STAFF SENATE MEETING MINUTES November 21, 2012
President Chad Gothreaux presided over the November 21, 2012, Staff Senate meeting held at Peabody Hall, Room 225, on the LSU Campus at 10:30 a.m.
Pr Exner, Patti (’14)
P Torres, Donna (’15)
Pr Chaney, Carolyn (’13)
P Collins, Lorita (’14)
P Matkovic, Igor (’14)
P Galy, Kristie (’13)
P Guillory, Michael (’13)
Pr Lato, Kayla (’13)
A Thomas, Joseph (’13)
P Winchell, Blake (’13)
P Baker, Sheantel (’14)
P Gothreaux, Chad (’14)
P Millican, Tammy (’14)
P Moreau, Scott (’14)
P Perkins, Julie (’14)
P Belanger, Scott (’15)
P Bonfanti, Leigh (’15)
P Carruth, Holly (’15)
P Lede’, Robert (’15)
P Livingston, Lynn (’15)
Pr Loveless, Kathryn (’15)
Pr Overton, Wendy (’15)
P Adedeji, Funmilayo (’13)
Pr Heil, Mark (’15)
P Pierce, Renee (’13)
Pr Sirman, Karen (’13)
Pr Love, Donna (’14)
P Cooley, Judith (’13)
Pr Collins, Judy (’14)
P Bennett, Casey (’15)
A - Indicates Absent
P - Indicates Present
Pr - Indicates Proxy
Dr. Carol O’Neil, Chair of the Quality Enhancement Team
Dr. Darrell Henry, Director of SACSCOC Reaffirmation and Accreditation and Chair of the SACSCOC Reaffirmation and Accreditation Steering Committee
Matt Lee, Associate Vice Chancellor for the Office of Research and Economic Development
Elmer “T” Williams, Facility Services
Kailyn Smith, Senator Lorita Collin’s daughter
Cody Milliman, Staff Senate Fee Support Scholarship Recipient
Adam Clary, Staff Senate Fee Support Scholarship Recipient
Roxanne Berthelot, Campus Federal Credit Union
CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order by President Gothreaux at 10:30 a.m.
There was a quorum with nine proxies noted.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Senator Belanger led the Pledge of Allegiance.
President Gothreaux announced that the Executive Committee has given approval to appoint Elmer “T” Williams to fill the vacancy in the Service/Maintenance Category through 2014. Elmer “T” works with the Office of Facility Services and has been employed at LSU since 2008.
APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES – October 17, 2012, Staff Senate Meeting
A motion to accept the minutes was made by Past-President Galy. The motion, seconded by Senator Bennett, carried.
GUEST SPEAKER – Dr. Carol O’Neil, Chair of the Quality Enhancement Plan Team and Dr. Darrell Henry, Director of SACSCOC Reaffirmation and Accreditation and Chair of the SACSCOC Reaffirmation and Accreditation Steering Committee
Staff Senate President Gothreaux thanked Dr. O’Neil and Dr. Henry for coming to speak to the Staff Senate regarding SACSCOC Reaffirmation and Accreditation.
Dr. Henry thanked the Staff Senate for the opportunity to speak today. He circulated a handout of updates from the SACSCOC Steering Committee and QEP Team which gives some background and some noteworthy dates and time periods, as well as recent and upcoming events. Dr. Henry mentioned the certification process associated with the SACSCOC accreditation. Most people know roughly what that is, but the handout gives some background information for those who may not know what we are dealing with. SACSCOC is our accreditation agency and for us to do what we want to do as a research one university, we have to be accredited. The process is a fairly extensive one and there is sort of a two part approach. Part of it is associated with the Principles of Accreditation of which there are roughly about 94 Principles of Accreditation. These include areas such as governance of the university to the academic components of the university to the service components of the university to the physical environment of the university. We have to demonstrate that we have attained those principles though a set of documentation that says we did or did not- which hopefully we have.
Dr. Henry discussed the two part approach; one is dealing with the certification of accreditation which has to be dealt with and that basically covers the last ten years since accreditation occurs every ten years. The way we are approaching it is that the university has appointed a Steering Committee which is composed of roughly three faculty members, staff members, and students to basically make sure that we are answering these principles and have the documentation. The handout is a backward looking document of what we have already done. The other part is the Quality Enhancement Plan which Dr. O’Neil will talk about shortly.
Dr. Henry would like to go over some important updates and a few dates that we need to pay attention to. He mentioned September 9, 2013, which is the date when we have to submit our compliance documentation to SACSCOC. This is important because if we have done a good job at this point, we hopefully won’t have any problems later. If there are issues that we need to address, December 2013 – January 2014, we will have time to respond to those issues. This is also the time that the Quality Enhancement Plan will be submitted. There will be an on-site LSU visit on March 11, 2014 through March 13, 2014, from the SACSCOC Team. They will be going around the university to make sure that we have attained these principles. On December 9, 2014, there will be an announcement if we are reaffirmed for accreditation.
Dr. Henry mentioned some informational events or activities to tell people where we are and where we have been. There are two web sites that contain background information on the SACSCOC accreditation process, as well as ongoing efforts by the Steering Committee and the Quality Enhancement Plan. This year, the Steering Committee has put in a lot of effort to try and answer as many of these principles as possible with documentation and we thought we did pretty well. We had an external SACSCOC accreditation consultant who visited LSU On October 29-30, 2012, and she provided input on LSU’s progress in the accreditation process and mentioned some areas that we need to work on. Based on her input, we have modified the way in which we approach the principles with the supporting documentation. She continues to give us feedback and will return periodically. The Steering Committee will focus on these principles in spring 2013. Dr. Henry mentioned that he, Dr. O’Neil, three other faculty members and staff members will be attending the SACSCOC Annual Meeting in Dallas in December. Not only will they be meeting with SACSCOC officials regarding LSU’s accreditation, but they will also be getting general information on approaches that LSU can take. The spring semester is when they are really going to focus on getting a good as possible document together and by the end of the semester, they would like to have a near-final draft, because they know there will be some issues in the summer. They are going to have some additional visits from the Vice President of SACSCOC who is charge of LSU, so he will come on campus. Following that, they will have an additional visit from our consultant who will go over the document and hopefully she will pull everything together prior to the submission of this document in September.
