Council of Representatives Meeting Minutes

Sept 27, 2007 / Room 5402

Minutes:  Council of Representatives/General Membership meeting, Sept 27, 2007

Present

Meeting called to order by M. Rossa @ 3:05 pm

Each member introduced him/herself.  Michael Burns said he is a new rep for Fine Arts.

M. Rossa explained what are the responsibilities of the Representatives:

• Be the point of contact for the faculty in each division for all union concerns

• Give advice to the EB.

She stated the Council of Reps is not a voting body.  It is an advisory body.

She said that, per the EB’s suggestion, the CoR meetings would have the Reps report their divisions’ concerns which the EB would take back and discuss and form a plan to take back to the next CoR meeting.  She then called on each division to report.

Academic Support/DSPS:  H. Carra and K. Waska reported no conerns.

Counseling:  D. Gough reported no concerns.

Bus. Ed:  J. Sullivan reported no concerns.

English:  J. West reported no concerns.

Math:  B. McGee reported Math had concerns about the recent vote for a dues increase which appeared to be in violation of the constitution and concerns about re-voting on the 3 vs. 5 point scale when the 3 point scale had already been voted in by the faculty previously.

P.E.:  J. Johnson reported that P.E. was concerned about coach’s stipends.

Social Sciences:  M. Weber reported that SS is concerned about the vote last spring for the Council Liasons.  The issue about the EB votes being included has not been resolved.
V. Krulikowski reported that there is concern in SS regarding the representation, how broad it is, on the Constitutional Reform/Restructuring committee.
M. Weber brought up that the issues left pending with regard to the Code of Conduct need to be resolved.  P. Dill reported concern that the EB was not willing to take on negotiations on large-class-size stipend.  M. Weber asked what was meant by “not discussing” issues at the meeting.  M. Rossa said that “When ideas come back from the members, then we will discuss those.”

Library:  K. Botenbal reported there were no concerns at this time.

Fine Arts:  M. Burns reported no concerns.

Biology:  N. Mann reported no concens.

Language/Communication:  T. Rector-Cavagnaro reported that Lang/Com has the same concerns as Math, with the change from a 3 pt to a 5 pt scale and the process by which the dues were raised.  Also, Lang/Com is wondering why we are having a general meeting also instead of just a CoR meeting.  Also, he would like to have the budget presented at the CoR meeting and explained item-by-item.

Performing Arts:  b.valle reported a concern about stipends.

Since all divisions had reported with some time remaining discussion ensued about whether to begin the member meeting early.  K. Botenbal pointed out that changing the timing of the member meeting wouldn’t be fair to members who wanted to participate, so the CoR meeting was adjourned at 3:25.

M. Rossa called the General Membership meeting to order at 3:50 pm.

A few reps who had arrived after the previous introductions introduced themselves.

M. Rossa explained that the agenda topic at hand, i.e. the structure of the union, was all that would be discussed at this meeting.

M. Burns from Fine Arts mentioned that in the recent voting, the software used probably had the capability of gathering data about people voting, i.e. how many from each division, etc. He suggested this data may be useful.

N. Mann, speaking for Biology, stated her division likes the existing structure of the union with the Council of Reps.  Many biology instructors have late labs and therefore can’t come to General Member meetings so they rely on their reps to keep them informed and represent their concerns. M. Cleeves stated that the Business Ed division likes the Council of Reps structure also.

G. Baxly reported that his division, Physical Sciences, has the same view.  He also said that his division would like the union to be more focused on workplace and negotiations issues and less on statewide involvement.

S. Wiebe said that members should still have a way to communicate directly with the leadership without necessarily talking to a representative, in case a person felt uncomfortable talking with her rep.

P. Dill said that his concern was with how the Council of Reps meetings were structured.  He said the meetings aren’t following Robert’s Rules of Order (RRO) as they are required to by the constitution.  S. Wiebe said that she likes the idea of using Robert’s Rules.  She found them complex at first buy now sees that they create a helpful sense of structure.

B. Dunn commented that there might be more relaxed versions of RRO.  She said what she would like to see as far as structure goes is an agenda that includes reports from officers and committees.  M. Rossa commented that the minutes from the current EB meetings will reflect that the EB is now using that sort of structure.

M. Weber commented that the way items get placed on the CoR agenda needs to be addressed.  N. Mann agreed.

J. Florez commented that at ULI there was a concept presented of having steards who make sure new people are befriended and guided.  She wondered whether the CoR would be willing to take on that role, as mentors, to help grow the union.  If not CoR members then perhaps other members of the union could fill the role of stewards.  P. Wright agreed that this was a good idea.

Lisa commented that when she was a Council Rep, people tended to call Marilyn directly anyway in spite of reminders to use the Rep structure.

M. Weber said that SS finds the CoR structure very effective and would like to see it continue.

P. Wright mentioned that there had been discussion last spring about restructuring, e.g. the Grassroots Ammendment.  She suggested that a “leaner and livelier” Council might be more effective.  P. Dill said that the Council apportionment system shouldn’t change unless the Council did away with all voting.  M. Rossa reiterated that the CoR is not a voting body.  B. Dunn said that she would like to see the CoR take advisory, non-binding votes to give the EB clearer direction about what the Reps views are. 

M. Rossa said she had received an email from Julie Smith in which Julie expressed the view that the need for the CoR is less than it had been in the past because now there are so many more means by which to communicate, e.g. email.

N. Mann said she like, personally, not speaking for her division, the idea of redoing the purpose of the Council so advice is more structured.  Many people feel that the information they give is ignored.  She thought a more structured Council would give members a better sense of involvement with their union.

M. Cleeves agreed and said she likes the idea of an advisory vote.

J. Sullivan said he wants to see a response from the EB regarding all of these ideas, including the advisory votes.  M. Rossa clarified that that was what the process would be, i.e. the EB will discuss the ideas and get back to the Council on them.

G. Baxley said he wanted clarification on how agenda items are placed on the agenda.

B. Dunn brought up the voting system used for the last vote.  She said she felt uncomfortable with what felt like a lack of anonymity.  Some discussion ensued regarding how the system works and that the response email generated were automatic and didn’t come from a person receiving the vote.  P. Dill thought it a good idea to get data from the vote so long as anonymity concerns could be addressed.  T. Rector-Cavagnaro expressed the concern that gathering data from a small division made anonymity a real issue.

M Larsen said that anyone who wanted to see restructuring of the union needed to speak up.  P. Dill said that his first choice would be a large EB with broad-based representation and then to give up the CoR.  M. Burns agreed. 

J. Florez asked whether people thought a general membership meeting was a good idea.  When it was pointed out that her question invited discussion which wasn’t what the meeting was supposed to be having, J. stated she thinks it’s important to have large union meetings and when there are action items, we need to get all members to participate.  T. Rector-Cavagnaro and M. Weber both noted that, judging from the turn-out at the General Membership meeting (there was only one member present who wasn’t a Rep) faculty are not interested in coming to meetings so it’s best to leave the CoR structure in place.

The meeting was adjourned at 4:20 p.m.