A quorum being present, President Clyde Anglin called the meeting of the University of Georgia Staff Council (UGA-SC) to order at 2:05 p.m. Present were Annette Hatton and Gilbert Head from Academic Affairs; Doris Bombich, Jeannie Dawson, Hector Dudley, Jim Graham, Marilyn Huff-Waller, and Donna Wyatt from Agriculture and Environmental Sciences; Robyn Ansley and LaBau Bryan for Beth Richardson from Arts and Sciences; Arthur Bastidas, Janet Bjornlie, Darlene Bradley, Billy Walker for Henry Bridges, Wes Kolar, Frank Patman, and Esther Sherman from Business and Finance; Shea Ray for Anita Miller from the College of Education; Leisa Seabolt from Environmental Design; Shea Shumake from Family and Consumer Sciences; Sue Anthony from Forest Resources; Betty Blum from the Graduate School; Merrill Edens from the College of Journalism and Mass Communication; Kathy Burkes from the Law School; Stephanie Watson representing Legal Affairs, the Office of the President, and the Equal Opportunity Office; Jalna Alday from the College of Pharmacy; Ruby Heaton and Margo Peter from Public Service and Outreach; Sally Kroehnke and Ian Gray from Research; Martha Daniel from the School of Social Work; Michael Albert and Margaret Stephan from Student Affairs; Elizabeth Pape from the Terry College of Business; Tony Hughey and Lois Morrison for Allison Wright from the College of Veterinary Medicine; Brenda Keen, Secretary; Mary Cash, Parliamentarian; and Linda Slaney, Immediate Past President. Linda Dudley, representative to the University System Staff Council, was also present. There was no representative from Development and Alumni Relations.
 

There being no objections, the minutes from the October meeting were not read. Minutes were corrected to show that Dave Lunde's title is Director of Planning and Danny Sniff is Director of Campus Planning. A motion was made, seconded, and passed that the meeting should adjourn no later than 4:00 p.m.
 

TREASURER'S REPORT

Janet Bjornlie said expenses totaled $608.40 and there is a balance of $391.60. Clyde noted the expenses had gone primarily for The Staff Voice. Clyde reported Tom Landrum from the President's Office said he would replace those funds if Clyde sends a letter requesting that he do so. Clyde will ask for additional funding after ascertaining the needs of the Communications Committee and the committee commemorating the five-year anniversary of UGA-SC.
 

REPORT OF THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE

Clyde said he would combine the president's report with the committee report. The Staff Voice is now under the aegis of the Communications Committee. Committee chairs are encouraged to attend Executive Committee meetings. Clyde asked chairs to give adequate notice of meetings and to coordinate meeting times with off-campus representatives. All UGA-SC representatives are responsible for getting information out to their constituents.
 

The past and present Executive Committee members will meet with Dr. Adams on December 17 at 2:30 in the conference room of the Lustrat House. Photos will be made at 2:15 for historic purposes.
 

The statewide University System Staff Council conference in Dahlonega was very well handled and well attended, with about 150 people present. Tom Daniel from the Board of Regents emphasized the job-related versus career-related component of Tuition Remission, and Clyde told him during lunch that we are stressing career-related here at UGA. (Clyde provided a handout on the Tuition Refund Program.) Clyde asked Mr. Daniel about the possibility of sick leave credit for retirees passing in the legislature this year. Mr. Daniel said it would come up but in his opinion it was unlikely it would pass, largely because we will probably get another six percent raise.
 

Linda Dudley attended the meeting of university system Human Resource Directors and said she had been told that sick leave pools will not happen. She asked if the question had been raised in Dahlonega, but it had not. Margo Peter, liaison to the faculty benefits committee, reported faculty are also interested in the possibility of a sick leave pool, and asked Brenda Keen to forward a copy of the UGA-SC sick leave resolution to the appropriate faculty committee.
 

