 6, Intercollegiate Athletics, and
plenty for the other divisions. Discussion followed regarding sending out a reminder
to SPS about the nominations and the Council decided to send out a reminder to
only those SPS in Division 3. Cesarek noted that the OSC is also doing their
elections. They ask candidates to answer two questions: 1) Please describe your
experience with committees on campus or in the community, and other civic activities
in which you have participated (include offices held, if any), and 2) What would you
like to see the Operating Staff Council accomplish in the future, and what do you feel
you could bring to the Council that would help in achieving those goals? Gilbert
responded that all the SPSC has asked for is a 50-word statement of why the
nominee is running, and that has been working. He added that he will be contacting
the nominees to find out who is interested in running and ballots are scheduled to go
out on March 31.
D. Finance: No report.
E. Legislative: See report under New Business, Guest Speaker, Ken Zehnder.
F. Technology Resources: Ostenburg asked if Council members would be interested in
having him make automatic appointments to their Groupwise calendars for Council
meetings and the consensus was yes. Ostenburg will do this starting with the
Council meetings for the 2008-09 fiscal year.
G. Workplace Issues: Haliczer presented the draft of the Policy on University Service,
which is a combination of separate policies drafted by the SPSC and OSC. Lux
asked about the need for such a policy and Haliczer explained that for some SPS
and OS, serving in shared governance is a problem for their supervisors. It was
noted that service to student groups, such as being an advisor, was the only area not
covered. Discussion followed regarding the liability paperwork that was approved for
staff who are advisors for student groups and whether or not that document should
be included in this policy and/or service to student groups be added to the list of
university service available. Haliczer will add advising of officially recognized student
3
groups to section III. Definitions. Lux suggested that it’s also important to reference
the aforementioned document/memo of understanding from Student Affairs, which
should be available at the Student Affairs webpage. Griffin pointed out that neither
the memo of understanding nor this policy define a right to serve, only serves as an
encouragement for supervisors to allow their subordinates to serve the university as
defined. Haliczer added that part of the mandatory supervisory training will be to
inform them that it is a positive thing to allow their employees to have university
service. Peska pointed out the phrase from the proposed policy, “Supervisors are
strongly encouraged to permit their employees to participate in relevant university
service,” and asked if SPS were supposed to get their supervisor’s permission to
serve. Gilbert responded that SPS are encouraged to get supervisory approval, but
it’s not mandated. It’s a good idea for SPS to at least inform their supervisors of their
service. Differences between SPS and OS were discussed. Monteiro noted that OS
are required to get their supervisors’ approval before they run for the OSC. He also
stated that it was appropriate to add student group advising to the definitions, but will
take it back to the OSC for their approval via e-mail. Haliczer made a motion,
seconded by Stang, to approve the Policy on University Service as amended.
Motion passed unanimously. Cesarek noted that once the amended policy is passed
by the OSC, she and Monteiro will meet with Steve Cunningham to submit the policy.
Haliczer next asked how all the Council members were doing after the February 14
shootings. Ostenburg noted that the events of that day further illustrate the need to
have essential personnel defined and the definition should include a distinction
between various crises. He added that he would like to see HRS make a
recommendation to departments that they discuss essential personnel with their
employees. Latham added that different categories of closures could be defined,
with essential personnel also defined for each category. Hammond noted that some
groups aren’t homogeneous. In IT they rely on SPS, OS, and student workers, and
there are issues of pay when asking workers to come in on a snow day or stay late
due to a crisis. Chemers stated that we assume employees are told when they are
hired whether or not they are essential and for what situation, for example, grounds
workers and snow days.
Prain asked about a clearer definition of lockdown. Some classrooms do not lock, so
how does one “lockdown” in those environments? Latham stated that he followed
the instruction in the NIU Emergency Guide. Haliczer added that there was a lot of
confusion in the classrooms. There could be more instruction on what to do in an
emergency, and she will pass this along to the emergency planning committee.
Latham observed that there is no audible public address system to communicate
emergencies to individuals walking around campus.
Hammond suggested that employees get updates on the follow-up to the shootings.
