1

Minutes Board Meeting, June 2, 1977

MEMBERS PRESENT: Michael Williams, Larry Biscamp, Chuck Cole, Emil Ladner, Jack Rowan, and Judy Taylor.

VISITORS PRESENT: Sid Fry, Ann Steiner, Barry Ryan, Linda Perotti, Richard Clarke, Darrell Ray, Jerry Hughes, Judy Heumann, Hale Zukas, Terry Britt, Bobbi Hardy, and Sue Pfluger.

Williams opens and moves that Rowan introduce the issue of the Media Task Force project.

Rowan: A matter has come before us that is not on tonight's agenda. Richard Clarke and Darrell Ray are here tonight representing the Media Task Force. This project involves producing a film about disability and is to be made by disabled people. Standard Oil Corporation has agreed to fund a half million dollars for the project. Standard would also like to have CIL's endorsement of the film. The question is how deeply CIL will be involved and whether or not the Board is willing to lend our endorsement. This question is holding up the funding of Standard Oil Corporation.

Heuman: There is an important meeting this coming Monday involving high level Standard executives to determine the fate of the funding. We would like to have representatives from CIL present at this meeting.

Hughes: It is strictly an inhouse meeting, there can be no outside people. However, I would be glad to present a letter stating CIL's point of view.

Discussion of this project followed. Among the points made by Hughes, Clarke and Ray were: a) this project could be the beginning of a 5-10 year commitment on the part of Standard Oil to an affirmative action program, b) that Standard Oil would scrap the project without CIL's endorsement, and c) that CIL would be a conduit for the funding (i.e. all checks, all money, all legal documents the whole contract will be signed by CIL). Heuman discussed the points to be included in the letter to be presented at the Monday meeting.

Rowan: I move that the Board of Directors of CIL endorse the Media Task Force proposal of Standard Oil Corporation subject to approval by those members of the Board of Directors not present.

Judy Taylor seconds. Motion carries.

Cole defers to Heuman for the following motion.


2

Heuman: I move that the Director and the Deputy Director be directed to write a letter to be presented at Monday's Standard Oil meeting which:

1) clarifies the motion passed by the Board and

2) outlines CIL's interest in further meetings to discuss support of CIL financially over the next five years.

Second by Taylor. Motion carries.

Taylor: Before we get to tonight's main order of business, I would like to bring before the Board a resolution changing some check signers on the Business Enterprises account. The secretary will now read the resolution.

Secretary: "Be it resolved, that the following persons are authorized to draw checks on Ban of America account # 5533-03795:

  1. Earl Jacobson
  2. CeCe Moore
  3. Terry Flash
  4. Barbara Powers

I, _____, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly adopted by the Board of Directors of the Center for Independent Living, Inc., at a meeting of said Board regularly called and convened on _____ at the Center for Independent Living, Inc., at which a quorum () of said Board of Directors was present and voting, and that said Resolution was adopted by a majority of all Directors present at said meeting. In WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand as Recording Secretary of said Corporation this _____"

_____

Recording Secretary

This resolution was adopted unanimously by the Board.

Taylor: We now come to the main order of business of tonight's Board meeting. On May 24, the Board chairman received a memo from Gloria Stoft, who was, at that time, employed by CIL as Research Evaluator for the Research and Development Project. Ms. Stoft left the employ of the CIL at the end of May. Ms. Stoft currently holds a seat on the City of Berkeley's Personnel Board.

Ms. Stoft alledges in her memo that CIL violated its affirmative action policy by not properly posting and circulating two job positions within the R&D Department.


3

On May 26, the Executive Director of CIL sent the chair a memo explaining the administration side of the situation. It is apparent from this nemo that deviations from CIL's hiring procedure did occur.

The Board is here to discuss the facts of the situation. We are not here to discuss personalities; nor are we here to resolve internal conflicts within a specific department. We are here to review policy and perhaps make changes in that policy. I hope the chair makes itself clear.

As stated in his memo, the Executive Director has held several conversations with the Board chair about proposed changes in CIL hiring policy. The changes were embodied in a proposed ammendment that was sent out to each Board member. I would like a spokesperson for the administration to explain to the Board why the proposed ammendment to the CIL personnel policies is needed.

