Campus Welfare Committee

Notes of the

CAMPUS WELFARE COMMITTEE

Meeting of June 19, 2001

The Campus Welfare Committee met on June 19, 2001 at 3:00 pm in room 481 McHenry Library.

Present: Leslie Sunell (chair), Mark Traugott, Sheila Gottehrer, Janelle Marines, Marty Chemers, Christina Valentino, Barbara Brogan, Julian Fernald (staff), Line Mikkelsen.

Absent: Jean Marie Scott, William Domhoff, Bill Ladusaw, Frank Talamantes.

Guest: Willeen McQuitta.

1.Announcements and General Discussion.

Minutes for both the June 5 and June 19 meetings will be distributed over e-mail for approval.

2. Principles of Community Statement (POC) (Gotterhrer)

The POC was presented to PAC at the June 12 meeting and according to Gotterher, Sunell, Chemers, and Mikkelsen was well received. The main concern of PAC was that it be effectively disseminated and implemented. Suggestions included:

that POC be presented as a resolution for approval by the Academic Senate in the Fall. CWC members would like it presented as a resolution to the Graduate Student Association, and the Student Union Assembly as well.
that it be published in as many formats and places as possible;
and that the campus community be invited to join the Chancellor, Campus Provost/EVC, and other supporters in adopting the POC.

CWC discussed implementation issues and agreed that in addition to following PAC’s suggestions the CWC would take on the responsibility of continuing to monitor and report on the POC. This will be so indicated on the final POC document.

Action: A sub-committee, which will include some of the members of the taskforce that developed the POC as well as someone from PIO, Student Affairs, and Human Resources will be formed to design and implement a plan for dissemination. Mikkelsen and McQuitta volunteered.

3. Children in the Workplace Policy (McQuitta)

In response to a recommendation made by the CWC earlier in the year, McQuitta presented a draft revision of a letter to accompany the policy barring children from the workplace that included childcare resource information and mentioned the possibility of flexible working hours and telecommuting. {NOTE: the policy itself remains unchanged; the CWC seeks to revise the transmittal memo to reflect the University’s aim to be a “family-friendly” employer, and to help direct people to other options and resources.} The committee was concerned that due to limited space in the on-campus permanent day-care program and to the fact that there are no provisions for emergency short-term childcare solutions that re-issuing the statement at this time may not be useful. The CWC agreed to take up the issue of childcare solutions more fully in the fall, and to defer re-issuing the children in the workplace policy until the committee could come to an informed consensus about possible solutions to unmet need for childcare services. CWC offered some suggestions for revision in two aspects of the letter: 1) to ensure that the tone of the letter be empathetic, and 2) to include the caveat that space in the on-campus program is limited and may already have a waiting list.

4. Worklife Study (Fernald)

Fernald reported that the worklife study group met to finalize focus group questions and procedure. They anticipate conducting the focus groups over the summer and hope to have finished by the beginning of October. Fernald will report results to the CWC during the fall. Fernald will distribute the focus group questions to the CWC members this summer.

5. Faculty/Staff Housing Priority System –update (Traugott)

Traugott reported that Provost Simpson had requested a recommendation from the Academic Senate’s Faculty Welfare Committee (FWC) on whether and how to revise the priority system for faculty housing for the interim period beginning July 1 and ending when Inclusion Area D housing was complete. He also indicated the Provost’s intent to request from the CWC input on the recommendations of the FWC. CWC began a detailed discussion of the current housing priority system, the underlying principles governing it, the market changes that have occurred since the current policy was adopted, and related issues. The committee acknowledged the time-sensitive issues at hand, and indicated a willingness to discuss the FWC’s proposition when the Campus Provost/EVC so requests, and to provide feedback expeditiously.

6. Next Year’s Agenda

During the next academic year the committee plans to carefully review the charge to the CWC now that it is a standing committee. It is anticipated that the CWC will continue its involvement with, and oversight of the POC, the worklife study, and the children in the workplace policy. Additionally we intend to consider the issues of childcare and to examine issues associated with planning for potentially significant increases in staffing.