University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

Chancellor's Committee on the Status of Women

Meeting Minutes

8:30-10:00 a.m., 500 Swanlund Administration Building

I. Announcements

A. Welcome to all members.

B. Please mark your calendars for the next meeting date: Friday, May 6, 2005,
     12:00-1:30 p.m., Room 300 Swanlund Administration Building.

II. Old Business

A. Approval of minutes of the March 15, 2005 meeting.

B. Recommendations on the Advisory Structure: Kal Alston suggested that the committee
     needed to suggest multiple structures to deal with issues related to women and gender.

1. Kal Alston gave an overview of the structure of the University of Minnesota model
    and highlighted that their women's group brings issues forward. They had organized
    a national conference in 2000 bringing all the institutions together for a common
    cause. Minnesota had combined and restructured the Department of Student Affairs.
    She explained that this group delivered a highly consolidated and professional
    advocacy role to returning students and non-conventional women. They also have
    about five scholarships and fellowships to offer to the women. She highlighted the
    salient features of the University of Michigan model. They have a Center for
    Education of Women, Department of Women's Studies and an Institute for
    Research on Women. They function like a service organization providing services
    from career counseling to research studies. A development officer is the director
    of the center and also the chair of the commission. These three groups set up the
    agenda for the President's Board. She outlined the main features of the Ohio
    State University model stating that there is a clear definition of the hierarchy of
    power. A separate President's Commission on Women meets three times in a
    year and carries out the activities in working groups. It oversees the Women's
    Place, its evaluation and budgetary concerns. Women's Place serves as a
    broader resource and provides space for the support groups. They collect data
    for the report turned in by the President's Commission.

2. Kal Alston summarized the main features of all the models emphasized that all these
    campuses have a dedicated professional staff dealing with women's issues and a
    part of their job was to keep data and support women oriented projects. She also
    emphasized that we have the same issues as Ohio State University regarding student
    participation. However, Ohio State University has dedicated working groups
    constantly working on these issues.

3. Patricia Morey apprised the committee members of the services offered by the
    Office of Women's Programs for 31 years. The office has been offering
    scholarships, conducting interventions for women's issues and providing related
    services also.

4. Kathleen Pecknold informed the committee that a study was conducted on the
    status of women in all the three University of Illinois campuses during the term of
    Michael Aiken.

5. Kal Alston suggested that the information collected at the time could serve as
    baseline data for us.

6. Ginger Winckler suggested that certain processes that were carried out annually
    should be institutionalized.

7. Kathleen Pecknold informed the committee that the data and information were
    scattered in different departments and units across the campus. The Office of Equal     Opportunity and Access conducts an equity study on an annual basis but they just
    provide the data and analysis has to be done on that data.

8. Kathleen Pecknold reiterated her concerns that the efforts are carried out on a
    piecemeal basis and there is no single institute on campus to handle the affair in a
    consolidated manner.

9. Kal Alston again highlighted the merits of the Ohio State University's model stating
    that they have a big apparatus in place to deal with such issues. A separate vice
    president deals with women's affairs. However, in our case it becomes increasingly
    difficult for the committee to function under such conditions. It is imperative to
    have a view over time and not just respond to current situations. We need to
    collect data on an annual basis to be able to function and be effective.

10. Kathleen Pecknold suggested that the committee could request for data from
      Carol Livingstone, Office of Equal Opportunity and Access, different colleges
      and departments. The data can then be reviewed and questioned in case certain
      discrepancies are found.

11. Patricia Morey suggested that CCSW could guide these units toward the kind
      of questions that we need them to ask and collect data for our purpose.

12. Kal Alston emphasized again that the committee has been collecting data or
      raising such concerns whenever we require. It is essential to have a professional
      handling such issues on a regular basis.

13. Jennifer Lewis expressed that there might be some women's issues that are
      related to specific departments.

14. Ginger Winckler raised her concerns on how to draw on the existing
      resources that we have in the committee.

15. Kal Alston informed the committee that we had not been able to conduct the
      student survey over a period of three or four years.

16. Kathleen Pecknold informed the committee that the data after such surveys
      goes directly to the Deans and not to us.

17. Cheryl Bullock told the committee that this was done in order to maintain the
      confidentiality of the data collected.

18. Kathleen Pecknold reiterated her concerns that the committee looks at certain
      issues at the beginning of each year but as time passes, the consistency is lost. We
      need to look at the broader picture.

19. Cheryl Bullock questioned about the kind of data that is available on campus
      currently.

20. Kathleen Pecknold volunteered to ask the Office of Affirmative Action to know
      about the data that they already have.

21. Ginger Winckler emphasized that these mechanisms should be institutionalized
      before Kathleen Pecknold leaves the University.

22. Kal Alston reiterated that a strong foundation is required and we cannot look for
      issues every year.

23. Cheryl Bullock informed the committee that there were many committees present
      on the campus that have paid members entrusted with similar responsibilities.

C. Leadership Mentoring: Kal Alston apprised the committee about the program followed by
    OSU. The program is specifically designed for faculty members that have never been
    department heads to build future leaders. The program targets underrepresented groups.

1. Kal Alston informed the committee that this program tries to keep the department
    heads in conversation with each other and are also mentored by senior people
    simultaneously.

2. Ginger Winckler raised her concerns that we do not know what this campus has
    to offer, beyond the CIC-ALP program.

3. Kal Alston informed that this can be done in a more formal manner deepening the
    skills of the department heads. This system is lacking on our campus. CCSW
    recommended to the Chancellor that continuing opportunities be made available for
    administrators.

4. Patricia Morey informed the committee that about four years ago, Office of
    Student Affairs organized such a workshop. Experts from other campuses had
    come to conduct this month-long session and the group developed a sense of
    community.

5. Kal Alston emphasized that it was imperative to have a goal in mind and
    initiate competitive programs.

6. Patricia Morey reiterated that such a program will benefit all by creating a
    better climate.

7. Kal Alston raised her concerns that leaders on this campus do not identify talent
    or potential. OSU in their programs looks for people who can lead and have a
    vision.

III. Other Items