Minutes - February 16, 2006

In attendance: Yolanda Aldaco, Linda Breining, Lisa Camero, Johnnie Conley, Tommy Downey, Danielle Fournier, Christine Gauger, Phil Gavenda, Claudia Gerardo, Marco Gonzalez, Philip Guerrero, Bretna Hackert, Phillip Hebert, Tom Horn, James Janknegt, Troy Johnson, Amy Jones, Keke Kelly Liao, Noah Lowenstein, Debra Madden, Gary Martt, Alan McKendree, Terry Moore, Rita Moreno, Joyce Moyer, Laura Najera, Pamela Owen, Eric Patkowski, Billie Pierce, Janet Reed, Carl Roell, Kathy Romberg, Christopher Scherer, Craig Schroer, Sandra Sleeper, Olen Smith, Alayna Wadleigh, Erin Waneck, Ashley Williams, Cynthia Wilson, Andrea Zabcik

Absent with notification: Alison Louise Brown, Vickie Drake, Neil Fahlund, Christy Habecker, Vicki Heydron, Greg Howard, Lynn Lecropane, Kim Wallace, Sara Jackson Watson, Barbara Thompson

Absent: Jennifer Betancourt, Layne Brewster-Smith, Melba Catchings, Vanessa Cobb, Marlis Dagg, Patrice Fox, Clifford Haby, Dreya Johannsen, Elizabeth Korves, Candace Legge, Collin Logan, Robert Micks, Kimberly Montroy, Donna O'Kelly, Albert Puga, Nadine Schulte, Edie Shugart, Kim Snyder, Deborah Warden, JR Watson, Kimberly Williams

Guests: Monica Reed (HRS), Debra Kress (HRS), Rich Burns (HRS), Sarah Y Shafer (HRS), Julien Carter (HRS), Linda Casarez (HRS)

Meeting called to order at 2:03 PM upon verification of a quorum.
Nametags supplied by HRS were handed out to representatives.

Announcements:

• Next meeting is Thursday, March 9, 2006 from 2:00pm to 3:30pm, in Main 212
• Cindy Wilson has stepped down from her role as Chair of the Committee on Committees but will remain a representative on UTSC. The committee needs two new members in order to elect a new chair.
• Mark Gonzalez has accepted the position of Chair on the Communication Committee.

Chair's Report: Erin Waneck

The chair spoke on the role of Human Resources in UTSC because several members have been attending. She said some new members do not know how the two organizations interrelate. Erin stated that new members should read up on the organization on the website (http://www.utexas.edu/staff/council/). Erin also encouraged people to contact Sandra Sleeper to get a copy of the PowerPoint she created explaining who UTSC is and what we do. Erin then read the following from the website.

When the Staff Council was created, HRS helped shepherd the implementation process and provided "seed" support: organization, advocacy, funding, clerical support. HRS' ongoing role is to provide the primary interface for communication between the Council and UT Austin administration, and technical or clerical support as needed.

Erin went on to explain that they continue to do a lot of behind-the-scenes stuff for UTSC such as updating our website. She stated that HRS is a separate but parallel organization whose mission is "making the University a better place to work." She explained that the UTSC reports directly to the President's Office, but it is nice to have HRS present to answer any questions we have regarding policy. She stated that this explanation came as a result of a question from some new representatives and other people about the role of HRS in our organization. She clarified that they are not members; they are guests.

Recorder: Phillip Hebert

The recorder pointed out that a quorum was present with only one additional member present. He asked if there were any corrections or updates to the minutes for January's meeting. There were none. The chair stated that the minutes stand approved.

Issues Committee: Amy Jones

2005-22: Effect of Outsourcing on Employees and the University, Submitted by Joyce Moyer (462).

Amy read the objective and reasons for the proposal. The recommendation of the Issues Committee is to validate and send to the Compensation and Classification Committee. There was a motion to accept this recommendation; it was seconded and passed.

2005-23: Evacuation Procedures, Submitted by Phillip Hebert (190).