Clyde provided handouts (1) which showed his questions to and replies from the Staff Benefits Department regarding dental insurance, chiropractic coverage, and optional retirement plans; (2) correspondence between UGA-SC representative Beth Richardson and Jimmy Linston of Parking Services in which Mr. Linston said sliding-scale parking fees will not be adopted; and (3) a letter of congratulations from Tom Landrum to Staff Council on the occasion of its anniversary.
 

REPORTS OF STANDING COMMITTEES

The Needs and Concerns Committee presented a revised ASL resolution for a vote:

Resolution Supporting Acceptance of American Sign Language (ASL) as Fulfillment of UGA Language Requirements--The Staff Council of the University of Georgia supports acceptance of American Sign Language as fulfillment of the requirements for a second language in UGA degree programs; and supports granting ASL the status of an officially recognized language at UGA. If passed, the Staff Council will forward copies of this resolution and supporting documents to the following: Dr. Michael Adams, President; Dr. William Prokasy, Vice President for Academic Affairs; Dr. Sylvia Hutchinson, Associate Dean of the College of Education; Dr. Karen Kalivoda, Director of the Office of Disability Services; and the UGA University Council for faculty consideration and action.

In discussion, Michael Albert explained the request from Dr. Hutchinson for support and noted staff's direct contact with students that would be affected by the resolution. He also addressed the question of ASL's status as a language and said because there are so many resources available which support its legitimacy he didn't want to take up time reiterating those points unless someone specifically wanted him to do so.
 

Mary Cash said she didn't understand why the resolution couldn't just be sent to Dr. Hutchinson and why it had to be sent to all those listed. Michael replied it doesn't have to be; it was for keeping others informed Ian Gray suggested sending the resolution to Dr. Hutchinson with copies marked FYI to the others. Clyde pointed out to whom the resolution would be sent was not part of the resolution and could be considered separately. Ian thanked the committee for modifying the preamble. A vote was called and no one was opposed. Margot Peter suggested the resolution be addressed to Dr. Hutchinson with carbon copies sent to the other parties, and it was so agreed.
 

Tony Hughey stated at the last Executive Committee meeting a resolution on limited benefits for domestic partners and insurable dependents was tabled and Needs and Concerns would like to bring it out of committee. He made a motion that UGA-SC vote on whether to bring the benefits extension resolution out of committee and it was seconded. In discussion, Michael Albert noted that the motion had been tabled indefinitely until state law was changed. He pointed out that on Monday, November 3, the Georgia Supreme Court ruled in a 5 to 2 decision that the City of Atlanta's domestic partnership proposal was valid and did not conflict with state law. He asked if it could be brought up without a 2/3 vote since the legal situation had been altered. Clyde ruled that UGA-SC must vote. Wes Kolar asked if the issue of dependents could be considered separately from the rest of the resolution. Clyde said because a motion was pending that would have to be offered as an amendment to the existing motion, if the person offering the existing motion was willing to amend it. He noted Wes would be free to make such a motion after a vote on the pending motion. He reiterated that UGA-SC was not debating the resolution, but debating whether it would be put on the table as an agenda item at this time. He said a paper ballot would be used to be sure the count is accurate.
 

Before the vote, Michael Albert opined that the bylaws' requirement of a 2/3 vote is much more stringent than Robert's Rules of Order would require for a motion to come to the floor. He assured the council that the issue of benefits extension doesn't stop with this resolution. He said many wonderful suggestions have been brought up to the Needs and Concerns Committee regarding ways of dealing with benefits in possibly a more equitable way: the idea of a cafeteria plan, and the idea of extending benefits to dependents of other ages, such as elderly parents or other people living in a household for a variety of reasons. He said these are all excellent suggestions that the committee is willing and able to explore; however, they began with this resolution because it was definable and it had a lot of precedent. Michael expressed his hope that the resolution would be considered so the issue wouldn't die for the year.
 

Lois Morrison said she would like to see discussion on the issue so people could offer opinions and perspectives; no interests are served when there is no discussion. Annette Hatton said although the small minority on the Executive Committee had acted within their rights, she felt the majority of the floor would benefit from discussion. Elizabeth Pape asked for clarification: a yes vote would mean the issue would be discussed; a no vote would mean it would not. Clyde confirmed that was correct, and it would be decided by 2/3 majority. Mary Cash distributed then counted the ballots. Merrill Edens suggested committee reports be continued while ballots were being counted.
 

