1. Call to order and roll call

Members Present:

Marie Scholle, Chair, System Governance Council; Chair, Staff
Alliance; President, UAF Staff Council
Art Bukowski, President, UAA Assembly until 2:45pm; Eleanor Martinez for Art Bukowski after 2:45pm
Scott Kawasaki, Representative, Associated Students of UAF
Betty Dupee, President, Statewide Administration Assembly
Rita Johnson, President, UAS Faculty Senate
Rita Bowen for Donna Chantry, President, UAS Faculty Senate
Lauren Carlton, Net Representative, Kachemak Bay Student Association

Others Present:

Wendy Redman, Vice President for SW University Relations
Joe Hayes, Chair, Coalition of Student Leaders
John Craven, President-Elect, UAF Faculty Senate
Kate Wattum, Member, Statewide Administration Assembly
Janet Hilyer,
Patty Kastelic, Executive Director, SW Office of Human Resources
Jim Lynch, for Finance
David Creamer, Vice President for Finance
Dorothy Fuller, Incoming President, UAA APT Council
Jan Henderson, Manager, UAA Governance
Pat Ivey, Executive Officer, UA System Governance Office
Carol Griffin
Dennis Russell, President-Elect, UAS Faculty Senate

MOTION: Passed unanimously

"The System Governance Council moves to approve the agenda for the May 17, 1996 meeting. This action is effective May 17, 1996."

3. Approve April 17, 1996 minutes

MOTION: Moved by Bowen, seconded by Bukowski, passed unanimously "The System Governance Council moves to approve the minutes from the April 17, 1996 meeting. This action is effective May 17, 1996."

4. Chair's report

This item was not discussed.

5. Introduce new members

6. Legislative update

Wendy Redman stated that the session was called back into special session by the Governor because the legislature failed to pass a legal budget. This happened because they were not able to get the minority votes to use the constitutional budget reserve account and they ended up passing a budget that was $400 million short funded. As of the past week, they had not reached any agreement, and the minority is continuing to hold out their votes in exchange for a few minor issues that they would like to see pass.

The legislature had already agreed to fund the contracts, but there is some additional elements that the Governor put back on the table, totaling about $30 million worth of additional operating budget increments that he wants funded in some key areas.

Redman stated that she suspects that a resolution should eventually be reached. The Governor has put a new proposal on the table which involves funding the contracts. The minority has been resisting tying the new tier three proposal to the contract funding, but they do not seem to mind tying the new tier three with the RIP bill, which as where it was originally.

The 1997 salary increase will be covered, they dropped out the supplementals, and picked up some increase for covered/non-covered employees, but not all of them. Mark Boyer spoke with Redman about the supplementals, and they are willing to take another look at this issue.

The university stands approximately 1.3% below the current years budget, which relative to other agencies, is good. The legislature negotiated to add back into the university budget $1.75 million, which is what the Governor had taken out.

Redman stated that session will begin again June 3. The legislature would like to meet in Anchorage, but the Governor is adamant that it be held in Juneau. Redman stated that she suspects that the RIP bill will be passed, but not without the changes in the benefit program for new employees, i.e., tier 3, a change in the geographic differential system (not directly applied to the university), and some new changes that have to do with leave accrual rates.

Redman stated that even though this bill will not financially benefit the university, the university would still have to consider it. The way the program is written now, it would not allow the university to spread the savings across the system as a whole, as they have done in the past, that the savings be position-by-position. It is also clear that the Board of Regents may chose to participate or not. It also allows a certain amount of selection of which employees would be eligible for the retirement, based on where they are geographically, their job category, etc.

Scholle requested that if the State of Alaska changes the geographic differentials, and the university decides to follow suit, that there is enough time for governance to get involved, to help lessen the impact on the rural sites. Redman stated that if the bill passes, it is very likely that the university will follow suit with the state on this issue. She said the intent will be to scale-down over a two year period. She stated that the states' collective bargaining agreements are written to kick in the area differential, per the legislatures decision. At this time, the university's agreements are not written this way, and would be subject to collective bargaining agreements that are currently in existence and would be put back on the negotiating table.

Pat Ivey stated that every election year since the early 80s, System Governance has done a legislative survey. Ivey asked the Council to review the 1994 survey, and begin thinking about the kinds of questions they would like to ask candidates.

She stated that the members must also decide if they would like a survey prior to the primary, and a second to survey the winners of the primary, or if they would like to just have one survey of the primary winners.

Scholle asked the members to look over the past survey and forward any comments/suggestions to the System Governance Office before the next meeting.