Dr. O’Neil also provided a handout which was circulated to everyone. Dr. O’Neil mentioned the timeline that Dr. Henry covered and mentioned that the QEP team would like to announce the final projects selected by the end of this semester and a report for the QEP is due to SACSCOC by December 2013. This has been an arduous process and like the Steering Committee, they have a QEP Team. Senator Livingston is the staff representative on this team. They had put out an announcement asking for concept papers and they received twenty two papers which were reviewed, discussed, and reduced into four themes that were combined into two by the team. Dr. O’Neil mentioned that she also circulated her business card to everyone and asked that if anyone has any suggestions or comments to please email her on these two projects. If someone sees something that may be a problem or something that should be included, please contact her regarding this. Dr. O’Neil mentioned the first project which has Undergraduate Research coupled with Information Literacy as a component. She mentioned that Randy Duran, Nancy Clark, Janet McDonald, Elaine Smith, and a host of the university librarians will be working on this one. For Undergraduate Research, Dr. O’Neil outlined what the learning outcomes are that need to be LSU learning outcomes, as well as how it matches with the Flagship Agenda. The second project is Student Engagement and this will run the gamut from community service or community involvement through experiential learning, including service learning and internships. The people involved in this project would be those who are already involved in community service or involvement. This will include the Office of Equity, Diversity, and Community Outreach and Student Life. Residential Colleges will also be included as they were a part of the focus of the last QEP. CCEL, directed by Mary Beth Lima, and Career Services, directed by Mary Feduccia, will be involved. The general categories of learning are personal responsibility, intercultural competence, civic engagement, services learning, written and oral communication skills, and critical thinking. Dr. O’Neil mentioned the learning outcomes of engagement and how engagement would fit into the Flagship 2020 plan. Both of these projects are high impact learning activities that have been shown to improve student learning, student outcomes and retention. They would like input from staff and faculty on these projects. Dr. O’Neil encouraged emails with any suggestions or comments.
President Gothreaux encouraged Senators to visit the web site mentioned to review all of the information since the SACSCOC accreditation is very important to the university and by extension to the staff.
President Gothreaux thanked Dr. Henry and Dr. O’Neil for coming to speak to the Staff Senate regarding this process.
President Gothreaux introduced all guests: Dr. Carol O’Neil, Chair of the Quality Enhancement Team; Dr. Darrell Henry, Director of SACSCOC Reaffirmation and Accreditation and Chair of the SACSCOC Reaffirmation and Accreditation Steering Committee; Matt Lee, Associate Vice Chancellor of the Office of Research and Economic Development; Elmer “T” Williams with Facility Services; Kailyn Smith, Senator Lorita Collin’s Daughter; Cody Milliman, Staff Senate Fee Support Scholarship Recipient; Adam Clary, Staff Senate Fee Support Scholarship Recipient; and Roxanne Berthelot, Campus Federal Credit Union.
GUEST SPEAKER – Matt Lee, Associate Vice Chancellor with the Office of Research and Economic Development
Staff Senate President Gothreaux thanked Matt Lee for coming to speak to the Staff Senate regarding the BRAVE Crime Prevention Program in Baton Rouge, Louisiana.
Matt Lee began by thanking the Staff Senate for the invitation and thanked everyone for the work that they do. He said how much he appreciates it. Lee mentioned that the staff at LSU are totally unappreciated and don't get the recognition they deserve. He wanted to take the opportunity to say thanks. Lee knows the people he works with are absolutely outstanding. Matt Lee was asked to come and speak today about BRAVE-the Baton Rouge Area Violence Elimination Program. Lee mentioned that he is taking off his administrative hat and putting on his academic hat, because in his former life he was actually a criminologist. Lee gave some background facts before he talked about the core elements of the program. Lee goes around the country and speaks with people and generally people have misconceptions about crime in the United States and what is actually going on today. Frequently, people tell him that crime in this country is out of control, but when you look at violent crime in the United States, murder as an example, it is at the lowest rate it's been in 40 years. We're actually enjoying a fairly peaceful time in the country with regards to murder in particular. Robbery and aggravated assault statistics have shown the same trend-especially since the early 1990's.
Baton Rouge, unfortunately, is different as it hasn't been adhering to that trend. We do have a violence problem in this city, and like many other cities there are some clues as to how to address it. For example, one of the features of violence, murder in particular, is that in Baton Rouge it's fairly geographically concentrated to a handful of communities. The other problem is that it tends to be demographically concentrated as well. It's no secret that in this city the murders that occur are primarily confined to young African-American men. Nationwide, this also tends to be the case. In fact, murder has been a leading cause of death of young African-American men in the last few decades. The BRAVE program that's being implemented here in Baton Rouge is largely a criminal justice approach to addressing this problem and it is also being implemented to try to save lives. There are other approaches, such as a public health approach, which takes more of a preventative based approach as opposed to a deterrence based approach. Knowing where it's demographically and geographically concentrated, the leadership of the city – Mayor Kip Holden and District Attorney Hillar Moore did some homework and decided they wanted to try to get a team together to implement a model that was first put in place in Boston about 15 or 20 years ago. At the time, the program was called Operation Cease Fire. It was a targeted program which basically focused on murder among young people and it ended up reducing the juvenile crime rate in Boston dramatically for a period of time. That became known as the “Boston miracle” because it was probably one of the first times in recent American history that we actually had a criminal justice response that worked. I don't want to say that to be critical, but people don't realize that the way the American model of policing and criminal justice works is that it tends to be reactive in nature. People call the police when something is happening. Rarely do the police actually come across the crime on their own or as it is happening. The model we have is not based on a preventative approach, but rather a reactive approach.
Over the years, this has morphed into a national network, so now what we have is the National Network for Safe Communities. What they have done is take the Operation Cease Fire model that was implemented in Boston, and refine it into a series of core appropriate elements, so that cities throughout the country can take this program, get some resources in place and implement it in their own city in order to reduce violence. Baton Rouge has taken this approach and concentrated on a couple of core elements and two themes in this model. The one we've selected to go with is called the Group Violence Reduction Strategy. The Group Violent Reduction Strategy is based on the premise that in communities that experience a lot of violence most of that violence tends to be committed by a very small group of people. This is what the famous criminologist, Marvin Wolfgang, discovered 60 years ago. He coined the "chronic 6%" phrase. What he found out 60 years ago is that 6% of offenders account for more than 50% of all very serious crimes. A huge volume of violence is generated by a very small core of people. This is why when we do public relations events in communities and talk about crime ridden neighborhoods, it really does a disservice to the residents of those neighborhoods because in fact, most residents of those neighborhoods are law abiding. What is happening is that a very small group of people are wreaking havoc and giving the neighborhoods a bad name. They are essentially holding people hostage in their own communities through the threat of violence. A small number of people commit a great deal of violence and much of it occurs in basically small group dynamics. Some people call them "gangs." I have been studying crime for 15 years and I still don't know what a gang is, because I don’t think it's a good classification. When we think of gangs, we think of Los Angeles and the Bloods and Crips, but in fact there are groups of people who exhibit gang-like behavior, but don't have colors or specific names. They have a membership that waxes away as it goes. It tends to be a group, but not necessarily gang related behavior. There's a lot of stigma that's attached to the label of gang, in terms of whether or not a city has gangs. When people ask if we have gangs, the District Attorney's office quietly tells them yes, but I say, "Well, I know we have groups. I don't know if we have gangs or not."
