Agenda — April 1, 1998
9:30 a.m.–Meeting, Assembly Room of Wilson Library
I. Call to Order
II. Welcome Guests, Members of the Press, New University Gazette Editor Scott Ragland
III. Opening Remarks
* Chancellor Michael Hooker
IV. Special Presentations
* UNC System President Molly Corbett Broad
* Executive Director for Academic Technologies & Networks John Oberlin and Training Center Manager Janet Tysinger on Computer-Based Training (CBT) Program
V. Employee Presentations
VI. Human Resources Update
* Laurie Charest, Associate Vice Chancellor, Human Resources
VII. Approval of Minutes of the March 4, 1998 meeting
VIII. Unfinished Business
IX. New Business
* Resolution in Favor of Continuing Funding for Diversity Training Program
* Discussion: Cost of University Child Care Center?
* Discussion: Departmental Staff Meetings?
X. Chair’s Report (Executive Committee): Linwood Futrelle
* Presentation from Kay Straughn Concerning Human Resources Information System
* Response on Employee Concern on Payroll Lag Times Received
* Forum Highlights Page Distributed to All Employees
* Response from Pete Andrews on Training for Faculty in Supervisory Resources Positions
* IACLEA Report
* Forum Guidelines & Committee Review
XI. Stretch Time
XII. Committee Reports:
* Career Development—Gwen Burston/Bob Schreiner
=> Update: Proposed Resolution from Faculty Council Liaison Ron Strauss
=> Update: Implementation Progress of Computer Literacy Resolution
=> Evaluation Instruments for Audio/Video Training Library, Career Counselor Position
=> Revision to February Career Development Minutes
* Communications—Jennifer Henderson/Jim Barnes
=> Revision of Forum Web Page
=> Forum Public Relations Plan
* Compensation and Benefits—Tommy Brickhouse
* Employee Presentations—Jeffery Beam
=> Spring Community Meeting
* Nominating—Lucille Brooks
* Orientation—Nancy Tannenbaum
* Personnel Policies—Martha Barbour
* Recognition and Awards—Joyce Dalgleish
=> Recognition of “Unseen” Contributors to Forum?
* University Committee Assignments—Anne Montgomery
=> Public Safety Director Selection Committee Search
XIII. Task Force Reports
* Board of Trustees Presentation Task Force—Linwood Futrelle
=> Extraordinary Accomplishments by UNC Employees?
* Employee Appreciation Fair Booth Task Force—-Linwood Futrelle
* Grievance Procedure Task Force—Bob Schreiner
* Intellectual Climate Task Force—Libby Evans
=> Survey Response from UNC Employees
* Outsourcing Team Representatives—Bennie Griffin/Ann Hamner
* School Volunteerism Task Force—Libby Evans
* Transit and Parking Task Force Representative—Libby Evans/Gwen Burston
=> Community Meeting April 8
=> Concerns: Allocation Process for Permits?
* UNC System Staff Assembly—Bob Schreiner/Terry Teer
* University Priorities & Budget Committee—Linwood Futrelle
* Faculty Council Liaisons
XVI. Announcements/Questions
XV. Adjournment
MINUTES
Minutes
April 1, 1998
| Delegates Present | Betty Averette | Martha Barbour | Jeffery Beam |
| Pat Bigelow | Linwood Blalock | Connie Boyce | Mary Braxton |
| Tommy Brickhouse | Lucille Brooks | Gwen Burston | Denise Childress |
| Jean Coble | Mitch Copeland | Joyce Dalgleish | Martha Davidson |
| Linda Drake | Linwood Futrelle | Betty Geer | Sherry Graham |
| Jennifer Henderson | Al Jeter | Bettye Jones | Steve Jones |
| Ken Litowsky | Dee Dee Massey | Eileen McGrath | Lesa McPherson |
| Anne Montgomery | Jackie Overton | Barbara Prear | Frances Rountree |
| Bob Schreiner | Stephanie Stadler | Cheryl Stout | Nancy Tannenbaum |
| Terry Teer | Queen Tutt | Carol Worrell | Ted Wright |
| Laurie Charest“ | “ = Ex-Officio | Delegates Absent | Elizabeth Evans |
| William Grice | Phil Hearne | LaEula Joyner | Dail White |
| Kenneth Yow | Alternates Present | Jim Barnes | Aretha Chavis |
| Kim Gardner | Connie McPherson | Guests | Molly Corbett Broad |
| Angela Eubanks | Elson Floyd | Ann Hamner | Michael Hooker |
| Mitch Kokai | Cheryl Lytle | John Oberlin | Scott Ragland |
| Janet Tysinger | Kelly Wade |
Call to Order, Welcome to Guests
Chair Linwood Futrelle called the meeting to order at 9:30 a.m. The Chair asked members to sign in and to examine the routing file as it was passed around the room. He welcomed the new editor of the University Gazette Scott Ragland, and the Forum gave Ragland a warm round of applause.