Scholle stated that the reason the Business Council had been invited to this meeting was because many employees were not aware of their role within the university system, and who the Business Council was supposed to consist of. 8.1 Role of the Business Council

David Creamer stated that the Business Council is an informal body, only functions to the extent of the authority of the individuals who participate in it. It is used as a communication mechanism, allowing the finance officers at the MAUs and the senior financial and business staff at Statewide to get together four to six times per year to discuss issues that are on the table at that time. One such issue is Banner and how it is progressing, and to make suggestions as to how it might be improved over time.

Creamer stated that this group is very beneficial from the standpoint that it makes the group of people sit down, hear the issues, and work out solutions. He stated that he doesn't feel this body is carrying out any more issues than they are required to do as an individual, but is a mechanism to do their jobs better.

Jim Lynch stated that this body has existed in one form, or another, for at least 12 years. He stated that their role is to facilitate the financial, administration, and business affairs of the university.

Janet Hilyer stated that this group is also an opportunity for the financial officers at each of the campuses to display a show of unity and to achieve administrative consistency, which is a major goal of the Board of Regents.

Bukowski asked if the Business Council feels that governance should have a role in providing information to them, or do feel any need at all to consult with governance. Creamer stated that when, as individuals, the Business Council members carry out tasks, such as policy revisions, consulting with governance for comments on issues is considered beneficial and is how he perceives interaction with governance should be. But, since the Business Council does not carry out any authority on issues, it is not necessary to consult with governance.

Bukowski stated that consultation with governance is in Regents' Policy. He asked Kastelic how much weight governance has versus the Business Council, and does she feel that it interferes with governance. Creamer responded that in times where budgets are difficult, you'll probably find that the business and financial officers of the institutions have a much stronger voice. He stated that their strength isn't "us versus governance", but in the way the information is defended and presented. Kastelic also stated that the Vice Chancellor's for Administration at each of the campuses have a great deal of fiduciary and financial responsibility, and that they report to the Chancellors. As a system, they frequently have to reach financial approaches that are in-common, there is a budget and an appropriation. She stated that this is best addressed from their participation at the local governance level, through their chancellor at each campus, not as a separate group.

Scholle stated that it appears to governance groups that decisions are already made at the Business Council level before it ever gets to governance, and it is just passed through governance as a formality. She stated that in the near future issues such as sick leave, annual leave, and benefits, will be discussed at length to realistically face the realities. She stated that if this is the case, and changes are inevitable that are going to effect the lives of the employees, that governance, as a body, would like some input before it comes out of the Business Council as a "done deal".

Scholle stated that the Business Council is perceived by some as the check writers who are managing their lives without even talking to them, and finding out what the impacts will be, that they really don't care what the impacts are. Creamer stated that they definitely do care about the impacts, that anybody who has a responsibility for supervising, providing leadership to a staff, knows the impact on their performance as well as their morale, when these issues are occurring. He stated that decisions are never made with a total absence of that understanding. He stated that sometimes their view may be more towards the financial impact than it may be expressed by others.

Scholle asked, if issues come to the table that directly impact the university, i.e., benefits, is it possible for governance to be able to participate in some discussion, so they may hear the reasoning. This could benefit the administration, as well as governance. This way, when the issues comes forward to the governance groups, the administration would be able to say, they had a representative of governance that listened to all sides of the issue. Scholle stated that she would like to be able to work together to avoid all the problems that have lately ended up on the SW Office of Human Resources doorstep.

Janet Hilyer stated that at UAA, directly after the job evaluation issue, for instance, was discussed at the Business Council meeting, she went to the UAA Assembly and explained what was discussed and decided upon. Hilyer stated that she feels the Business Council is already working to accommodate governance.

Hilyer and Kastelic stated that during the summer it is very difficult to get information out to governance, because many employees are off contract, but mainly because they are in the middle of having to close-out one fiscal year budget, and open a new year's budget, and decisions need to be made expediciouly. Kastelic stated that she will absolutely not make decisions which have a huge impact on employees without governance consultation, i.e., geographical differentials or leave accrual changes, etc.

Carol Griffin stated that the reality is that Business Council does not make final decisions for issues such as leave accrual, differentials, etc., but do have an opportunity to discuss the financial impacts of these issues. Scholle stated that she understands this, but that the Business Council has in the recent past, been tied to some very major changes that have come about, i.e., the JEF project, and the recent salary changes. She explained that many employees are wondering who the Business Council is and what their role is exactly within the university.