Essentially, the Group Violent Reduction Strategy uses data that law enforcement already has in place. Law enforcement collects a lot of data when they make an arrest or when they have a call for service. They're generally not equipped to implement the tools that social science can bring to the table, in terms of analytical tools to sort of drill down deeper into the data and discern what types of patterns are in place. So, this is what we do. In this case, LSU has partnered with the District Attorney's office, the Mayor's Office, the Baton Rouge Police Department and the Sheriff's Office and we implemented a data sharing agreement which will share all of their data with our analysts. We have about a half-dozen people (analysts) involved in it. One of the things they do is identify more clearly the geographic pattern of violence, so we know specifically within neighborhoods which blocks tend to have the most problems. They also look at the data to see how it tends to wax and wane over time. Is there seasonality to it? Perhaps there are certain days or nights when these things tend to occur. More importantly, we have a person here in the School of Human Resource Education of Workforce Development that's a Social Network Analyst. When they make an arrest, one of the things that the Prosecutor’s office and the District Attorney's office do is that they try to discern or identify whether or not there's a group or a gang affiliation to it. Then what we can do is actually graphically look at the nature of social networks - who knows whom among these groups. For example, if three guys are arrested together for committing a robbery or murder, we can attach those folks together. What we can also do is inform that data with observations from law enforcement about the nature of the relationships among groups of people. We know who belongs to what group and we get a better feeling about the relationships between those groups. If we know there's trouble brewing between two competing drug selling crews or something like that, we can take some preventative measures. Another thing we do is take arrest data and look at offenders, people who have been arrested for violent crimes, and then we weight them by their arrest history. For example, one of the things we find is when someone, say a 16 or 17 years old commits a murder it isn’t the first time they've gotten in trouble. It's never the case. The last couple of homicide incident reviews we did, such as the one on a 16 year old who committed a murder under a carport of someone's home in Baton Rouge, showed that he had an extensive criminal history - including several arrests for burglary. Burglary, if you think about it, is a very bold crime. It involves breaking into someone else's home and I wasn't thinking about doing that at 16. I’m certainly is not thinking about doing that at 42 years old. So, you have to think about the orientation of that person who is willing to take that kind of risk at that age. This is someone who's had multiple arrests. I could have told you that this guy was going to commit a serious, violent crime at some point. Police don't necessarily use their data like that, so we join together with them and do that for them. What the program does is identify groups of people who are very high risk and then typically what we do is build cases against them. They'll get undercover drug buy charges against them. These high risk individuals-they're high risk because they're routinely involved in the criminal justice system. One guy we looked at had been arrested 19 times this year. That's a full time job. We identify these high risk offenders and build a case. We then develop a strong network of social service providers and key community stakeholders, primarily in the faith-based community, in the 70805 zip code-north of Florida Blvd. We have law enforcement call them in, and they have a room like this. They'll have law enforcement, their family members, local community members, and they basically call them in and say "We have a case against you. Not only do we have a case against you, but we have a case against your buddies who are with you. What we're telling you is that we want you to be successful and to survive. We don't want you to be another casualty of the streets. We don't want you to become a burden on your fellow citizens by spending your whole life locked up. We're not just going to give you a freebie. We're going to bank this case, hold on to it, and we want you to know we have services in place for you. We can give you job training and access to resources to help you raise your kids.” Criminals have kids, just like I do. We tell them that if they slip up, we are going to come down on them and implement their case, and we're going to throw all of their buddies in jail too.
What it's designed to do is go after the group dynamic. One of the things that happens, especially in the most impoverished communities, is that when you have communities where people grow up very impoverished, they don't have access to economic resources and standard forms of status and wealth. Other things come into play that becomes the form of status. One of which is this "honor code," for example, if you can establish that you are a tough or violent individual on the street. That is a form of status that becomes a commodity, parallel to the kind of status that people have when they have economic resources in better off neighborhoods. When standard groups of economic success are limited, other types of things come into play to allow people to establish themselves as having status. What they do is they capitalize on that and threaten to throw the whole group in jail. Alternatively, if they make an effort to refrain from a life of crime, we will give them some resources. It's kind of an interesting approach, because it's called focus deterrence. It's focused on a small group of people. In the past, we've had two other types of deterrence. One is general deterrence-this is the idea behind the death penalty. The idea behind the death penalty, from a general deterrence standpoint, is that when someone commits a murder, you throw them in jail and put them to death under the assumption that when other people in the community see this happen, it will deter them from committing crime. The National Research Council just published a report saying that the huge body of research supporting this is flawed. The other approach is a specific deterrence approach - it's focused on stopping the individual from committing a crime again. If someone robs a store, they arrest them and say they're going to put them in jail for 15 years. Hopefully when they get out, they have learned from that experience and they won't commit a crime again. That's the other end of the spectrum. In the middle is the focus deterrence approach where you focus on a small group of people and tell them that you’re going to prosecute them, punish them, but do it to their friends also.
The program sounds simple, but it's very sophisticated to implement. One of our key people at LSU, Cecile Guin with the School of Social Work, has tremendous expertise in large scale program implementation. She's very good, and I have worked closely with her for a number of years. She's worked very closely with the law enforcement community and faith-based community to ensure that this is implemented properly. I am cautiously optimistic that it's going to work, and through the Mayor's Office, we have received a $1.5 million dollar grant for funding and $500,000 of that was awarded to LSU to help support the efforts of our faculty. BRAVE Director Herbert “Tweety” Anny has been very good with keeping everyone in the loop. We hope this program will work because as crime is both demographically and geographically concentrated here in Baton Rouge, there is way too much that is occurring. It’s devastating to certain communities and something needs to be done about it.
Q: This is being implemented now? Have they had a round table yet?
A: Yes, but they hadn’t done the call yet. They are really doing a good job of implementing this appropriately. They have brought in some experts from the University of Cincinnati who have successfully implemented it there and they brought in some experts from Milwaukee who have also had real success with the program. Part of the issue is that you can’t just say you are going to focus on crime in this community. You have to identify a specific class of crimes and really hammer down on that. They go through the homicide files in this community for the last couple of years and they do a Homicide Incident Review where they do a thorough analysis and classify them by the sort of context in which they occurred-was it a drug deal gone bad, lover’s triangle, or an armed robbery? These are radically different types of crimes. Getting killed over a robbery is different than getting killed because of a drug deal that went badly. You have to take that into account. That’s why they are doing this homicide incident review and basically they identify the category, what is the most frequent one in terms of young people dying and the context of drug related altercations. They will focus on that and from there they focus on high risk individuals. They then build a case against them with things like undercover drug buys and then they start doing the call in. It’s a process. In some cities, this has reduced the crime rate by over 30%. Our goal, as Lee mentioned to the District Attorney, is that if we can save one or two lives, then that itself is victory. If we can save ten lives, then Baton Rouge can get off of the bad list. We typically have about 60-80 murders in Baton Rouge, so if we can knock that down by 10-15, then we will drop out of the top ten because that is not a list that we want to be on. It’s bad for economic development, it’s bad for small communities, it’s bad for small business growth, and it is bad for all of us.
