The ISU Professional and Scientific Council rejected a preliminary draft of a child leave policy with concerns about the amount of time allowed for maternity leave, paternity leave and general family issues.

Faculty Senate President Christine Pope said the revised child leave policy was rejected Feb. 6 because it was too narrowly defined.

The policy needs to include time off for not only child care, but also elder care, spousal care and circumstances beyond the employee’s control.

The existing policy, created by the Clinton administration, required any employer to give an employee three months of family leave with no pay, and the Family Medical Leave Act guaranteed 12 weeks of leave, according to Professional and Scientific Council President Rex Heer.

But Carla Espinoza, assistant vice president for human resource services, said not all employees need or want that much time, and the policy does not suit the needs of the employees who need the child leave benefits sooner than the designated year-long waiting period.

Espinoza said employers should consider each employee’s circumstances and individual requests for family leave instead of adhering strictly to an existing policy created by the federal government that no longer fits the needs of many employees.

She has been working with others on the policy revisions for nearly a year.

“The real issue here is the workload,” Espinoza said. “Employers are concerned that either they will be unable to find anyone else qualified to do the work, or overloading other employees in order to compensate.”

Espinoza said the policy is “not about equality.”

“We want creative decisions to be made on the basis of individual circumstances,” she said.

Another issue at stake affecting the faculty perspective is tenure.

Taking a leave of absence would affect the tenure clock because obtaining tenure would take longer to earn with increased time off. Pope said a longer waiting period for tenure would be necessary.

“Like so many other occupations designed for men, these positions need to adjusted under the new realities of women in the workplace,” she said.

“There definitely needs to be much more flexibility among employers. Children and family are just too important.”

The only opposition to the proposed policy, Heer said, is that there are those who choose not to have families and so have no use for the benefits.

“But I think most people are sympathetic to those who do have families,” Heer said.

“The policy simply needs more clarification. I hope that in not supporting the first draft, people don’t get the wrong impression and believe we don’t support it at all.”

The next council meeting is scheduled for 2 p.m. on March 7 at the Memorial Union Gallery.