Amy read the objective and reasons for the proposal. She stated that the general feeling of the Issues Committee was to refer the issue to the facilities committee but that there was some discussion of referring it to an ad hoc committee instead and asked for comments from the Council. The chair opened discussion. Sandra Sleeper (550) asked for the purpose of creating an ad hoc committee since we already have a working committee. Amy stated that the issue isn't exactly related to facilities but more about a personnel interface issue and may not be entirely appropriate for the Facilities Committee.

Sandra asked for clarification that the issue is to create an evacuation plan for each building. Phillip Hebert (190) stated that his request was that the Council look into the fact that if an emergency happens, that the Office of the President or whoever has that type of decision making authority immediately send someone to the area to make decisions. Joyce Moyer (462) asked if the issues was similar to the complaints during the recent ice storm and suggested that the issues be grouped together. Olen Smith (660) stated that he thought it should go to facilities but that Council should be aware that this type of issue would have to be researched with ResLife and UTPD. Danielle Fournier (210) stated that each building should have a facilities coordinator and an evacuation plan within the building. She believed that each building or facility should have an evacuation and safety plan. Phillip stated that his problem was not with the evacuation, but what to do afterwards. His stated his question was when the building is closed for 3-4 hours, what is staff authorized to do after that.

Chris Scherer (511) stated he thought a way to centralize the entire campus would be to have the UTPD onsite to be the central information source. Sandra said she felt it was more of a communication issue in dealing with emergency closures whether they're one building or the entire University and moved that the issue be sent to an ad hoc committee dealing specifically with emergency closure communication. The motion was seconded. Phil Gavenda (652) asked for a precise charge of the ad hoc committee. Erin stated it is for them to come up with a comprehensive suggestion about how information should be relayed to people in various building whether it be a single building incident or a campus-wide incident so staff can know who to go to in order to get information and how that information is going to be distributed to everyone to let them know what the procedure is going to be. Phil asked for something shorter to put into one concise sentence. Sandra stated it would be an ad hoc committee to improve communication between University administration and University staff dealing exclusively with emergency closures, small or University-wide.

Craig Schroer (130) stated he thought it would be better to send it to an already formed committee if possible. He also stated that in his experience there has been emergency evacuation plans in place, but that the issue is probably more of a chain of command situation as to who the contact person is when an emergency occurs. Amy read a list of committees. Craig asked if this issue might fall within the purview of the Communications Committee. Phil stated that the Communication Committee is basically for determining internal and external communication for the Council and representatives. Craig suggested that he thinks we should expand the scope of the Communications Committee to accommodate the issue and send the issue to them. Jim Janknegt (231) stated that he believes the University through Bob Harkins is already addressing the issue. He has received emails regarding the construction of a plan to notify people at the University in case of an emergency. Olen agreed with Jim and further stated that he believed the incident in the Sanchez building was an isolated incident because there are procedures in place and stated that it did sound more like a communication issue than a facilities issue. Phil commented that the last time an ad hoc committee was created there were only two volunteers and would like to make sure we'd have enough members for the committee before it is created. The chair rephrased the motion on the floor that we would accept the issue and refer it to the Communications Committee; it was seconded and passed.

Committee Reports:

Nominations and Elections Committee - Sandra Sleeper

Sandra shared with the Council that are five vacancies, two of which are in custodial services. She then presented to Council an election schedule.She noted that March 1st is the eligibility date for the nominations and elections schedule and that there will be a District Contact meeting on March 2nd. Sandra also stated that in districts with multi-rep elections (meaning there will be more than one representative in a district being elected) there will be a button that allows them to vote for only one representative if that is their wish. She further shared that HRS is working on a webpage for representatives to retrieve a list of staff members in their district. HRS is also working on an online nomination form that will be in place for the 2007 election, but paper nominations will still be used this year.

Bylaws and Procedures Committee - Tom Horn

Tom shared that the Bylaws and Procedures Committee has met twice for one and a half hours since the last general meeting including a special meeting to discuss some specific issues that caused them to not make as much progress as they had hoped. Regarding the drafted revisions of the Bylaws, the Council can choose whether or not to have a formal second reading.The chair asked for a motion to waive the second reading; it was made, seconded, and passed. Tom shared that the committee received only one suggested revision to the proposed change since the January meeting. He stated that the committee would like to pass what they have and have the Council instruct the committee to present for a first reading at the March meeting a more precise definition of what it means to be a full-time regular employee of UT. Tom moved on behalf of the Bylaws and Procedures Committee that the Council adopt the revisions of the Bylaws as drafted and presented in first reading at the January meeting. The revisions were passed with 38 votes. There was no opposition. Tom clarified that the changes go into effect immediately.