Special Presentation
The Chair was proud to welcome UNC System President Molly Corbett Broad to address the Forum and thanked Chancellor Michael Hooker for extending himself to arrange this presentation. Broad recalled the many positive praises she had heard concerning the Forum’s work, and she was very pleased to have the chance to see the Forum personally in action. Broad commented that the University cannot function without the contributions of its Employees, and noted how fortunate we are to be a part of such a marvelous institution.
Broad noted that universities are among the most significant institutions that exist in human society, and she commented on the opportunity each Employee has to play a role in supporting and maintaining this important tradition. Universities help t o transform individuals and improve the quality of our community and society in general. Moreover, the goal and mission of the University is much larger than the contributions than any one of us can make. Nonetheless, we can count ourselves a part of a legacy that existed long before we were placed upon this earth and will exist long after we are gone.
Broad recalled efforts on the part of the Forum’s leadership to establish a staff group similar to the Faculty Assembly which would represent all of the campuses of the UNC system. She had received various communications from the Forum concerning this effort, and thus found it most useful to see the Forum personally in order to assess what she had heard and seen about the group.
A group representing the larger effort to create a staff assembly met recently with System Vice President Roy Carroll around two months ago. Broad said that she had forwarded the materials that the staff assembly had produced to system chancellors asking them to consult on this subject and report back around May 1 with their ideas and responses. She recalled that only around half of the UNC campuses have a staff organization of any sort, and so noted the implications of this effort on campus es lacking staff assemblies if there were to be created a System-wide Staff Assembly.
Broad was very sympathetic and supportive of the goals of the Staff Assembly. She noted the goal “to gather and exchange information among system campuses,” and recalled the number of innovative programs in place at UNC-Chapel Hill that could be shared with other constituent institutions. Another goal of the Staff Assembly is “to advise and communicate to the System President and the Board of Governors, on matters of policy that staff consider to be important to the University.” The Assembly also seeks “to foster the development and improvement of each individual campus.” Broad felt that these were all important and worthy goals for the nascent assembly. She was looking forward to the report back from the chancellors in order to determine the best path to proceed.
Broad recalled that President C.D. Spangler had met with the Forum a year or so ago, and felt that her visit was a continuation of a conversation that began with him. She noted that during Spangler’s visit, he had commented that the University sometimes spends too much time looking in the mirror, or navel-gazing, and not enough time looking outward to the world at large. Broad thought accomplishing this shift in perspective would become more important as the pace of change changes what higher education means and what it can do to improve individuals and society.
Accordingly, Broad sought to share some issues that the University will grapple with that set the stage for the external change that will affect the University and the lives of all within. Broad thought that outlining these changes would dovetail nicely with the staff initiative to enhance options for professional training and development.
Broad used a Power Point presentation to outline these developments. She began by addressing the extent to which external changes will hold internal implications for the University that go far beyond what has occurred previously. Broad noted labels like the “ivory tower” and the “place on the hill” suggest that the university is removed from the bustle and pressures of everyday life in today’s economy. However, this remove has become less and less the case, and Broad noted that unless the university positions itself to take advantage of changes as appropriate, it runs the risk that change will wash over it without planning or control.