Sally Kroehnke reported the Health and Safety Committee met and drafted a letter to James TenBrook, Director of Physical Plant, regarding HCFC-123 [an industrial refrigerant gas used as an alternative to chlorofluorocarbons, exposure to which can cause liver damage]. Workers are concerned over safety. Some warning systems are in place; others are not in place or have been turned off. The committee wants levels to be regularly checked, to know how often the checks take place, and to know which buildings have HCFC-123. The Executive Committee approved the letter; Sally handed out copies to representatives.
 

Sally said there were no bids to improve the intersection of East Campus and Cedar Street, but the job will go out for bids again in January. She received e-mail regarding a problem with visibility at the Thomas Street crossing near the Tanner building. There is a wall which will be torn down, and visibility should be improved. Darlene Bradley mentioned Thomas Street where the railroad was removed and said cars are flying down, there are no sidewalks, and people are walking on the grass or the road. Sally asked if Darlene would like there to be a sidewalk and Darlene replied it would help if there were one on at least one side. Sally said she would bring it up with Campus Planning.
 

Annette Hatton said coworkers who park in the perimeter lot by Staff Training have complained about the crosswalk there. A visitor, Janet Wondra from The Georgia Review, said that crosswalk has become even more dangerous than in the past. She noted the distance across the street has increased, buses in the turn lane no longer block traffic coming down the hill, and cars are moving even faster than before. Pedestrians can't see beyond the bus, and drivers have no respect for pedestrians. She said she had spoken to Danny Sniff, Director of Campus Planning, on the phone and he indicated that where construction was in progress there were going to be sidewalks but he didn't seem to know what was happening with the widening of the road. She asked him if it would be possible to have a pedestrian bridge similar to one that is farther down in that parking lot. He said that, in the experience of Campus Planning, if people have the option of walking on level ground or going over a bridge, they will always choose to walk on level ground. Janet noted if a bridge were built and the stairway eliminated, crossing by bridge would be the only choice. She urged Mr. Sniff to consider it before someone is killed at that crosswalk. Sally said she would bring that up as well.
 

Results of the Vote: Since 37 members voted, 25 votes would be necessary to pass the motion putting the domestic partners resolution on the agenda. Mary gave the results to Clyde, who reported the vote was 21 in favor and 16 against. Therefore, the motion failed. A visitor, Hal Turner from the School of Law, began protesting and was ruled out of order by the chair.
 

Lois Morrison said she had heard the Executive Committee's motion to table referred to but had not seen it and asked if there was a copy. Brenda Keen said she had not done official minutes of the committee meeting. Clyde made a parliamentary clarification, saying the motion to table at that meeting was not in order. It was not treated as a motion to table, it was treated by the chair as a motion to postpone indefinitely, which was in order. The chair is not obligated to rule all such motions out of order if another motion that he is sure the maker intends the affect to be is available. "Lay on the table" is not debatable, "postpone indefinitely" is debatable; and the committee did debate it. The "motion to table" is frequently used incorrectly in that way.
 

Michael Albert noted that a 2/3 vote is what's required to override a [federal] presidential veto and asked veteran members of UGA-SC for clarification on why such a stringent number was chosen, when clearly more than half of the body wished to discuss the issue. Clyde pointed out the bylaws invest certain powers in the Executive Committee, including setting an agenda. Robert's Rules of Order also requires 2/3 to change the agenda, not a simple majority, so the 2/3 requirement is not unusual. If we wish to change our bylaws to say a majority instead, that can be addressed by the Bylaws Committee. Michael asked if that meant there was no way the resolution could be discussed. Clyde said he hesitated to suggest strategy that might clearly be at odds with the will of this particular body, but he would simply say certainly any intelligent group of people should be able to figure out a way to get it before the council again.
 