Q: Is there a portion of the plan that works with the school system in that area to help get kids back in school who may have dropped out due to gang related activity?
A: There may be but I am not aware of any. There are a lot of moving parts to this program. I am sort of LSU’s public figure with this. There may have been some contact with the educational system. The public school system is an important component of dealing with juveniles, because they have a better grasp on what the home situation is and the context of what the kids are coming out of socially and economically. It’s a national institutional mechanism that’s in place because of its very nature to monitor those at risk. We know that the very highest risk people who go on to commit very serious crimes in their teens and early twenties almost always exhibit truancy at a very early age-before fourth and fifth grade. If you are six years old and not making it to school, there’s a household dysfunction that is occurring.
Q: For somebody where the strategies failed or they didn’t take advantage of their opportunities and they are sent through the legal system, are they just left to the legal system chance or are the judges and the people assigned to those cases aware of the call in or the deal?
A: Yes, when they do the call in, part of the sales pitch that they give them is that the federal prosecutor is there and will tell them that they are being given an opportunity, but if they screw up, not only are we going to arrest them and throw them in jail but we are going to prosecute them in the jurisdiction that is going to give them the most time. We know that the way the program works best is when the first few waves of call in’s fail and you end up throwing those people in jail and throwing away the key. You hope that the rest of the community will get the message that we are not playing here, this is serious. That’s why it’s called a deterrence approach, because they know and so the critics of this kind of program call it a Hug a Thug Program and they think it’s going soft on crime, but I think that this is a humanistic approach with a mix of reality in it. It says that we are going to get you away from the rest of society and isolate you if you can’t play by our rules, but it’s also initially giving people an opportunity to turn away from a life of crime because in fact gangsters have families in these communities. The criminological community up until about 10-15 years ago used to say the problem in these crime ridden areas was that they needed a strong social network structure that sort of allowed everybody to know each other and be supportive which is false. In fact, they have a very dense and strong social network structure which is one of the things that enables them to generate robust informal economies. What it also recognizes is that people have differential starting points in life which doesn’t mean that criminal behavior is okay, but it does mean that it is appropriate to give them some access to some resources to get them on the right path. Criminals will even tell you that the life they are living sucks, but they basically don’t have any other skills. They have kids they are trying to feed, they are trying to get a car, and they dropped out of school because no one encouraged them to be involved in it. Many of them would like to develop a meaningful skill set.
Lee mentioned a gentleman he knew that was extremely associated with gang activity who also did some time in prison. A friend of Lee’s hired him for some part-time labor for his business. The man completely turned his life around. Lee’s friend paid for him to get some training as a master welder and now this guy is happier then he has ever been. He is getting ready to walk into a high paying significant job, he is getting ready to move out of his old neighborhood and he is excited as can be because he doesn’t want to go back to jail. He has a couple of kids. Somebody gave him the opportunity to get some training which now allows him to make an honest living.
President Gothreaux thanked Associate Vice Chancellor Matt Lee for coming to speak to the Staff Senate regarding this program and asked for him to keep the Senate updated.
SCHOLARSHIP AWARDS PRESENTATION
President Gothreaux presented a certificate to Cody Milliman, a recipient of the 2012-2013 Staff Senate Fee Support Scholarship Award. Cody is double majoring in biochemistry and microbiology. After graduation, he plans to attend medical school. Cody works as a Research Associate with Biological Sciences.
Gothreaux presented a certificate to Adam Clary, a recipient of the 2012-2013 Staff Senate Fee Support Scholarship Award. Adam is working on his Master in Public Administration with a minor in Disaster Science Management. Due to his love of LSU, he plans to either stay in his current role or seek another position on campus after graduation. Adam works as an Analyst with Law Enforcement Online.
Gothreaux announced that there are two other recipients who were unable to attend today’s meeting, but will attend the December meeting to be recognized.
President Gothreaux reported that on October 24, he issued a broadcast email inviting LSU staff to participate in the Staff Senate survey. We’ll hear more details on the results from the survey by Senator Carruth in her upcoming report on the Staff Senate Marketing Committee.
Gothreaux reported on October 26, he attended the LSU Board of Supervisor’s meeting. At this meeting, the Board received a report from the Association of Governing Boards (AGB) which detailed a proposed new organizational structure for LSU. The proposed structure would eliminate the LSU System by creating a single, state-wide LSU under the leadership of a president. In the proposed AGB plan, the regional campuses, Ag Center, medical schools, health care service division, and Pennington would all report to the president through a new cadre of executive vice presidents. Ultimate authority for the governance of the new LSU would remain vested in the LSU Board of Supervisors.
Following the presentation by AGB, the Board also took official action to eliminate the position of chancellor of the LSU flagship campus and called a special meeting for November 2 to discuss the AGB report in greater detail.
Gothreaux reported that on October 29, he called a special meeting of the Staff Senate Executive committee to discuss the Board of Supervisor’s action in advance of the special meeting of the BOS on November 2. As an Executive Committee, we need to be familiar with the AGB report in adequate detail in order to identify any issues and concerns the new structure may present to effective staff governance. A copy of the AGB report was provided in the email call for the special meeting, and all Staff Senators were invited to attend and participate in the discussion.
At this meeting, it was suggested that Gothreaux reach out to President Jenkins to express our desire to actively participate in the on-going realignment process and the selection of the new President of LSU. Following is the text of his email which will be included in the official minutes of this meeting and basically covers two points that we realize that there is potential in realigning the resources of the system, we certainly want to be involved in the process as it unfolds and secondly because our chancellor’s position has been eliminated, the President of LSU will play a large role in the activities of our campus, the staff in which we represent and that we are requesting participation in the search of the president who will fill that position.
Dear President Jenkins,
I am writing on behalf of the LSU Staff Senate Executive Committee in response to the action taken by the LSU Board of Supervisors on October 26, specifically with regard to their receipt of the AGB report recommending a restructuring and realignment of the components of the LSU System into a single university and the subsequent, unanimous approval of the resolution to combine the positions of President of the LSU System and Chancellor of LSU. Earlier today, the LSU Staff Senate Executive Committee held a special meeting to review the report in greater detail. Several Staff Senators also attended the meeting to learn more about the proposal and share comments and questions. Our sincere hope is to become familiar with the AGB report in adequate detail in order to identify any issues and concerns the new structure may present to effective staff governance. At the conclusion of today’s meeting, there were a few takeaways that I would like to share with you on behalf of the Executive Committee and those senators in attendance.