Tom went on to a first reading of three new proposed revisions. He reminded the Council that at first reading, revisions cannot be considered but informal discussion may occur and any comments can be directed to the committee via email. Tom read the first proposed revision.

Extant text: III. D. Terms of Office - A full term shall be two years. Even number districts will be elected in even years and odd numbered districts in odd numbered years. In no event shall any members serve longer than two consecutive terms, including the balance of any term initially assumed. There shall be a minimum twelve-month waiting period before any member who has served two consecutive terms can be eligible for re-election to the UTSC.

Suggested revision: III. D. Terms of Office. A full term shall be two years. Even-numbered districts shall elect representatives in even years; odd-numbered districts shall elect representatives in odd-numbered years. No member shall serve longer than two consecutive elected terms. Any member who serves two consecutive elected terms shall thereafter wait a minimum of twelve months to serve on the UTSC again, whether elected or appointed.

Tom pointed out the main reason for the suggested revision is because the language is cumbersome. Craig Schroer (130) noted that he didn't think the suggested revision covered the issue of someone who is elected midway through to replace someone who could no longer serve out the remainder of their term and suggested possibly saying "two years or less." Erin asked that all verbal suggestions be forwarded via email to the committee. Sandra Sleeper (550) stated that currently, a person is selected to be an interim rep in one of three ways. She said that their terms under the current system do not begin until they're elected in a general election. She said it is also the program used to determine eligibility to be re-elected and queried if the intent was an annual clock beginning when they become a rep and at their second anniversary they would be on time out for a year or to just define the status quo. Tom said the intent is that if someone takes over a term they should be able to stand for election twice. Tom asked Sandra to describe the three methods for selection of an interim representative. Sandra explained the first way would be to be selected by the District Contact after a 30-day time limit where the runner-up in the previous election is approached to fill the slot and declines. Another way would be to have a special election to pick a representative. Linda Casarez (HRS) stated that the three ways are the runner-up, selection by the District Contact, and special election. Sandra stated that two of those options are not an election. The chair asked if there had ever been a special election and both Sandra and Noah stated there had not been during their tenure. Linda stated that there had been one or two special elections. The chair asked that further comments be sent via email to the committee.

Tom moved to the second proposed revision presented and read it aloud to the Council.

Extant text: V. F. Vote - Only elected UTSC members present may vote. All matters brought before the Council that require a vote, with the exception of the election of officers, shall be decided by open vote, i.e., voice vote, show of hands, or roll call, as determined by the presiding officer.

Suggested revision: V. F. Voting. Except for electing officers, all matters requiring a Council vote shall entail an open vote (whether by voice, rising or roll call, at the Chair's discretion). No in absentia votes shall be valid. Only elected members shall vote for UTSC officers.

Tom suggested that again the language was cumbersome and the committee is striving for something that is briefer and less convoluted and more to the point. Sandra stated that she reads the revision to say that the interim reps in council today that have not gone through an election process do not have a vote and we would not have tenure. Her suggestion would be to say appointed or elected representatives instead of just elected representatives. Tom pointed out that the extant text says only elected members may vote, but that it has never been enforced. The committee felt it should not be changed midstream. Under the revision, the committee felt like a member that is appointed would still be able to vote on motions, but not for officers since they may not know those that are running or their track record. Amy Jones (160) commented that officers are usually elected at the beginning of the term of a council member. Tom pointed out that there might be instances when someone is appointed to fill a term that would not expire until 2007 and if they were appointed now, how would they be acquainted with everyone who is running for office. Amy also pointed out that it implies officer elections are done by secret ballot, but it doesn't actually say that. Tom pointed out that the procedure to elect officers is spelled out in another part of the Bylaws. Tom said the feeling is that if someone is actually elected, even if unopposed and elected by default, the fact they're actually elected gives a certain gravitas to their presence on the Council and pointed out that there has been some questions in the way some members have been appointed. Chris Scherer (511) stated he did not agree with the creation of a two-tier system of representatives. He stated that whether appointed by a DC or elected in a special election to fill an interim term, they're still a representative of their district and feels whether they know the person running for office or gets a feel for the person is irrelevant. Linda Breining (251) said she fits in that category as she was appointed to fill a vacancy until 2007. She explained that if she doesn't have a vote, then what is her motivation for coming and why would anyone else want to take over her position and can see it as a problem in filling potential vacancies. Tom stressed that the exclusion applies only to electing officers and asked that everyone send any more comments via email. Erin asked that Tom give Council his email address (tomhorn@union.utexas.edu or bylaws_chair@utsc.utexas.edu)