LaBau Bryan said this is a perfect example of how issues that affect many staff members come up before staff council. She urged staff to think seriously about becoming a representative when it's time for staff council elections, and not to let a person who's the only one willing to do it become a representataive by default. Issues do come up to support staff all the time that affect a lot of people, so if you want to change the process, get involved.
 

Lois Morrison said this is not the first time tabling has been used and gave a past example. She asked representatives to consider that there seem to be people working against discussion and pointed out the loss of opportunity to gain information. Ian Gray suggested that the meeting continue due to time constraints, and Clyde ruled that it should move on.
 

Elizabeth Pape reported the Communications Committee met on October 9 and read a report (copy attached) delineating the committee's responsibilities and listing positions established to produce the newsletter. She said the committee wishes to produce a publication commemorating the Staff Council's first five years for distribution in January 1998 and will ask the Executive Committee to request funding. She said they may ask representatives for numbers of constituents in their respective areas for distribution purposes. They would also like representatives to submit ideas.
 

Arthur Bastidas reported the Classification and Pay Committee met on November 4 with Melanie Kirk from Human Resources. That department is in the middle of benchmarking 19 classes of positions and comparing them to similar positions in state government. They will present the study to President Adams in February. The purpose of the study is to show the legislature inequities in pay between university positions and other state positions so they will understand why certain percentages are requested for raises. Margot Peter noted the Faculty Benefits Committee did a gender equity study a few years ago and is conducting another gender equity study for pay analysis of faculty positions. Mary Cash asked who is on the committee studying position classes and Arthur replied the Human Resources Department is doing the comparison. Leisa Seabolt clarified that the study is strictly regarding the base rates of the positions. Since it deals only with increasing the base rate, it is unlikely to help long-term employees unless they are reclassified. Lois Morrison asked if the committee is going to look at different areas to see how the 6% allocation for raises is interpreted. She noted in some areas only exceptional employees receive a 6% raise. Arthur said the funds are allocated to departments to use as they see fit; raises can be averaged or distributed according to merit. Lois asked if having the same evaluation standards helps more equitable distribution. Arthur said Human Resources can give guidelines to administrators but cannot control their behavior.
 

REPORTS OF AD-HOC COMMITTEES
 

The Bylaws Committee has not met since the last UGA-SC meeting, but they are putting forward a call for anyone who would like areas of the bylaws to be looked at to contact Linda Slaney, Linda Dudley, or Mary Cash. Linda Slaney asked that persons who want participate in revision discussions give her their names.
 

Linda Dudley reported the Presentation Committee formed to create the UGA portion of a multimedia presentation to the statewide meeting of university system Human Resource Directors will expand the program that was created for use as a Five-Year Commemoration. Ruby Heaton used PowerPoint 97 to create the presentation's UGA component. Linda Dudley attended the directors' meeting on October 21and said the presentation was well received. The directors asked questions and asked the university system staff council to help establish staff councils at institutions which don't yet have them. Linda Slaney said she asked Carlton James to give his opinion as a human resource director on how it was received and he told her "there were no negative mumblings." Linda Dudley pointed out that since staff councils are representative of staff, they are a good way to channel concerns. The statewide staff council plans to follow up with a letter to all the directors. Presently 18 out of 34 institutions in the system have staff councils.
 

Linda Slaney reported the Tuition Remission Task Force is still waiting for the implementation policy to be ratified by the cabinet. They had planned to get a document in circulation to staff by November 15, but they have not gotten a copy of the policy. Her advice is to tell people to go ahead and enroll if they are thinking of applying for tuition remission. To be eligible, an employee must be enrolled in a degree-seeking program. During fall quarter, letters were sent to staff members who were already registered. Of 166 staff registered, 116 applied for and received tuition reimbursement for $51,000. If the cabinet does not act soon, the same sequence will probably follow for winter quarter.
 

The committee is not sure what is causing the holdup. There are tax questions that have been referred to the Board of Regents. The policy sent down by the Board of Regents states that anyone applying for and receiving tuition remission has access to all student benefits but pays none of the fees. There are people who feel there will be an influx on benefits, and if UGA does not have the money to cover it then it would have to be made up by an increase in student fees. The Board of Regents has not given a deadline, but UGA will have to have something in place.
 