Today, education is more important than it has ever been during the course of our lifetimes. To summarize, Broad’s presentation focused on the rapid increase in demand for education at the undergraduate and graduate level, how higher education is inextricably linked to the strength of our local, state and federal economies, and how the transformation of computing and communications technologies is changing our personal and work lives. Broad knew that many listeners were aware of how the pace of change in the amount of knowledge available has increased dramatically at a rate that can no longer be closely managed. Whereas a University education was previously thought of as mastering a body of knowledge in a particular field, today this mastery is near-impossible given that knowledge is increasing at such a rapid rate. Finally, these realities combine with the impact of globalization in the sum of problems and opportunities facing the University system.
The world has arrived at a point at which holding a university education has never been more important than it is today. However, unless universities are prepared to understand and adapt to the changing needs of society, their preeminent place will be diminished.
Broad asserted that the University must prepare to deal with rising enrollment demands. Typically when the University prepares its enrollment projections, it must consider numbers in the population from ages 18-25, as this cohort is the target population that emerges from the educational pipeline. North Carolina’s population will grow by nearly a quarter-million people between now and the year 2005, a comparatively very heavy rate of growth. Numbers of people aged 25-45 will change hard ly at all in these years, with a decrease in people aged 25-35 more than offset by people aged 35-45. The cohort aged 45-65 will show a dramatic rate of growth with around 670,000 more people over the time measured. Broad emphasized that these people w ill look to the University to provide education in sheer numbers that it has never experienced before.
One may project the numbers of traditional age constituents (ages 18-25) by examining current elementary and junior-high enrollment levels. While North Carolina ranks 10th or 11th among states in current population, it stands 4th in K-12 enrollment in the next ten years (behind Texas, California, and Georgia). Southern states Virginia, Florida, and Tennessee rank prominently as well. Interestingly, New York, a state which has commonly ranked at the top of enrollment lists, now ranks much farther down.
These indicators point to the growing prominence of the South and the West as a leader in national population growth and economic potential. These indicators also explain why education is foremost in the minds of the State’s policymakers who conclude rightly that educational investment eventually yields in economic growth.
However, these demographic pressures are emerging in an environment in which states are dis-investing in higher education. Signs point to negative net investment in higher education among southern states. One way that economists measure financial priorities is to determine how much is spent on items per $1,000 of personal income. During the period from 1979-1998, North Carolina has experienced an almost 25% reduction in the amount of real dollars invested in its University relative to its economic strength (measured by personal income). Measurements also show a decline in the amount of support dedicated by North Carolina State Government to the University. In the 1980s, the University received more than 17.5% of the State budget but now receives only around 13% of this sum.
Thus, the University’s position as a reflection of the State’s priorities has diminished at the very time it is being asked to prepare for a time of dramatic growth in enrollment and to serve a growing range of social and economic need s. Other southern states face similar difficulties; for example, as the result of sharp political differences, Virginia has experienced a 44% decline in what the state had been investing in higher education, which has lead to dramatically rising tuition rates at institutions like the University of Virginia.
A recent (1995) report from the U.S. Department of Commerce depicts the personal return from investments in higher education. Comparing economic levels of individuals without a high school degree, with those holding a high school degree, an associate degree, a baccalaureate, a masters’, a professional and a doctorate as a stream of income earned over one’s lifetime demonstrates a steep rate of growth as return from one’s investment in education. Return from investment in higher education is turning upward, and the more education one is able to secure the more secure one will be financially over a lifetime. A person with a bachelors’ degree is likely to earn 75% more than a person only holding a high school diploma, and a person with a professional degree is likely to earn almost 400% that of a person solely holding a high school diploma.
North Carolina compares rather poorly with other states in the percentage of residents holding a high school diploma and a bachelors’ degree. Troublingly, the gap between North Carolina and the nation as a whole has increased in the last few y ears. This fact greatly impedes North Carolina drive to meet its economic goals. How much education can the State make available, and how can the University reach citizens lacking ready access to University campuses, time, and a family tradition of increasing one’s education? Many citizens must juggle family and work responsibilities and so are currently unable to dedicate themselves full-time to increasing their store of knowledge.