We agree with the sentiments you expressed in your broadcast email this past Saturday; this is an historic moment for LSU and represents a bold first step to better position the university to serve our students and the state of Louisiana. As a governance body, we also recognize this as an outstanding opportunity for the LSU Staff Senate to become fully-engaged, active participants in the process as it unfolds. There is tremendous, untapped potential to be harnessed in a system-wide realignment of university resources and assets. The LSU Staff Senate, comprised of dedicated individuals representing the full range of the university’s administrative/professional, clerical, maintenance, managerial, skilled-craft and technical expertise, is uniquely qualified to contribute to the dialogue which will guide the deliberative next steps in the process.
The Board’s action to combine the positions of President of the LSU System and Chancellor of our campus creates a heightened desire for the LSU Staff Senate to have representation on the committee charged with identifying potential candidates for the job. The LSU Staff Senate has consistently been afforded representation on prior search committees for high-level administrative posts at LSU (e.g., associate vice chancellor, vice chancellor, executive vice chancellor and provost, and chancellor). Given the considerable importance placed upon the selection of the first President of (the new) LSU, we would appreciate your strong endorsement to the Board of including a representative from the LSU Staff Senate on the search committee.
In our discussions today, we acknowledged your advice to take appropriate time to review and study the AGB report. We will continue our discussions in earnest due to the gravity of the decisions before us all. Please know that as a governance body, we join you and the Board in holding fast in our belief that the primary consideration should remain focused on establishing LSU as one of the nation’s top flagship research universities.
We welcome an invitation to become enthusiastically engaged in the process.
LSU Staff Senate President
CC: Stuart Bell, Executive Vice Chancellor and Provost
Louisiana State University
LSU Staff Senate Executive Committee
Gothreaux reported that on October 30, in her capacity as Chair of the LSU System Council of Staff Advisors, Past-President Galy forwarded his email to Dr. Jenkins to Dr. Bob Rasmussen, Assistant Vice President of LSU System Relations. In his response, Dr. Rasmussen stated that Mr. Blake Chatelain, BOS member and Chair of the Presidential Search Committee, strongly supports the idea of meeting with both faculty and staff representatives to discuss the search process. He anticipated scheduling such a meeting on the morning of the Board meeting on December 7, 2012.
Gothreaux also attended the Chancellor’s Executive Staff Meeting in which there was a special discussion on LSU’s SACSCOC reaffirmation, and President Jenkins discussed the proposed realignment of LSU. He noted that we are at the beginning stages of the process and no decisions have yet been made on the final organizational structure. He noted that the report provided by AGB was simply one proposed structure, but there would be much discussion and deliberation before any final structure would be determined.
Gothreaux reported that on November 2, he attended a special meeting of the LSU Board of Supervisors along with President-Elect Livingston and Past-President Galy. A significant number of individuals registered to make public comment on the proposed realignment. In addition to considering the 2013-2014 budget request, the Board also considered the report from AGB in greater detail. Board Chair Hank Danos presented several guiding goals which will inform the process for realigning and reorganizing the LSU System. These goals were also sent out to employees as a broadcast email. The Board of Supervisors Guiding Goals and Principles for Realigning and Reorganizing Louisiana State University into a Globally Competitive Statewide Flagship Institution and enhancing the student experience and so on, the goals and principles include:
The ultimate goal is a single, statewide globally competitive Louisiana State University that develops a national and international reputation. Any proposed structural, organizational and administrative changes must focus on achieving measurable transformational improvements in instruction, research, economic development, health care delivery and public service activities. There should be a single regional accreditation with the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools (SACS). The organizational structure should facilitate national reporting of institutional data on a consolidated basis.
Student experiences should be improved by implementing curricula with a common course numbering system. There should be a single application form for all campuses with opportunities for students to indicate preferences. Distance education opportunities should be expanded to take advantage of renowned faculty from top departments and leading programs from any and all of the LSU locations. New academic and graduate programs should be implemented to meet regional educational needs.
Collaborative faculty research opportunities should be enhanced and administrative barriers in grant application must be removed. Innovative, entrepreneurial inter-disciplinary activities should be encouraged and enabled.
Unnecessarily duplicative and/or competing administrative functions should be eliminated or consolidated. Uniform platforms and policies should be developed where efficiencies and effectiveness of such changes can be clearly documented not to impede flexibility or introduce unnecessary bureaucratic approvals.
The administrative structure should be relatively flat, smooth, and consistent as well as provide and promote interactions among units. Responsibility for academic and administrative decisions and authority for implementing such decisions should be placed at the lowest possible organizational level in order to achieve maximum productivity, flexibility and accountability.
The transition to the "One LSU" model should be accomplished in an orderly and deliberative manner but as expeditiously as prudently possible.
Gothreaux mentioned that there was a significant amount of public comment at this meeting, most vocal were representatives from the Law School and the LSU-Shreveport area.
Gothreaux reported that on November 12, he attended the Staff Senate Marketing Committee and the Holiday on Campus Committee. Reports from these committees will be presented later in the meeting. He also issued the save the date broadcast email to the LSU campus community inviting them to attend Holiday on Campus on November 27.
Gothreaux reported that on November 14, he participated in the New Staff Reception hosted by the Staff Senate Benefits, Policies and Development Committee. The breakfast event was a huge success and he thanked Past-President Galy and Senator Bennett, co-chairs of the committee, and all committee members for their work on the event.
Later that morning, Gothreaux met with Chancellor Jenkins to confirm his continued support for the Chancellor’s Service Spotlight Award initiated by the Staff Senate under the tenure of former Chancellor Martin. Dr. Jenkins gave his full endorsement of continuing the award which will be announced to the LSU community via broadcast email. In addition, Gothreaux wanted to follow up in person with the Chancellor on the earlier email that he sent to him on the proposed realignment. Again, he expressed the Staff Senate’s interest in actively participating in the realignment process as well as the search for the new President of LSU. Dr. Jenkins explained his plans for appointing a Transition Advisory Team comprised of approximately 10 individuals, half of which will be associated with LSU and the other half which will be community representatives. In addition, several working committees will be appointed to address functional aspects of the realignment (e.g., human resources, accounting services, technology transfer). Dr. Jenkins assured him that the Staff Senate will have representation on these functional committees and will be asked to recommend the names of potential participants.
Gothreaux reported that on November 15, he attended the LSU Community and University Partnership (CUP) Commitment to Civic Engagement meeting and update. Attendees received a report on the university’s community engagement efforts, and retired Lieutenant General Russell Honoré served as the keynote speaker.
Later that day, President Jenkins issued a broadcast email to the LSU community to update them on the status of the realignment. The text of his message has been provided below for inclusion in the official minutes of this meeting.