Gilbert Head asked what the procedure is for readmission, whether there will be any special provisions or if standard procedures should be followed. Linda replied it will be the standard procedure for any institution. Employees are not eligible for tuition reimbursement unless they are accepted. They will have to pay the application fee. Once you apply for and are awarded tuition remission, then other criteria kick in, such as space available in classes. The question was raised whether an employee who needed a class to finish a degree but couldn't get into it on a space-available basis would have any recourse, and the answer was in that particular instance the employee would have to register as a regular student, pay for it as a regular student, and would not be eligible for tuition remission because policy states "space available." Mary Cash asked why it would be different for students who are getting remission who pay only activity fees, and Linda replied the Board of Regents policy says employees will not incur any fees.
 

NEW BUSINESS

Michael Albert asked whether it would be in order to introduce the extension of benefits resolution and Clyde replied that it would. Michael moved that staff council consider the following resolution:
 

Resolution on Expansion of UGA Services to Partners and All Insurable Dependents of UGA Employees--The Staff Council supports extending the following services to dependents of UGA employees over the age of 18 who meet the criteria for "dependent" for UGA insurance policies. The Staff Council further supports extending of such services to the heterosexual and same sex domestic partners of UGA employees under specific conditions and criteria.

1. UGA identification cards, and the access available to recipients of these cards,
2. the ability to obtain a membership to the Ramsey Student Activities Center (for a fee),
3. additional UGA library privileges not available to the community at large, and
4. access to UGA housing for spouses and families of staff members required, as part of their employment, to live in UGA housing.

Michael said for two years the committee has researched, consulted, considered various benefits plans, looked at other schools, and done everything possible to create a resolution that was limited, legal, and something we could be proud of in terms of helping our fellow staff members to better their quality of life. There has been misinformation and people have been hearing conflicting reports. He urged consideration of the documents regarding myths and realities of the resolution which had been mailed to representatives by the committee. He also urged consideration of the Georgia Supreme Court ruling that the issue of domestic partnership is not in conflict with state law. He assured anyone concerned that "domestic partner" is a vague term that the committee listed criteria for domestic partnership. The criteria would be left to the discretion of the university, but there are very easy ways to define the term domestic partner. It can be done as a requirement of age, as a requirement of relationship by blood not to the extent that they couldn't marry in the state in which they reside, and it can be done by checking a variety of legal and financial documentation that suggests that these two people are interdependent upon one another, such as durable powers of attorney, beneficiaries in a will, beneficiaries on a life insurance policy, joint ownership of motor vehicles, cars, leases. There are lots of criteria the university can use. He noted we are not here to set criteria for the university, that the university has a lot to consider. He said we are not necessarily here to represent the majority because we don't know what the majority is, particularly in light of the recent court ruling. He said we are here to represent the full staff and we have an obligation to help our fellow staff members improve the quality of their lives.
 

Michael said The Red and Black called this "a silly resolution" and agreed they were pretty much right, because we're talking about weight lifting and library books. There is a Regent's policy in place, and the committee consulted with Bryndis Roberts to find out how they could help people without bucking up against Regent's policy or state law. He said the Executive Committee did not hear that, but he wanted Staff Council to hear it. He asked that representatives support the resolution and help constituents who may not have a voice, who may feel threatened, who may not have the power to be comfortable in the workplace, noting that applies mostly to homosexual constituencies but it also applies to dependents of staff members with legitimate concerns. He asked the council not to throw the resolution away but to do something positive.
 

Frank Patman agreed that we are elected to represent our coworkers, but said he knew how his coworkers felt and if the homosexual portion of the resolution were stricken it would probably carry unanimously. He asked that representatives consider the feelings of their constituents. Gilbert Head said he had not conducted a scientific survey, but his coworkers at the library wanted their voices heard in this matter so he distributed a call for comment on the library's listserv and told subscribers he would report to UGA-SC the results in terms of a tally for and against and make that part of the record. There were five people who expressed support of the resolution and two who expressed opposition. Betty Blum said she polled her constituents and didn't get a lot of response; those who responded said they would prefer that the council did not vote on this issue, but rather let the entire staff vote on it. Stephanie Watson said she supports discussion of any issue that comes to UGA-SC. In terms of this specific issue, she asked that we take into consideration that the issues that we vote on in this forum are not personal issues, they are staff issues.
 