North Carolinians rank below the national average in levels of educational achievement and per capita personal income. In the South, North Carolina ranks behind Virginia, Georgia, and Florida with regard to these measures.
In the meantime, there is a dramatic shift of jobs in the state and national economy away from farming and manufacturing. Figures indicate a dramatic climb from 1973 — 2000 in the number of workers in professional services and retail trades. In addition, there is emerging a tremendous demand for workers with information technology skills both locally and nationally. Pressure is growing in Congress to expand the number of visas allotted foreign workers with technology skills to fill these jobs. The day is rapidly approaching when everyone will need to demonstrate some mastery of information technology skills in order to be effective in the workplace.
One can study the attitudes of those already employed about what they must do to hold their positions or advance in the workforce. Roughly 7 out of 10 individuals, at all levels of education, feel it necessary to add to their store of post-baccalaureate or university level education in order to continue their success in the workforce.
Data also shows similar levels of commitment among all age groups. Half of all respondents in their 40s want or have been encouraged by their employer to obtain additional education. This desire extends to people through age 65, retirement age. In sum, regardless of one’s age, education level or possibly even income level, employees believe the best way to keep their current job or obtain a better job is to gain access to university-level education. Similarly, employers believe that the best way to maintain competitiveness is to secure and maintain a high-skilled workforce.
Peter Drucker, management guru at the Claremont Business School, stated in a recent issue of the Harvard Business Review that the only economic advantage that the U.S. will be able to rely on in the future is its supply of “knowledge workers.” Drucker observes that knowledge constantly makes itself obsolete and today’s advanced knowledge becomes tomorrow’s ignorance.
This point leads to the recent dramatic explosion of knowledge. The sum total of human knowledge was doubled between the years 1750 and 1900; it doubled again between 1900 and 1950, doubled again from 1950 to 1960, doubled again from 1960 to 1965, and has doubled again at least once every five years since then. By the year 2000, 97% of what is known by that time will have been discovered or invented since those reading this were born. It is further projected that by the year 2020 the sum total of human knowledge or information will double every 73 days.
Broad inferred that it is most unrealistic for students obtaining their baccalaureate degrees to believe they have gained mastery of a subject to last a lifetime. She concluded that it is most important that the University teach its students ho w to learn, to find information on an ongoing basis, and to upgrade their knowledge and skills. Broad suggested this point directly relates to the Staff Assembly’s push to develop professional skills among campus staff personnel.
Concerning the digital revolution, Broad recalled that Nicholas Negroponte of Wired magazine and MIT had remarked to her that the United States has nearly universal digital literacy among 14 year-olds. Broad asked whether the University was prepare d to instruct this new population. She noted that Chancellor Hooker has urged the University to begin planning for the day when every student will arrive on campus with a computer and the expectation to use this computer in every class as an integrated part of their learning.
Negroponte also pointed out that the next most digitally literate age group is composed of people over age 60, people who presumably have retired and have more time to expand their technological skills. The group in between Negroponte referred to a s the “digitally hopeless” — people too busy to keep up with the latest but charged to “run the world.”
Broad told the story of a good friend, the president of Cal Tech with a degree in engineering from Cornell. This friend’s son, who holds a degree in aeronautical engineering, gave him an upgrade for his home personal computer for Christmas. The father and son were trying unsuccessfully to install the upgrade while the grandson, aged 12, was trying to watch a football game. After some time, the grandson said, “it’s nearly half-time; if you two promise to leave the room I’ll take care of installing the upgrade. Then we can all watch the football game together.” The pair left the room and the grandson accordingly installed the upgrade. The Forum was amazed at the technical dexterity of the grandson, gained by using this equipment, in comparison with two distinguished members of older generations. Broad noted that members of this younger generation will soon enter the university demanding a challenging digital learning environment.