Finally, Tom read the third proposed revision.

Extant text: VIII. E. 1. Standing Committee Chairs are nominated by committee members and approved by the UTSC Executive Committee.

Suggested revision: VIII. E. 1. All committee chairs shall be elected within their respective committees.

Tom stated that the reason for the proposed change is that the Executive Committee is not a ruling elite or have the authority to dictate policy. There was no discussion.

Insurance Committee - Danielle Fournier

Danielle read the finding of the Insurance Committee for Issue 2005-14: Change of Providers for Superior Vision

UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS STAFF COUNCIL
Insurance Committee Recommendation

Issue: 2005-14 Change of Providers for Superior Vision

Validate: Referred to Insurance Committee on October 20, 2005

Submitted by: Claudia Gerardo for Jean Abernathy, District 581

Specific Objective: Notification that the list of vision care providers had changed, but was not received until after the choices for insurance renewal were made. If this information had been available sooner, different choices could have been made.

Ultimate objective: To allow UT-Austin employees to cancel their vision insurance coverage for this fiscal year, and receive a refund for premiums paid.

Reason: Had employees been aware of the reduced number of vision care providers in our area, many would have chosen not to select the vision insurance, paying for what appears to be a sub-standard option. The timing of the letter sent by Superior Vision Services, Inc. is rather suspect as well. This information most certainly could have been disseminated to the UT-Austin employees prior to the July 31st enrollment deadline.

Expected Actions: Refunds to employees no longer able to use their existing vision care providers.
Research: Members of the UTSC Insurance Committee (Vickie Drake, Danielle Fournier, Claudia Gerardo, Paul F. Grotevant, Christy Habecker, Rita Moreno, Chris Scherer); with consultation from Faye Godwin, Assistant Director, UT-Austin Human Resource Services, Benefit Services.

Finding: During the research into UTSC Issue 2005-10, the Insurance Committee, knowing of this upcoming issue, made specific inquiries to Ms. Godwin of the possibility of refunds or changed coverage selections, with reference to the notice sent by Superior Vision Services, Inc. Ms. Godwin mentioned that there is nothing UT can do to hold providers in insurance contracts and doctors have the freedom to leave plans at any time. However, when this happens, that is not enough justification to allow employees to change coverage. Once you have selected options, you cannot change until the next enrollment period, or if you have a qualified status change that would qualify for option changes. This is due to IRS rules (Section 125 of the Internal Revenue Code allows employees to pay for employer sponsored qualifying health insurance premiums tax-free. With a Section 125 Plan employees save income tax and FICA tax and the employer saves matching FICA taxes) that govern employees to use pre-tax dollars for their insurance options.

RECOMMENDATION: Unfortunately, there is no action to take. We must accept the terms of our group insurance enrollment period.

Tom Horn (681) asked if there is any means whereby the classified staff and faculty might be able to join forces to press the issue. Danielle stated that there is nothing that can be done on this issue because it is based on IRS code. Danielle commented that Chris Scherer has been persistent regarding these issues and spoken to President Powers on two occasions who gave him the name of an advocate to invite to one of our meetings. Sandra Sleeper (550) explained that the situation is not even with the State Legislature but with the federal government. She stressed that we should do everything we can pre- annual enrollment; get more choices, better premium sharing and better options. Danielle stated that the Insurance Committee is working to at least make the Council and staff better educated as to how these things work.