Annette Hatton said if we had polled constituents 34 years ago as to whether we should have allowed Charlayne Hunter and Hamilton Holmes to be students on this campus, she would bet $100 that 95% of the people would have said no. So 34 years later, this is an issue that is analogous, the same kind of issue. It needs to be addressed as something that is fair, equitable, and if we're going to talk about constituents this is what is involved. Jim Graham stated his constituency is opposed to this resolution. Elizabeth Pape said out of about 90 people in her area, only one person called her and his concern was the term "domestic partners." She suggested perhaps the word "sponsor" could be used instead, and asked if such a term had been considered. Michael replied it has not been considered and he hasn't seen a policy that calls it sponsor, although the term did not matter to him. He said the issue isn't one of defining the term or the parameters: the university has to do that. He said if she wished to pose a specific amendment he'd be happy to consider it. Elizabeth said she believed from the climate that it didn't have much of a chance to pass, so sometimes just take smaller steps.
 

Linda Dudley questioned the use of the term "benefit" and asked if this is rather a campus privilege. Michael said they called it service, but privilege would be fine. Linda said the word benefit was used in the newspapers and Michael pointed out the newspapers had also called it a "Same Sex Partner Resolution." Since most media representatives left when the resolution was not put on the agenda earlier in the meeting, Clyde pointed out that the newspapers may say we did not discuss this issue.
 

Mary Cash said the resolution was divided into four sections, and each one of these services fall under units which make their own rules. She expressed concern that the resolution asks Staff Council to support something going against the rules of four different places whose rules are very different from one another. She said she could understand one section at a time, and questioned how many individuals are affected by or would benefit from the housing component.
 

LaBau Bryan said examining the minutiae of the resolution is not the point. The point of the resolution, the reason it was worked on, was to give something that we can vote on as a whole, a beautiful flowering oak that started as an acorn, has been pruned, shaped, and watered, a resolution that she is proud as a member of the Needs and Concerns Committee to bring before this body. LaBau said, "I can't tell you how thrilled I am it is being discussed. To my shame as an Episcopalian, we ignored the slavery issue. This is my chance as a Christian, an American, to look at something regardless of race, creed, sex, sexual orientation, or anything else" and support a resolution that will serve staff.
 

Betty Blum questioned the resolution's provision for dependents over age 18 and said she was under the impression her husband had those privileges. A couple of other representatives said their children over 18 can't use the SPACenter. There was brief discussion about dependents and insurable dependents, and Clyde said those details would be worked out.
 

Donna Wyatt said, "I represent about 150 staff members and it's been mentioned that we should vote based on our constituents and that we should feel like we're including all of the staff. Well, there are some of us who never get included because we didn't get a copy of your mailout--those of us who aren't located here on campus, so I don't know what you mailed out to people. So we're not all included in everything." Brenda Keen pointed out some people on campus hadn't received their copies until today and said it might be in the mail when Donna returned to her office. Donna said she did send out a notice to her 150 constituents; all the responses she received were negative and she feels like she has to vote to represent the people who responded. Stephanie Watson noted it is difficult to know how to vote if constituents don't respond. Merrill Edens said she didn't go to her other staff members because her staff had been polled earlier by the Needs and Concerns Committee. She received the information yesterday and said representatives need to go back to constituents and give them more information. She thanked speakers for clarifying some things in the proposal. She asked whether the resolution would be reworded in committee so she would be able to take the correct proposal to her constituents and said she thought all staff should have a chance to vote on it.
 