8.2 Role of governance

8.3 Communications

Scholle suggested that it would be helpful if Patty Kastelic passed any pertinent information on to governance before it is decided upon, especially information which will directly effect employees. Kastelic stated that she cannot be put in the position of speaking on behalf of, for, or representing, the views of the Vice Chancellors of Administration. She feels that this is completely inappropriate, but that issues that are a direct Human Resource issue, and either the Board of Regents or the Chancellors have an interest or intention in the Business Council looking into, then she will definitely report to governance.

Betty Dupee asked if any written information was distributed after the Business Council meets. Jim Lynch stated that typically there are no minutes or notes from their meetings, but that at their last meeting, they discussed producing a summary of actions in the future. He stated they are basically an informal group.

Art Bukowski stated that his concern is not with the Business Council, but with governance. He stated that if the administration would give equal weight to governance and the issues that it brings forward and the actions it takes, and listen to their concerns a little more closely, governance wouldn't have as many problems. He stated that governance opinion needs to be taken much more seriously by the administration.

Kastelic stated that she always takes concerns from governance seriously, but she cannot give the same weight to all information if it doesn't have the same bottoms line in terms of balancing the budget or being achievable and doable. She stated that all recommendations that come forward to administration have to have all factors and real pressures facing the university included.

Scholle stated that in the past couple of years, she feels that the Board of Regents, the president and the chancellors have taken governance seriously. She stated that governance has had some set-backs with the Board of Regents, such as having a vote down for the appointment of a governance member to sit on specific committees, but they are listening and it appears that all groups are working towards a common goal. She also stated that she agrees that at times it appears that governance is perceived as the step-children from the higher level administration. She stated that because of this, governance must prove to them that they are a viable entity and that they know what they're doing.

8.4 Calendars and tracking systems

This item was not discussed.

9.1 Development of policy and regulations - draft 2

9.2 Continuation of benefits for domestic partners and UA employees

Art Bukowski stated that this issue, to his knowledge, has never come before the UAA governance groups. He asked why it was already at the system governance level. Scholle stated that this issue had gone through governance and had been an issue since 1993, but the current resolution before governance is new.

Bukowski stated that UAA recommends that this issue be tabled until UAA local governance had more time to review it. Kate Wattum stated that this program has been part of University Policy and had been in place since September, 1995. She stated that this issue has been in the news for the past three years, directly related to the University of Alaska.

Wattum stated that recently the legislature ruled that it was legal to discriminate against employees based on their personal marital status. This ruling changes what the university can do with this policy, they may chose to continue the benefit that employees are now enrolled in, or they can chose to eliminate the benefit. She stated that this benefit currently has 44 staff and faculty enrolled, which encumbers nine dependent children. This resolution is just stating that they would like the university to continue this benefit, it's not producing a mass cost to the university. The follow-up information that is included in this resolution verifies that this is not an expensive benefit, the employees enrolled are being responsible with the new benefit, and it's good policy for the university.

Kastelic stated that the university is still in court on this issue because there was two constitutional issues raised that the Superior Court, which reviewed this case at the appellate level as a result of an internal grievance, only ruled on the statutory violations and said that the university's policy was inconsistent with state statute. This state statute has now been changed, but they also raised constitutional issues that were not heard by the lower court. Kastelic stated that her interpretation was that the university still needed clarification from the court relative to the constitutional issues.

Even with these unresolved issues, Kastelic stated that it is completely appropriate for governance to take a stand on the issue and agrees with Wattum that this is a timeliness issue. She stated that is an issue that, if no opinion is voiced by governance, decisions will still have to be made.

Scholle stated that UAF Faculty Senate has passed a resolution supporting continuance of these benefits and UA Staff Alliance also has supported it with the exception of the UAA representatives, who had concerns because they hadn't discussed it with their local governance groups.

Bukowski asked if the intent of the university is to discontinue these benefits. Kastelic stated that the university has no intent at this point. Wattum stated that she might disagree with that statement since the university did not willingly hand out these benefits, but were forced by the courts. She stated that she is pursuing this issue as it pertains to the UA Board of Regents, not the administration, and that there is a very large dividing line between the two. She stated that the Board of Regents is the group that offers the benefits to employees.

Wattum stated that this program, in its application, is one of the best programs put in across the United States. It is a compilation of many programs that were offered. She stated that Kastelic and the General Counsel reviewed up to 75 different programs offered by universities around the country, and this one appears to be the most fair, as it gives the recipients many choices which pertain to their personal needs.

9.3 Special funds

9.4 Other action items

10.1 Alliance of Faculty Senates
10.2 Coalition of Student Leaders
10.3 Staff Alliance
10.4 Local governance groups
10.5 Board of Regents meeting June 14-15
10.6 Other reports