With regard to the UNC system, Broad outlined how these developments relate to plans underway for the provision of services to students. Discussions with chancellors emphasize innovation in the delivery of campuses’ academic programs. Universities have remained virtually the same for a span of centuries, and the image of a good teacher instructing attentive students via lectern and chalkboard persists as the operative metaphor for higher education. While this metaphor is important, relevant and valuable, there are changes — previously described — give the University a chance to enrich and broaden the learning process once it realizes how to use these new tools.
Within the medical community, there is an expectation that what is learned in medical school will eventually become obsolete and that doctors must continually update themselves and learn to use new tools. One would certainly prefer an experienced surgeon up to date on the latest equipment over an inexperienced surgeon fluent with this equipment or an experienced surgeon who had not kept up to date. Broad thought it a challenge for the University to blend the marvelous skills that faculty have ob tained with a similar commitment to constant professional development on the part of faculty.
The University is responsible to its students in a way that maintains academic standards not simply responding to students as customers. However, if the University cannot be responsive to students and others who believe their livelihood depends on the quality of higher education, it is not living up to the role and mission it has been charged to serve. To accomplish this mission, the University must find new ways to stand accountable to its patrons — the Governor, the Legislature, and t he federal government; parents and students; alumni and friends of the University; and the citizens of this State. Broad believed that each campus will need increased managerial flexibility so that it can best respond to these needs with a minimum of bureaucracy and red tape. However, she also felt that if the University is to receive this flexibility it must find another means to provide accountability to the State Legislature.
Broad believed that in areas where the University does not possess core strengths, it should pursue strategic partnerships and alliances with other universities and companies delivering “essential commodities” such as electricity, water, and, no w, communications services.
Finally, Broad desired that the University seek to utilize technologies in ever more sophisticated ways both to enhance the quality of instruction in traditional classrooms and to reach students unable to come to classrooms. An important part of this effort is to make investments and re-allocations within each campus that draw on all areas to provide these incremental resources for technology. Broad granted that the subject of reallocation was a harsh reality, but felt it important that each campus community publicly develop its own plan to ready itself for the aforementioned digitally literate youngsters.
Broad offered to respond to listeners’ questions and comments. Members gave her a round of applause. Chancellor Hooker apologized for his belated arrival, noting that he helps teach a medical school class that had unfortunately run over due to student presentations. Hooker also introduced Kelly Wade, the student appointed to serve as “Chancellor for a Day.” Members gave Wade a round of applause.
Hooker noted how blessed the University is to have Broad serving as president of the UNC System. He praised her understanding of changes taking place in the world and their impact on higher education, particularly on the State and University of North Carolina. Hooker said there was no one in higher education whom he had a higher regard for than Broad.
Hooker said that the Employee Forum has addressed changing the way the University conducts its business to improve its functions and better serve the people of North Carolina from the first day he had arrived on campus as chancellor. Hooker said that the Forum had been a close partner and thanked members for their work. He recognized that it is not easy to change but noted the University’s obligation to employ its resources in the best way it possibly can to serve the State’s changing needs. Hooker praised Broad’s conception of these changes and noted that the University will announce various initiatives to benefit the people of the State in the next six months.
Sherry Graham noted the wonderful privilege afforded Employees to take a course at the University free of charge during the fall and spring. She asked if it would be possible for Employees to take a free course during the summer session. Graham understood that summer schools are funded differently than regular academic terms, but felt that this subject would be relevant on any system campus where employees could benefit from the relatively lighter work load and tighter schedule of classes in the summer session.
Hooker said that the University does want its Employees to take courses as this self-improvement serves everyone involved including the State. Summer school has presented a unique administrative challenge in the past because summer school is considered self-supporting and thus must take in enough through tuition and fees to meet its costs. Any time an Employee enters a course, particularly a popular course, for free this exemption denies a place to a paying student and creates difficulty for the self-supporting status of summer school. Broad has advanced a proposal to the Legislature that will treat summer school like the regular session, recognizing the summer session as a service that the University provides the State. The proposal, if approved, w ould lead to State financial support of summer school and allow the University to treat summer school like the fall and spring semesters for purposes of Employee enrollment.