Michael said he'd never been in a situation where parliamentary procedure had been so complicated, and asked whether it would be in order to move to table the resolution until the next meeting so he could take the discussion back to Needs and Concerns and they could present amendments to address the valid issues raised. Clyde said if he makes that motion, it is undebatable; but it is in order to table until a specific time for a specific reason. Ian said the committee could retract the motion for further examination.
 

Linda Dudley said as a representative, if you vote your conscience you are representing your staff. Brenda Keen said democratic societies work best if they don't strictly kowtow to the majority but take into account every minority and treat every human being as equal. Robyn Ansley said she had spent an hour yesterday explaining what the resolution is about to people she represents and everything had been blown out this morning when one of them brought the Athens Daily News and said "this isn't anything like what you told us!" She urged representatives to make sure that constituents know what's going on from someone who's been here and knows what's happening, and that they don't read the newspaper!
 

Michael Albert asked that representatives remember that polling is a really hard science. He acknowledged his own bias, but said "no" is not necessarily enough of an answer. He admitted to trying to persuade his own constituents, but pointed out that people can say no for a variety of reasons because they don't understand certain things. He suggested reps have a lot of information they can copy and disseminate to staff. If people say no because of legal issues, there is the Supreme Court decision to point to. If people say no because of defining "domestic partner," then discuss how it can be defined. He said this is a stepping stone to discussing how benefits might be doled out to be more fair to single persons, married members, women, etc. He said we're talking about a lot of subjects which will just collapse and die if this resolution doesn't pass. He said if we can't pass something this clear, defined, and precedented, we can't even begin to approach the grayer areas of extending or altering benefits further. He asked reps please don't take no for an answer. He said he was suspect when people said they'd polled their constituencies, because people have obviously read the newspapers and it's so complicated. He appealed to consciences, to the sense of right and wrong, to the ability to help people.
 

Clyde noted that, regardless of how constituents are polled, at some point Staff Council is going to have to vote. VP for Legal Affairs Bryndis Roberts asked Clyde to say, without it being a legal opinion, that her remarks over the course of the past two years or year and a half could not be reduced to the simple statement that "this does not conflict with state law."
 

Arthur Bastidas said he had been a member of UGA-SC for several years and we have made headway. He would hate to see the council lose the credibility it has gained in the last few years and asked members to keep that in mind when the issue comes up for a vote. Regarding polling, Linda Slaney said in the past UGA-SC has, on very emotional issues such as the Memorial Day holiday where there seemed to be little middle ground, sent the issue that was to be decided on down to the grassroots level. Each staff representative group sent it out in written form; the answers that came back were considered the people who cared enough to give an opinion one way or the other, and that was the way that representatives determined their vote. She suggested that such input be obtained on this issue. Stephanie Watson asked if there weren't specific questions so that everyone got the same thing for polling. Donna Wyatt requested if the motion is tabled at this meeting that we have a representative from Legal Affairs at the next meeting. Margot Peter said Staff Council is not a law-formulating body; we are here to recommend things that we feel are important to be taken forward to Dr. Adams; it isn't our job to examine the law. Donna said she would just like more input. Stephanie noted there needs to be specific questions to ask someone from Legal Affairs for comment. Lois suggested they could comment on the Supreme Court decision. Ruby Heaton said she sent Bryndis Roberts information for comments because of the differences in what people have heard in meetings. Ms. Roberts is willing to come to a council meeting and answer questions and Ruby said she thought that would be a good idea. She said Ms. Roberts would prefer that to being quoted and misquoted, both in the newspaper and by staff members. Clyde said he had spoken to Ms. Roberts last week and she said she was willing to come to this meeting. He felt it would have been presumptuous on his part to invite her to this meeting, but she is willing to come to the next meeting or any other. If there is no objection from anyone, he will invite her. Stephanie said she had no objection but she would ask that we be specific about what we want her to address: If we want her to address the legal implications of this and how it affects current law, then that's what we need to let her talk about. Clyde said he would talk with her about that. Clyde noted we were approaching adjournment time and expressed his reluctance to cut off discussion. He said he did not believe we were ready to vote on this issue.
 

