Previous articles on the merger of the Administrative/Professional (A/P) and Civil Service (CS) Councils:
- Introduction and timeline
- History of the merger proposal, reasons in support of a merger
- Core structure of a Staff Council
- Committees on the Staff Council
- External representation
- Answers to questions
- A/P and CS staff invited to complete the merger advisory survey
After more than a year of discussing the proposal to merge the Civil Service and Administrative Professional Councils, including the articles linked above, a university-wide staff advisory survey was held in recent weeks to gauge the thoughts of staff across ISU. The survey closed on December 6, and the results are in.
The big picture results
The results of the vote, simply put, speak for themselves. Out of 144 votes, 118 (82%) were in favor of the merger, 9 (6%) were opposed, and 17 (12%) were unsure.
Of those who took the survey, 143 indicated their job class: 95 (66%) were CS staff, and 48 (34%) were AP staff, meaning that both staff groups were well-represented in the survey.
The result, as just noted, speak for themselves—in a vote that included substantial representation from both staff classes, the choice was overwhelmingly in favor of the merger.
The results in detail
The survey was not just a vote, however. It also asked about remaining concerns as well as hopes and goals for a staff council. What did we see there?
First we asked, “Do you have any concerns you would like to express regarding the Staff Council merger?” The most common response to that question by far, constituting 49 out of 83 responses (59%), was no. Other responses went in several directions, many of which were discussed in previous articles (and which you can find links to at the start of this article). For instance, there were a few questions or concerns about whether one staff class or the other would have disproportionate power, a point addressed in the articles on Core structure and Answers to Questions—in short, the Staff Council is designed to ensure both that there is adequate representation of each staff class, and that there is room for the distribution of members to shift in order to reflect the will of staff as a whole.
A few asked about possible reductions to senate representation, which we discussed in the articles on External Representation and Answers to Questions—there, we emphasized that we will not proceed with the merger if it results in reduced representation in the senate or other key shared governance bodies. There were a smattering of other questions about things such as distribution of scholarship funds and the relation to unions. (These are both addressed directly in Answers to Questions, among other places.) If there are other concerns that you found were not addressed in previous articles, please reach out to us at staffcouncil@IllinoisState.edu and we’ll be happy to talk further!
The other major feedback question was, “Do you have hopes or goals for what you would like the Staff Council to achieve?” As you can imagine, the 84 responses to this question ranged widely and can’t be addressed all at once, but we can note the major themes.
In general, the importance of a loud and active voice in shared governance was the strongest theme among hopes and goals. More specifically, making sure that the Staff Council is a well-known institutional body; that it operates efficiently in identifying issues of importance to staff; that it finds effective ways to communicate its purposes and activities to staff and receive feedback from staff; and that it forcefully presents staff perspectives to administration are the most oft-stated goals. They are also among the chief motivations behind the merger in the first place and will remain central going forward.
At the same time, there are limits to what any such council can achieve. The CS and AP Councils now, and a Staff Council in the future, cannot control things like unionization (unions exist outside the University’s administrative structure and are formed by employees themselves), compensation baselines (which are determined by individual units along with HR), and promotion lines (which are often determined by HR or, in the case of Civil Service, state policy).
The most direct impact on policy we have comes through the senate, where increased representation remains one of our primary goals. But our overall largest impact is through advocacy, and a chief reason for the merger is to bring about a strong and more united advocacy front. On issues like working conditions, compensation, and benefits, we study the relevant policies and provide feedback directly to HR and administration. In fact, the proposed Employee Concerns and Well-Being Committee is specifically designed to coordinate and strengthen the policy work of the Staff Council.
Next steps, and a call for volunteers
While the votes are in (so to speak), the process is far from over. Now the concrete work of creating a Staff Council begins. This includes tasks like developing a council constitution and bylaws, updating the ISU constitution and other shared governance documents, formalizing a timeline and procedure for initial elections and the establishment of the council, and more. It’s a big job, and if you’d like to lend a hand we wouldn’t complain!
This work will begin in the spring semester. If you asked for us to contact you in the advisory survey and provided your email address*, we will be reaching out early next semester with more information. If you didn’t express interest via the survey but would like to help at this important moment in ISU’s history, please reach out at staffcouncil@IllinoisState.edu. We will identify specific needs in greater detail in the coming months and reach out as opportunities emerge. It’s time to move onward and upward!
*There were a few cases where the email address to contact was missing, so if you expressed interest but do not hear from us early next semester, that may be why. In that case, simply reach out to staffcouncil@IllinoisState.edu.