Broad observed the great amount of work underway on campus to deliver training to employees of corporations and other organizations across the country; in comparison, the University, a knowledge-based institution, has not yet found a way to streamline how its workers maintain and upgrade their skills. Broad was enthusiastic about the summer school proposal’s provision of resources for Employees desiring to increase their skills.
Broad asked why the change has not yet been enacted. Granting the common answer about red tape and methods of funding, Broad still thought that there were good reasons to enact this proposal. Hooker commented that the University did not want its Employees to be like “the cobbler’s children who had no shoes.”
Nancy Tannenbaum noted the amount of attention surrounding distance learning and wondered if the University was preparing for the time when students could obtain a degree in distance learning. If such a degree is enacted, what are the implications a re for students physically enrolling in the University?
Broad said that first and foremost each campus must make these decisions for themselves given the appropriate mix of information resources and outreach. She believed that it will be extraordinarily challenging for any campus to confer a baccalaureate degree at a distance given the range of goals and expectations central to achievement of the B.A. Broad did not feel it could not be done, but sought to emphasize the extraordinary and careful thought necessary for a campus to deliver an entire baccalaureate degree via distance learning. In fact, she thought it easier to obtain a masters’ degree or other graduate degree via distance learning than to obtain what is commonly recognized as the bachelors’ degree in this way.
Hooker did not feel that a baccalaureate degree could be realistically achieved solely through distance learning. However, he noted that for some North Carolinians, the prospect of earning a residential degree is near impossible. During his 100 county tour, Hooker became aware of a population of graduates from North Carolina’s community colleges who hold associate’s degrees, have been in the work force for ten or more years, and maintain families, mortgages, and jobs. These people cannot drop everything to move to Chapel Hill in order to complete a bachelors’ degree, and yet are in the category who desire or who have been asked by their employer to gain additional skills. North Carolinians with whom he spoke generally desired a me ans to obtain bachelors’ degrees without leaving their jobs and families, and asked the University to find a way to make this achievement possible.
Hooker said that the University was examining establishing a baccalaureate completion degree for associate degree holders who cannot establish residence on campus. He felt that this type of completion degree certainly compared favorably with doing nothing at all. Hooker thought that one could easily defend establishing internet-based completion degrees for a population needing to upgrade its skills and knowledge base.
The University recognizes that what is most valuable about a bachelors’ degree from UNC-CH is not simply what is learned from textbooks and class but the entire ambiance associated with the Chapel Hill setting. Intramural athletics, Student Government, the Daily Tar Heel, residence hall activities, and conferring with fellow students all are ingredients that make up the residential liberal arts degree. Thus, a bachelors’ degree solely earned over the internet cannot compare to a residential degree, but still holds a place in serving the people of the state.
Hooker added that the internet also will serve a purpose in certificate and graduate programs. For instance, one conferred masters’ degree in public health is internet-based and is issued to public health professionals who are currently engaged in their jobs and who cannot remove themselves to Chapel Hill.
Vice-Chair Jeffery Beam was intrigued by Broad’s slide which indexed age groups with their respective educational needs. He asked if a projection existed for the types of knowledge that people aged 45-65 will require aside from technology-based skills. Broad thought that these needs will vary according to individual geographic location and employer.
In conversations with consulting firms, Broad had heard expressed an urgent need for training within American corporations, ranging from briefings about new laws and opportunities to dramatic changes in engineering processes. She thought that the University will be well-placed to respond to these needs in contracts with private corporations needing up-to-date training. The University would like to establish its expectations, needs and requirements for adequate performance, leaving corporations to write the eventual contract for the University or group of universities to deliver this training. Broad thought it would be interesting for the University to find itself in a position to deliver on a contract wherein its own performance is being measure d rather than solely measuring student performance.
Beam concluded that this training will be directed at increasing service and professional skills. Broad thought a significant amount of work will be directed at providing certificates connoting a coherent set of programs and activities falling short of a completed graduate degree. The certificate would provide the recipient and their sponsoring corporation a credential confirming the attainment and understanding of certain skills.