Latham agreed that the university community shouldn’t have to wait six months for
an official report. Haliczer stated that there will be high-level discussions regarding
NIU’s response and she has been sending them the concerns she has been
receiving. She asked Council members to send her additional thoughts and
concerns.
H. Vice President: Latham pointed out the Campus Parking report and that there will be
a $15 increase in parking fees for faculty and staff and smaller increases for other
permits. He noted that the Faculty Development and Instructional Design Advisory
Committee’s report includes deadlines for a variety of awards, grants, and
nominations. Lux asked if there would be Blackboard training to go with the new SIS
upgrade. Latham didn’t see anything in that report, but will check with the SPS
representative.
4
IV. Old Business
A. Spring “After Hours.” Chemers reported that the After Hours will be April 17, 4:30 –
6:30, in the Thurgood Marshall gallery. The administration will pay for the food.
Tables and chairs will be delivered and Chemers is asking for help with setting up
and taking down the furniture. Cesarek asked any Council members who can help
set up to do so around 3:30. Turner created an invitation, which will be sent to all
SPS and posted to the webpage. Discussion followed on how to get a better turnout,
included sending a reminder the Monday before.
V. New Business
A. Guest Speaker – Ken Zehnder. Chemers expressed Zehnder’s apologies for not
being able to attend the Council meeting as he had to be in Springfield. She
announced that higher education lobby day is April 9, coordinated by the Illinois
Education Association. She has heard that the U of I and SIU are sending busses.
Zehnder is looking for numbers of those interested in attending from NIU to see if he
needs to arrange transportation. There have been universities testifying before the
legislature and NIU is scheduled to testify during the first two weeks in April.
Chemers reported that Zehnder felt that there would be a late budget again this year
and there is no news on the capital budget. He agreed to visit the Council when his
schedule permits.
VI. University Committee Reports
Cesarek reported that SPS would have representation on the Memorial Committee and
those representatives are Steve Lux and Scott Peska. This will be an advisory
committee to Peters. Latham added that he was impressed by the number of names he
received and how much we think about our colleagues. Cesarek reported that the
Faculty Senate passed a resolution to delay any decision about the future of Cole Hall.
One of the issues with the building is the more than 150 anthropology artifacts housed
there, and how would those artifacts be moved while maintaining the integrity of each
item. Discussion followed regarding the future of Cole Hall. Spires noted that the
university could apply for disaster relief. Olson noted that Cole Hall is named after an
anthropologist who studied Southeast Asia. He asked what happens to the memorial to
Dr. Cole if the building is demolished and a new memorial created. An argument in favor
of tearing down Cole Hall was that it is difficult to retrofit older buildings for new
technology. Another suggestion was that if funds were made available, a Cole
Hall/Memorial Hall/Stevens Building complex could be created; solving both the problem
of the future of Cole Hall and the much-needed repairs for the Stevens Building.
Chemers suggested that anyone with an opinion about Cole Hall should send it to the email set up for that purpose: colehall@niu.edu. Hammond talked about Peters’s
address to the University Council. Some items of note were 1) that moving from
mourning and grieving to teaching and learning will be difficult, 2) the response from the
community and the country was really uplifting and he noted especially a note from a
parent of one of the Virginia Tech—the response from Virginia Tech has been wonderful,
3) to come up with a “battle cry” was suggested by Virginia Tech; so NIU’s became
forward, together forward, 4) the good citizens of DeKalb have been committed to
shared governance and Paul Stoddard has stood with Peters throughout the days and
weeks that followed the shootings. Monteiro shared some of the items he received,
including a banner signed by the OSC’s counterparts at Virginia Tech. Lux added that
it’s important to start thinking about the long-term effects and how we should be on the
5
lookout for individuals who are still struggling emotionally with what happened here and
who may not have been able to get the support that was available. Haliczer reported
that there will be three HR workshops starting in April dealing with healing from trauma.
Ostenburg noted that NIU should be thinking about how it would respond if this were to
happen to another school. Haliczer stated that these discussions are already starting to
take place. She also suggested that employees should keep notes on what they did in
the aftermath.
VII. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 12:00 p.m.
Minutes respectfully submitted by Donna Smith, SPSC Secretary.
6