Heuman: The proposed change in the personnel policy was developed to try to do away with some of the problems that have gone on over the last year regarding hiring. There have been a number, not a significant number, but a number of cases where there have been people who have been working either as consultants or volunteers within the organization for a number of months and have basically proved their ability to be able to do the job that they've been working at, and funding has been secured which has enabled those job positions to be opened. Until the present we have been running under a policy whereby when a job opening has become available, unless it is a temporary position which under the personnel policy does not need to be opened up for a 3 month period of time, we've been operating under a procedure which requires that all positions be posted and that interview procedures be undertaken to hire an individual. Some of the problems that that has produced is basically advertising for people to apply for a position when it's been pretty well known that it's going to be impossible to get somebody in who is going to be able to demonstrate their ability to eo a job better than the person who is currently doing volunteer work or whatever. There has been concern raised by both people in the administration and a staff person that this is a situation which is not really showing a good faith effort on the part of the organization. One of the parts of the personnel procedure states that a person who in fact has been doing volunteer work or is on the staff would have preferential


4
treatment when in fact a position was opened or when a seniority, a step up kind of position was available. The resolution which has been presented is being presented to basically try and alleviate us opening up positions in a manner which is really a pretty fradulent kind of situation. This proposal is basically to try and rectify those few situations which have occurred and will continue to occur so that we're presenting an honest image in the eyes of the public. One of Phil's proposals that he is bringing forth is that we post haste go after funding to be able to secure a personnel manager and that in part the responsibility of the personnel manager would be to develop an affirmative action plan which would be broader than a paper affirmative action plan. One of the real issues involved here is being able to go out and seek disabled individuals who are double minority group persons to be able to step into positions and to make them aware of the organization and to try to assist them in going up the ladder.

Sid Fry representing the R&D staff submitted the attached letter stating that Department's views on the case in point.

Ann Steiner, representing the Co-ordinating Council, presented several concerns about the inefficiency of the present hiring policy:

  1. the conflict over advertising pre-selected positions
  2. not rewarding competent volunteers with guaranteed placement
  3. not having inhouse promotion procedure.

The Council saw a need for revision of the present policy but in a more detailed manner than the present proposal.

Heuman stated that the union representative agreed to the present proposal. She suggested that a review hiring committee be set up to limit the Executive Director's possible abuse of the proposal. Rowan stated that he did not like the form of the present proposal. There was a general discussion about past and present CIL hiring practices. This concluded by referring the needed revisions to the Co-ordinating Council.

Williams: Besides that issue what are we going to do about the current problem in R&D?

Heuman: The positions are now posted.

Rowan: If the positions are now posted, then we have answered charges of Gloria's letter.

Heuman stated that CIL is without fault in its affirmative hiring practices, and that we had no need to feel apologetic in these matters.


5

A general discussion followed as to whether CIL needed to respond formally to Ms. Stoft's letter. Chuck Cole statedthat since Ms. Stoft had not gone through the established grievance procedure there was no need for the Board to respond. Since the Executive Director had written a response to her that if that response is approved by the Board the matter is resolved.

This action was discussed with the interested parties of R&D who were present and they expressed satisfaction with such a resolution.

Heuman: I move that the Board of Directors accept Phil's letter in response to Gloria's letter as a definite response to this issue. Rowan seconds. Two ayes, zero nays, two abstentions.

Rowan moves to adjourn. Unanimous.

Chuck Cole moves. Jack Rowen seconds.

The Board of Directors takes the following action with regard to the complaint by Gloria Stoft on May 24, 1977:

  1. Under CIL personnel policy, such a complaint should be filed with the Executive Director of CIL.
  2. The chairperson properly referred this complaint back to the Executive Director of CIL.
  3. The Executive Director prepared a written response which addressed most of the questions which were raised in Ms. Stoft's complaint, and introduced some other issues.
  4. The Board accepts the Executive Director's response, and notes that it (the Board) believes that Acting Project Director Ryan's motives in the whole matter were above question.
  5. In the matter of the complaint, the Board elects to take no further action at this time.
  6. In the matter of the Executive Director's proposed changes in the personnel policy, the Board defers action and authorizes the chairperson to appoint a committee to further consider this issue.