New Business:

Phillip Hebert (190) - Phillip noted that the Council in January specifically directed the Bylaws and Procedures Committee to make the eligibility section of the Bylaws their first priority. He asked why that was not one of the revisions presented. Tom Horn (681) asked if it was revision one of what was passed out today. The chair stated that she believed he was talking about the 6 month eligibility and that it passed last month. Noah Lowenstein (632) stated that we voted in the last meeting how the eligibility criteria were going to apply to the upcoming election, but did not change the Bylaws. He stated that the Bylaws and Procedures Committee is working on more extensive nominations and elections changes and that is one of the things that will be addressed. Phillip stated that the first part of the motion was to allow the change on a limited situation specific directive which took place at January's meeting and the second part was that in order for this to take place, the Bylaws needed to be changed and so the first priority of the Bylaws and Procedures Committee was to make that change to Paragraph A of Section III. Phillip stated he hopes that the committee will work on paragraph A specifically since Council directed them to do so. The chair stated that this work was already in progress and that it is going to be addressed. Noah stated that there are a number of nominations and elections sections of the Bylaws that are being changed and the first piece was what was passed and the rest would need to be passed in a larger scale. Tom praised everyone on the Bylaws and Procedures Committee for the hard work that they've been doing.

Phil Gavenda (652) - Phil questioned the Chair in regards to a flowchart that was presented to the Executive Committee as to its purpose. He stated it seemed to be a proposal to change the way vacant spots are filled. Erin stated that upon reading the Bylaws, she met with Sandra Sleeper, Linda Casarez and Sarah Shafer to pin down how the process goes. She stated that the previous chair, Glen Worley, delegated that responsibility to Noah Lowenstein. Phil stated he did not believe it was the Chair who did that. Noah stated he believed it was the Chair, Glen Worley, or the Executive Committee and seemed to be standard operating procedure. Erin stated that when Sandra became the chair of Nominations and Elections Committee, she developed her way of doing it. Erin stated she met with the people who do this job and pinned down some things that we all agreed upon. As a courtesy, she gave them to the Executive Committee and asked for feedback. She stated that it is her understanding that any member can bring up a question to the Bylaws Committee to ask for clarification or make a recommendation or suggestion. Erin explained that she created the flow chart and asked the Bylaws and Procedures Committee to look at it and making it a new procedure, because there was no procedure in writing.

Phil stated that his question was whether this was a proposed procedure or Bylaws change and it sounds like it is affirmative. Erin stated that she gave the flowchart to the Bylaws and Procedures Committee and it is up to them whether they present it to the Council or not and it would be voted on by the membership. Phil stated that the Bylaws give the Executive Committee the authority to fill vacant spots and if it had been delegated in the past then it was by the Executive Committee. Erin stated that the Executive Committee is responsible for this procedure and said it was currently being handled by the Nominations and Elections Committee, but that isn't in the Bylaws.

Tom Horn (681) stated that when it says the UTSC Executive Committee, it doesn't mean one member and that he had not been involved with that process before. Tom said that the concern was avoiding the possibility of the perception that one person is selecting replacement members. Phil continued that this was raised in the January meeting of the Executive Committee and that the majority of the Executive Committee said that we were following the Bylaws and that maybe communication needed to be changed. Erin stated that was not the case because there was no consensus or vote. Erin went on to say that there is no reason for the Executive Committee to vote on the flowchart as she submitted it to the Bylaws and Procedures Committee as an individual member of the Council and that essentially nothing has changed in the way vacancies are being filled.

Sandra Sleeper (550) stated that Erin's intention is to take all the different ways that this information can be obtained and funneling it one way so that everyone is in the loop. She expressed that Phil's point is we're not constantly reinventing the wheel and that when a decision is made that we follow that decision. Erin expressed that she approached the Bylaws and Procedures Committee to determine is she was bound by the decisions of a previous chair and that they informed her she wasn't. She expressed that she is only identifying holes in the processes and trying to clarify. Chris Scherer (511) thought a way to simplify the process would simply to say to have a special election in the district affected when they lose a representative. Erin stated that she believed that was a good suggestion and that he should give that to the Bylaws and Procedures Committee for their review.

Adjournment:

The meeting was adjourned at 3:39 PM.

Phillip Hebert
Secretary/Recorder
District 190 Representative
UTSC
Email: recorder@utsc.utexas.edu
Office: 232-9599