To: Students, Faculty, and Staff
From: William Jenkins
Re: LSU Reorganization
Date: November 15, 2012
The LSU System leadership has been engaged in discussions regarding realignment and restructuring of the LSU System, as I am sure many of you are aware. As we navigate through this historic change, communication will be a critical element to success. So I am writing to update you on the status of this reorganization, and perhaps clarify some misconceptions that have led to concerns.
Let me be clear about the goal: to bring together the resources of the various units of the current LSU System to create a single, globally competitive LSU with statewide reach that is more efficient and more productive in the areas of educating its students, creating robust collaborative research, delivering effective health care, impacting economic development and conducting public service activities.
Think of all of the great things going on at the LSU System campuses in Baton Rouge, Shreveport, Alexandria and Eunice; the tremendous work being done at Pennington; the promising students graduating from the Law Center and our Medical Schools; the statewide service provided by the AgCenter and the health care delivered by our hospitals.
Now imagine for a moment the resources of all of those units -- the passion of the LSU spirit and the mind power that makes all of those units so great individually -- and combine them into a common purpose of a new unified LSU. It would be an LSU that still serves all of those individual communities, but now with the exponential muscle of a statewide institution. That is the goal of the “One LSU.”
WHERE WE ARE NOW
Three important steps by the LSU Board of Supervisors will point LSU into its new direction.
FIRST, it is considering the consolidation of the positions of President of the LSU System and Chancellor of LSU into one position titled “President of LSU.” A search committee has been formed and a search firm has been hired to seek out the unique person who can shape and guide this new LSU.
SECOND, it adopted six guiding goals and principles on which it will base decisions regarding the realignment and reorganization of LSU. These goals and principles can be found at www.lsu.edu/goals.
THIRD, the Board requested the creation of a Transition Advisory Team to begin to move the institution toward this new structure. A number of subcommittees will be formed to provide information to the Transition Advisory Team, a process critical for seeking inclusion of ideas from across the LSU System.
The benefits are many that come with the leveraged use of system-wide resources into the single purpose of establishing a nationally and internationally recognized institution.
STUDENTS will benefit from numerous aspects of this plan. Graduate and professional students will seamlessly be able to conduct research with faculty where it may not have been possible before. Undergraduates will have access to the best teachers and courses, whether it is through traditional or distance means. Common course numbering will ease transfer within the various components of the university and student aid will be better coordinated.
A stronger university will be able to recruit and retain the best faculty, invest in capital improvements and generally provide an educational experience that will make an LSU diploma even more valuable for our graduates when they enter the workforce.
THE ACADEMIC MISSION of the university will benefit from an organizational structure that can better identify those things that provide academic excellence and promote faculty collaboration. Eventually there will be a single regional accreditation with the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools (SACS) and there will be national reporting of institutional data on a consolidated basis to improve national rankings.
It should also be mentioned here that academic autonomy will be a priority in this reorganization. Management of curriculum and admissions will remain in the domain of the faculty.
RESEARCH will benefit from hiring and placement of faculty that can best serve the common mission and with greater opportunity for interdisciplinary research. Research administration will be eased through coordinated Institutional Review Boards. Researchers will have better universal control of grants and contracts. And in the area of intellectual property, the ideas produced by LSU and its researchers can reach the market in a more efficient manner and new opportunities can be created by bundling related technologies.
THE ADMINISTRATIVE FUNCTION of the university will benefit from a more efficient structure, one that looks to reduce bureaucracy rather than increase it. It will aim to reduce unnecessary duplication of administrative functions to create better efficiency across the state, contributing to cost savings.
THE ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE
An organizational chart that was developed by our consultant, the Association of Governing Boards (AGB), has caused considerable discussion and concern. I must bring to your attention the title of that page: “One suggested way to organize the new LSU.” It is just that – only one suggested way it could be organized.
The AGB report will be used as a roadmap, not a final organizational structure, for our future. We will use the reports provided by AGB to point us in a direction for reorganizing LSU. Some parts of the org chart will likely be implemented; other parts are flawed and will be adjusted or discarded.
There has been concern about lost autonomy for some units with a new organizational structure. The goal is to create a structure that identifies and facilitates elements to give each component its greatest opportunity for success. It is important to adopt business principles that will give authority to the lowest levels of the organizational chart to make autonomous decisions thereby offsetting any perceived loss of organizational autonomy.
As state dollars for higher education in Louisiana and across the country have continued to shrink, it is incumbent upon all of us to leverage our financial and human resources to remain competitive and to provide our students with the education and collegiate experience they deserve.
This process will take considerable effort from all corners of the LSU System. Some portions of this restructuring can take place with relative quickness, but other portions will take much longer to accomplish. I encourage your thoughtful participation. We cannot look back. We must move with great deliberation, but with a sense of urgency and a single purpose of doing what is best for LSU, our students and ultimately the people of Louisiana.
If you have comments about this plan or suggestions, please write to email@example.com. Regrettably, a response cannot be promised to every email, but each one will be read.
Gothreaux reported that on November 19, he received a broadcast email announcing a town hall discussion on the LSU realignment hosted by President Jenkins. According to the broadcast, “LSU students, faculty and staff are invited to attend a town hall discussion on the current status of the reorganization and to provide an open forum to voice opinions and give feedback. The discussion will take place on Thursday, Nov. 29, at 3:30 p.m. in the Bo Campbell Auditorium, Cox Communications Academic Center for Student Athletes. Please make every effort to attend as your input is highly important to this process.” Gothreaux said it will be very important for Staff Senators to attend this forum and he encourages each of the Senators to make plans to participate.
Later that day, Gothreaux read in the Baton Rouge Business Report that President Jenkins had named the members of the Transition Advisory Team. The following is the text from the Business Report.
William Jenkins, who is filling in as both president of the LSU System and flagship chancellor, today announced a 10-person "transition advisory team" to address the pending restructuring of the LSU System. Jenkins will present the team for approval at the next meeting of the LSU Board of Supervisors on Friday, Dec. 7. At that time, the board will provide official instructions to the Transition Advisory Team as the realignment of the LSU System moves forward. At that same meeting, the board also is expected to vote to combine the positions of system president and A&M chancellor. The board already voted to do so in October but decided to vote again next month after questions were raised about whether the public had been properly notified of the vote. "This team will be assigned the task of establishing factual information that can be used by the Board of Supervisors in making the ultimate decisions about the realignment and restructuring of the LSU System," says Jenkins, who will lead the team.
The LSU 'transition advisory team,' as named by William Jenkins:
William L. Jenkins: interim president of the LSU System and interim chancellor of LSU. Jenkins served as dean of the LSU School of Veterinary Medicine, LSU's executive vice chancellor and provost, LSU chancellor, and LSU System president before retiring in 2007.
Clarence P. Cazalot Jr.: chairman, president and CEO of Marathon Oil Corp., holding that position for 10 years.
William M. Comegys III: a practicing attorney involved primarily in the oil and gas industry.