Michael Albert moved to table the resolution until next month's meeting pending subsequent discussion and reserved the right to change the wording of the resolution. The motion was seconded. Clyde said the motion has been made and seconded; the motion is not debatable but it is amendable. A voice vote was taken, no one was opposed, and the motion was tabled until the next meeting.
 

Wes Kolar made a motion that Staff Council as a body approach the SPACenter and ask them to extend benefits for dependents over the age of 18 of staff members. He asked that it be considered separately from the other issues. The motion was seconded. Clyde asked for clarification if "approach them as a body" meant that someone would write a statement to be sent. Wes replied he thought that was in process already, but that was what it meant. Elizabeth Pape asked how dependents would be defined and if there were any age limits. Brief conversation among several members followed but the question was not answered directly.
 

Clyde stated the motion as follows: That a statement be drafted to be sent to Jane Russell at the Ramsey Center to extend benefits to dependents over the age of 18. In discussion, Michael asked whether tax guidelines or insurance guidelines would be used to define dependents. Margot noted the normal definition derives from taxes. Clyde said he believed if the term "dependent" is used, then ipso facto it would have those legal determinations placed upon it by the law. Billy Walker asked if this is not the same thing as the previous resolution but without the other three provisions. Clyde said yes, it was just pulling out that part and applying it specifically to the Ramsey Center and just to dependents. Wes agreed with Clyde's statement. Mary Cash asked who is going to formulate the resolution or whether it would be sent to committee. Wes said he would draft it if he could have help. Ruby suggested that anyone willing to help should contact Wes. Clyde said he thought that should be a part of the motion for clarity and Wes agreed he will write a resolution and present it for a vote. Clyde again clarified the motion: That Wes will draft a resolution and bring it back to Staff Council. On a voice vote, there was no opposition.
 

Michael asked the Bylaws Committee about making a bylaws adjustment and Linda Slaney told him he should submit it in writing. Michael asked for clarification on the revision process. Linda explained that a change would be taken to the Executive Committee to be placed on the agenda. On Mary's suggestion, Clyde read the following from the bylaws:
 

The Staff Council will have the power to amend its bylaws providing that such amendments be approved by a two-thirds majority of the votes cast at two successive meetings of the Council. Proposed Amendments to the Bylaws will be presented in writing, and should be provided to the voting members of Staff Council ten days before meeting date. Vote will be taken by paper ballot, results to be announced no later than the following week.
 

Michael asked if he could give a proposed change to the secretary. Brenda said she could disseminate it. Clyde pointed out we do have a Bylaws Revision Committee and sending it to them would be a reasonable thing to do, but it could be sent to the Executive Committee or brought before UGA-SC as new business. Linda Slaney said the same process applies for anything Staff Council needs to address. Clyde added anything can be brought up under new business. New business is always on the agenda. When an item for discussion is presented before Staff Council, any member can object to consideration. That is not debatable and must be voted on immediately, requiring a 2/3 negative vote to override discussion. So there are all kinds of checks and balances as to what can go on in a meeting. If one wishes to make an amendment to the bylaws, it doesn't have to go through the committee, but that would be a good way to do it. Linda Slaney pointed out changes to the bylaws can be rejected by the President's Office.
 

Sally Kroehnke said she was concerned that the press left before the discussion and wondered if the Communications Committee or someone should make some kind of report to the media. Clyde said he had mixed feelings about that. He said he would call Joan [Kloer, of The Athens Banner Herald] but then realized she was present.
 

Stephanie Watson announced she is chair of the King Week committee. This year they will have a community service project and forms for volunteers are available.
 

Lois Morrison reported the ESP [Employee Support Program] ad hoc committee is in a lull, but the proposal has been revised and is under review by Bryndis Roberts.
 

Clyde expressed his appreciation to the assembly for the rational and respectful way in which the discussion was conducted. He noted if some people feel they need to discuss the issues in a different forum, there are resources available. The meeting adjourned at 4:00. The next meeting will be Wednesday, December 3 at 2:00 in Room E/F of the Georgia Center.
 
 
Submitted by Brenda Keen, Secretary