Here are 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
The articles above summarize the history of the proposal for a Staff Council, the reasons that led the CS and A/P councils to support it, and the overall structure and role of the Staff Council. Now we will address typical questions we’ve received about the merger. Some of these are addressed in more detail in the articles linked above, as will be mentioned, while some of them cover ground not yet discussed in this series.
We continue to be interested in your feedback. Very soon, a survey on the merger will be made available where you can provide your thoughts. Remember as well that you can always send feedback to staffcouncil@IllinoisState.edu.
Without further ado, some of the most common questions:
How will power and representation be apportioned between CS and A/P staff on the Staff Council?
Some have asked about the relative representation of CS and AP staff on the Staff Council, and in a more general way about “power” between the groups.
In formal terms, the most detailed answer is in the article on the “Core structure of a Staff Council“. The Staff Council would have two co-chairs, one CS and one A/P, and the council itself would have seven seats guaranteed for CS and seven for A/P, with the remaining five seats open to both classes. This structure balances two things: (1.) making sure both CS and A/P have adequate representation and a significant presence on the council no matter what, and (2.) allowing the final composition to have some “swing” so that which group is in the majority accords with the overall vote of staff. Beyond that, representation on external bodies would be split (see the article on “External Representation“), and the Staff Council itself will have a special subcommittee devoted to addressing issues unique to each council (see the article on “Committees of a Staff Council” as well as the third question below).
While that is the formal answer, questions or comments about representation are often framed in ways that reflect more general concerns about “power” between the groups. The framing of these questions or comments sometimes seems to suggest that CS and A/P are in competition with each other. Our response to this is that the councils themselves do not find their experiences with each other, whether working together directly, in external bodies, or elsewhere to reflect such a view. The idea of a merger has been developed jointly by both councils together since the beginning, because each feels that they would be stronger as a class, not weaker, through the merger (see the article on the “History of the Merger” for more on this).
Speaking to this in a different way, members of both councils have found that the biggest issues facing us reflect our identities as staff rather than as CS or A/P. Issues with representation in shared governance, with resources needed for success, with policies, with institutional communication, and more impact staff as a whole. In particular, when it comes to representation across the university, it is our role as staff that comes to the fore. When there are differences between CS and A/P, they often relate to specific policies best addressed through work with Human Resources (for more on this, see the article on “Committees of a Staff Council” as well as the third question below).
At the other end of it, on the ground level and in our day-to-day jobs we find that we most often think of ourselves in terms of our specific roles—academic advisors, information technology support, clerical workers, resident directors, pipefitters—or our units—student affairs, academic departments, building maintenance, University College, Financial Aid—rather than as the broad labels “CS” or “A/P.” Both titles cover an incredible range of roles. Civil Service employees include assistant directors, professional medical staff, and information technology employees. Academic Professional employees include entry-level housing and advising staff. And so here as well, the councils have not found a fundamental divide between the two groups “CS” and “A/P.” In terms of university-level representation, what we find most salient is what we have in common as staff or what distinguishes our roles, rather than the titles “CS” and “A/P.”
How do you think this will affect representation in shared governance, particularly the Senate? Might this lead to reduced representation?
Here we point to the article on “External Representation.” And in fact, we will quote the most important line from it: “If a merger were to entail reduced CS or A/P representation on key shared governance bodies, the CS and A/P Councils would not pursue the merger any further.” The primary purpose of the merger is to increase the strength of the staff voice, not decrease it. If the practical upshot were a decrease in our voice, that would be the end of a merger project as far as we’re concerned. On the Senate, that clearly means the number of representatives as well as the internal committees on which staff are represented.
That being said, do we think it likely that the university would try to decrease representation as a result of the merger—say, by decreasing the total number of staff Senators? In short, no. We have seen no reason to think that. In fact, the joint efforts of the councils have led to increased Senate representation in recent years, insofar as we now have a voice on three internal subcommittees instead of one, including a voting role on the University Policy Committee. The Staff Council would continue to advocate for an increased staff voice across the board.
How will the differences between the needs of CS and A/P employees be accounted for?
For this, we recommend looking the information on the Employee concerns and well-being committee in the article on “Committees on the Staff Council.” In addition to addressing the needs of staff as a whole, this newly created committee is specifically designed to account for the ways in which CS and A/P concerns, issues, and policies differ. The Staff Council would have two subcommittees, one for CS and one for A/P-specific issues, each headed by the corresponding member of that job class and including the corresponding Human Resources liaison. These subcommittees, and the committee as a whole, will be tasked with analyzing issues and making recommendations based on both the shared and the distinct needs of CS and A/P employees, and it is considered among the most important features of the Staff Council.
What about the Civil Service union(s)? How do they factor into a council?
One difference between CS and A/P is that some CS employees are unionized, and we have been asked about how the Staff Council will intersect with that.
The short answer is that it will not intersect. In fact, the CS Council itself does not work with CS unions, which are separate entities governed by their own set of laws and policies. The CS Council is about representing the collective CS voice in certain university functions, while the various CS unions are involved in other functions with different policies and procedures. The Staff Council, like the CS and the A/P Councils, is not a union or union-affiliated body.
Second, it’s important to remember that not all CS employees are unionized. There are at least 16 unions at Illinois State, and CS as a whole includes several unionized groups, but there are also several job classifications in CS that are not covered by a union. For instance, office support specialists are part of a union, but administrative aides are not. So the CS Council in that sense is not representing a “unionized” group, but rather a large employee class that includes both unionized and non-unionized groups.
What about CS- and A/P-specific awards and scholarships?
More is said about this in the article on “Committees on the Staff Council.” In short, we do not plan to change anything with regard to awards and scholarships. The current awards that are specific to CS or to A/P employees, and the current scholarships that are available to CS or A/P employees or their children/dependents, will continue to exist as they are. And the actual funding that supports those awards and scholarships, while it is distributed by the councils (and so would shift to the Staff Council), exists independently of the councils, so it would not disappear because of the shift to a Staff Council. As for selection and distribution, the Awards and Scholarships Committees will each have a CS member who manages CS awards/scholarships, and an A/P member who manages A/P awards/scholarships, so that each class is in charge of its group’s awards.
What is left now? Hearing from you! Coming very soon will be an advisory survey where we ask for the feedback of staff as a whole. The result will help us to make decisions about how to move forward. No matter what, members of both the Civil Service and Administrative/Professional Councils will continue working to ensure that the voices of all staff are strengthened.