Dr. James W. "Jim" Firnberg: chancellor emeritus of LSU-Alexandria, president emeritus of Our Lady of the Lake College, and an LSU professor emeritus. Firnberg is also a frequent consultant with the National Science Foundation.
G. Lee Griffin: president and CEO of the LSU Foundation. He is also the retired chairman and CEO of Bank One of Louisiana, and a member of the LSU Alumni Hall of Distinction.
Lt. Gen. Russel L. Honoré: capped a 37-year military career by serving as the commanding general of the U.S. First Army.
Dr. Lester W. Johnson: professor, chief of surgery and director of Surgical Services at LSU Health Sciences Center–Monroe.
W. Shelby McKenzie: partner with Taylor, Porter, Brooks & Phillips, and serves as lead counsel for the LSU System.
William L. "Bill" Silvia: former executive vice president for finance with the LSU System, and currently serves as the president and CEO of the Pennington Medical Foundation and board treasurer for both the LSU Foundation and the LSU System Research & Technology Foundation.
Carroll W. Suggs: served as chairwoman, president and CEO of Petroleum Helicopters Inc. before retiring in 2001.
Bob Rasmussen: assistant vice president for system relations at LSU, who will also provide staff support for the team. (Baton Rouge Business Report, PM Edition of the Daily Report, 11/19/2012)
President Gothreaux mentioned that as the members of the official staff governance body of LSU, we need to remain vigilant of the processes to realign the university. Unifying the System into One LSU has recognized potential to enhance our collective efforts and standing. Nonetheless, we must ensure that the voice of the staff at our flagship campus is not lost in the process. Gothreaux implores you to invite your staff colleagues to participate in every opportunity to provide input. Welcome comments and questions from your fellow staff, and make them known to the Executive Committee. We must commit to guarding against the potential disenfranchisement of our Senate and the staff constituents we are duly charged with representing.
Gothreaux mentioned that as President Jenkins explained to him this group is sort of charged with advising the decision makers. It will be the work of the working group that will address the functional aspect of the realignment and that are really going to be doing the heavy lifting and this is where he sees our role. Jenkins was very clear in that support. Gothreaux thinks it behooves us to make sure that this commitment is upheld and there is some follow through with that part of the plan. Part of what Gothreaux sees when looking at the new organizational chart- which is all we have at this point is where it will start in proposing a One LSU. What he does not see readily available is our campus. There is an assumption that it becomes LSU with these other pieces in the system that’s a part of it, but you can also look at it that for all intents and purposes it is gone. We are fortunate in the System to have a Council of Staff Advisors which includes staff representatives from every campus and entity in the System that participates. Past-President Galy serves as our representative and Chair of this council. In a proposed new One LSU, clearly the staff at LSU will represent a significant group and we need to make sure our voice is heard throughout these realignment discussions. Not every representative on the council is from a duly elected body like we have here which is the case from higher education campuses, but there are appointments for Pennington, the Health Care Services Division, and the Health Sciences Centers-not that this is a good or bad thing, but we represent people in our capacity on that council, as well as our capacity here. Gothreaux thinks it will be very important for us to make sure that the voices of those we represent are heard, so please welcome comments and questions from your constituents. You may not know the answer- which is fine. Those questions and comments can be passed along to the Executive Committee. They may not know the answer either, but we certainly have standing to asks those questions and get the answers to our staff community.
DECEMBER POT LUCK LUNCHEON
President Gothreaux announced that the Staff Senate will hold the annually Holiday Luncheon after the December Staff Senate Meeting. He circulated a sign-up sheet for Senators to fill out during the remainder of the meeting.
Staff Benefits, Policies & Development
Past-President Galy reported that the Staff Benefits, Policies and Development Committee hosted the New Staff Reception (breakfast) on November 14, 2012. It was highly successful. The room was completely filled and we ran out of seats. Galy reported that for an event that was possibly going to be cancelled, seeing the amount of new hires who attended along with their supervisors was awesome. It was great to have the chancellor come and speak and visit with the employees. We had 97 people attend. Last year, we only had 50 people attend- including Senators and vendors. The venue was changed this year from the Union to 225 Peabody Hall, since the only room available was the Union Ballroom which no longer has a partition for smaller groups. The food was ordered through Matherne’s, since we were able to receive a full breakfast for $300 dollars less than what LSU Dining wanted to charge for juice and pastries. Galy mentioned that even though it was intimate and tight, it was also a sit down meal that allowed everyone to sit and visit with each other. Galy announced that the spring event will be planned by Senator Bennett.
Budget & Finance/Governmental Relations
Senator Torres reported that the Budget and Finance/Governmental Relations Committee met on November 9, 2012. She mentioned that Jason Droddy attended and announced that he just attended the LSU meeting of Joint Legislative Committee on the Budget. He provided an update that was very detailed and he shared a lot of information, but there is no definitive that anyone can give us for what’s to come. Torres also discussed this meeting with President Jenkins and he indicated that he was a little ruffled because the legislators looked at him and asked for his solution to the budget issue. He said the solution is what really can’t ask be asked of this committee-what is our budget? Give us a number, stick to the number and let us live with it. We will then know how to run the university. After the meeting, the Senators who attended commented about how much better it made them feel having heard from Jason Droddy, because apparently there is not a lot of information that is being shared with staff members about where we stand. We are updated through Staff Senate meetings by President Gothreaux with the hopes that we share with our constituents, but the Deans, Directors, and the Department Heads that are attending these types of meetings with President Jenkins are not bringing the message back to their staff. One of the questions we left the meeting with is how do we get this information to the rest of the campus. Torres will pose that question to the Executive Committee and she thinks this will hopefully be an initiative that Staff Senate will undertake in the spring. The first solution is that everyone needs to attend the November 29, 2012, town hall meeting. Unfortunately in the environment that we are in there is not a lot of detail, but sharing that there is not a lot of detail seems to make people feel more comfortable because they know as much as everyone else knows. Jason could not give any indication one way or the other of a possible mid-year budget cut or the possibility of what our budget looks like.
Long Range Review & Planning
President-Elect Livingston reported that the Long Range Review and Planning committee met on November 13, 2012. The report was included in the meeting packet. First priority this year was to make sure that staff at LSU feels appreciated as much as possible without wasting money or being counter intuitive to other efforts. There is a university committee that Senator Bonfanti serves on in her role in Human Resource Management that is working on this, so the committee will monitor their efforts and see if something happens. The committee will see if there are opportunities to get involved with, whether it is volunteer opportunities or undertaking an entire event. In the meantime, the committee will begin working on a Strategic Plan for Staff Senate to lead the process. The committee will not be developing a plan which will take every member of Staff Senate, if not the entire staff at LSU. They are going to refocus on that and maybe have someone come to talk to the committee to share some wisdom about strategic planning. Staff Senate will fall in line with the rest of the units on campus and have a strategic plan. Livingston mentioned that if there is something that Staff Senate can do to be even better, even if it will take a couple of years to achieve, please let the committee know because a strategic plan takes long term planning stages and a lot of time and development, so please provide feedback to the committee.
SPECIAL AD-HOC COMMITTEES
Holiday on Campus
Senator Perkins reported that the Holiday on Campus Committee met on November 12 and 19, 2012. The report was included in the meeting packet. Perkins circulated a volunteer sign-up sheet for Senators who are available to participate after 4:30 until the end of the event, including clean-up after the event, would be great and very much appreciated on November 27, 2012. Perkins also circulated the Holiday on Campus flier for Senators to post in their departments. Perkins mentioned that in the committee report she has thanked everyone who has helped so far and she feels we are in a very good position going into the event. They are still securing door prizes if any Senator knows of someone who would like to donate, please let the Committee know. They are still working on volunteer lists and layout of the event. The Committee has confirmed some local celebrity appearances, so it should be real fun for the entire family. Perkins invited everyone to attend with their families. Perkins also asked if any Senators could stay after the meeting and stuff goody bags. It would be greatly appreciated. Gothreaux encouraged all Senators to attend our signature event.
Senator Carruth reported that the committee met on November 12, 2012. The report was included in the meeting packet. The main key issues that came up from the staff survey were raises, parking, communication with Human Resources, parking issues at the Student Recreation Center and communication in general. There was a paragraph that the committee put together and asked the Executive Committee to review. After reviewing it with the committee again, there was some thought of not writing the action items in an email, but thanking everyone for participating in the survey. The email would also say that the Staff Senate will look into the action items that were brought up. The Committee realizes that these action items may not be completed right away, but think it is important to let staff know that Staff Senate is working on it. Someone mentioned heir concern about smoking by the doorways of Pleasant Hall. It was brought up after the survey was submitted, but will be included with survey results. Senator Carruth suggested that the Staff Senate send out a “Thank you” to all who participated in the survey and note that the issues noted in the survey will be brought to the chancellor and provost.
President Gothreaux thanked the committee for their efforts with the survey and said it gives Staff Senate valuable information, as well as some talking points, to discuss with the administration. At this point, Gothreaux would like to recommend that the Executive Committee discuss at their next meeting how the results can be presented and the possibility of sharing the results on the Staff Senate website. Gothreaux thinks Staff Senate needs to get a message out and perhaps craft some talking points to share.
Gothreaux mentioned that the Staff Senate did discuss at the last meeting the Faculty Senate Resolution in support of faculty raises. The Executive Committee discussed whether or not the Staff Senate needs to do something parallel to that or offer some other response, so it doesn’t appear that Staff Senate is not in support of raises by being silent. Staff Senate wants constituents to know that we have discussed informally the opportunity to use the results of the survey and how we are communicating those results to get the message out that we are actively pursuing opportunities in support of raises for staff. The Executive Committee can take a look at this at their next meeting and then report back to the full Senate.
Senator Carruth mentioned that in regards to communication the Faculty Senate is right in everyone’s face-which is neither good nor bad. Many comments were made in the survey regarding the Faculty Senate Newsletter, because it’s within everyone’s eye sight every month. This means that Staff Senate may not be getting its message out there in the best manner possible. This is something that the Executive Committee can discuss as well. Gothreaux mentioned that communicating the results of the survey and also using the the continued work of the Marketing Committee to figure out (with these results in mind) what Staff Senate needs to communicate, how it should be communicated, and if additional resources need to be allocated to that committee to devise some of this must be determined.
Senator Carruth mentioned that the Staff Senate website was also discussed at the committee meeting and it was agreed that the web site needs to be more consistent with regards to font and size, and skewed pictures must be corrected. The committee will discuss hiring a Mass Communication student to help with this project.
Senator Carruth reported that the committee met on November 6, 2012. The report was included in the meeting packet. The committee discussed the Holiday Door Decorating Contest. The deadline to enter the contest will be December 7, 2012, instead of December 3, 2012, to allow additional time for entries. The judging will be held on December 17, 2012. Carruth will send the most updated flier to Melonie Holden, Staff Senate Administrative Coordinator, to post on the website today.
President Gothreaux announced that Senator Sirman submitted a liaison report from the Campus Communicators meeting that was held on November 8, 2012. The report was included in the meeting packet.
Quality Enhancement Plan
President Gothreaux announced that Senator Livingston submitted a liaison report from the Quality Enhancement Plan meeting that was held on October 30, 2012. This report was included in the meeting packet and was covered earlier in the meeting by the guest speakers.
Benefit of the Month
Senator Torres announced that she does not have a Benefit of the Month, but will send one to the Staff Senate Office to post on the website.
President Gothreaux mentioned that that he spoke with the Development Director for the LSU Museum of Art at the New Staff Reception. She mentioned that there is discounted membership to the museum for staff and this information will be posted on the Staff Senate website. Senator Torres noted that the museum also has a very nice gift shop and that those with memberships to the museum receive a discount on merchandise.
President Gothreaux announced that Senator Evelyn Dixon has resigned from Staff Senate on November 6, 2012, due to some ongoing health problems. This creates a vacancy in the Service/Maintenance Category through 2013. Dixon hopes to return to Staff Senate once she is feeling better.
President Gothreaux announced that Senator Scott Belanger is also resigning from Staff Senate after Holiday on Campus. He has a new position off campus, so December 7, 2012, will be his last day at LSU. This creates a vacancy in the Professional/Non-Faculty Category through 2015. The next runner-up from the last general election will be invited to serve the remainder of his term. The Staff Senate wished Belanger well in his new position and thanked him for his service.
Town Hall Discussion on the LSU Reorganization
President Gothreaux announced that the town hall is scheduled on November 29, 2012, at 3:30 p.m. in the Bo Campbell Auditorium. He encouraged all Senators to attend as it is important that there be a Staff Senate presence at the meeting.
Chancellor Service Spotlight Award
President Gothreaux mentioned that he will send out a broadcast message soon to solicit nominations.
Staff Senator Birthdays
President Gothreaux announced that Senator Carruth celebrated her birthday on November 14. Senator Moss celebrated her birthday on November 15. Senator Pierce celebrated her birthday on November 18. “Happy Birthday”
Staff Senate Administrative Coordinator
President Gothreaux presented Melonie Holden, Staff Senate Administrative Coordinator with a wedding gift from the Staff Senate to celebrate her October 12, 2012 wedding.
LSU Foundation Outstanding Staff Award
Melonie Holden announced that Senator Igor Matkovic was one of this year’s recipients of the award. She and the Staff Senators congratulated him.
MOTION TO ADJOURN – With there being no more business, Past-President Galy moved to adjourn. The motion, seconded by Senator Carruth, carried. The meeting adjourned before noon.
Tammy Millican, Secretary