Noting trends in which people are more likely to move from job to job, Graham raised the question of the University’s refusal to allow a second undergraduate degree. She asked if this stricture might be reconsidered. Hooker said that he wou ld endeavor to find the answer to this question. Executive Vice Chancellor Elson Floyd added that this subject has been a sticky point among members of the faculty. Conversations have dealt with the number of credits one receives at the University; hereto fore, the University has been very rigorous about granting credits, but the administration is looking at creating an early admissions mode in order to compete with its peer institutions. Floyd said that competing institutions are also known to be much more flexible with regard to conferring a second undergraduate degree. The University is exploring its options at this point.
Graham asked if this prohibition relates to the limit on the number of credits conferred at the current tuition rate. Floyd said this was the case.
In the absence of any further questions, Hooker asked the Forum to join him in thanking President Broad for her appearance and remarks. The Forum gave Broad a warm round of applause.
The Chair introduced Executive Director of Academic Technologies and Networks John Oberlin to speak on the new Computer Based Training system (CBT). Before Oberlin’s remarks, however, the Forum took a few moments to stretch. Oberlin thanked the Forum for the opportunity to speak about the CBT application. While the application is designed to improve computer competencies, Oberlin reiterated that the technology will also help to realize the vision of the future that Broad and Hooker previously described. Oberlin added that CBT courses are provided during the summer free of charge at (http://help.unc.edu/cbt.)
In December 1997 the Employee Forum approved a resolution advocating computer literacy and training for all UNC-Chapel Hill staff Employees. CBT courses have been available for downloading by all faculty, staff, and students, including General Administration, since the Fall 1997 semester. Since that time, almost 7,000 courses have been downloaded and used. Oberlin said that the new improved version of CBT has allowed UNC-Chapel Hill and General Administration to access all of these courses directly through the internet without even downloading courses the basic application. One may take these courses in one’s office, home or even on the road when available.
A range of over 300 courses is available on-line today through the world wide web to promote and provide access to training for all aspects of the University. These courses allow participants to develop computer competency and program skills at their own pace and leisure. For example, one can learn about which courses are available and the differing aspects of these courses through the on-line outline. Then, one may begin to take the course through the on-line format through the click of a mouse. Completion of courses can lead to certification in these skills from software manufacturers (as a Certified Microsoft Engineer, for example).
The University does not offer official certification courses over the web as students must attend a training center for citation; however, one may obtain all the preparation necessary on-line through CBT to take the test at the center.
Oberlin thanked Cheryl Lytle and Angela Eubanks who did the majority of the work to make CBT a reality. Also, he thanked Janet Tysinger, the head of the campus training center, for her work. Oberlin noted that Tysinger has closely worked with the Forum as its Vice-Chair in 1997. These individuals stood and received a round of applause.
Oberlin commented that he believed the Chancellor’s Carolina Computing Initiative (CCI) will make these types of technologies even more available to faculty, staff, and students. Oberlin offered to take questions from the group.
Hooker thanked Oberlin for his department’s efforts. He said he had been bragging about Carolina’s computing personnel as a national leader and was proud to point to the CBT initiative as evidence of this leadership. The Chair noted that Ange la Eubanks is a sophomore undergraduate at the University, a fact that underscored Negroponte’s point about the tendency of young people to exhibit high levels of digital literacy.
The Chair reiterated that this program can be freely accessed anywhere one may log onto the world wide web. The Chancellor said that he looked forward to trying out the CBT program himself (http://help.unc.edu/cbt.) At this point, President Broad and Chancellor Hooker took their leave.
Human Resources Update
Associate Vice Chancellor Laurie Charest noted that the Chancellor’s Award nomination forms will be mailed out to all Employees April 13, and are due to be returned Friday, May 1. There is a cash subsidy and leave award attached to thi s honor; winners are also nominated for the Governor’s Award.
The newly created Excellence in Management Award is eligible for presentation to anyone meeting a broad definition of manager: any manager of people or programs. Nomination forms will be mailed out April 15 for return by Friday, May 8, and t his honor also carries a cash award. Charest encouraged listeners to consider nominating their fellow Employees for this award, as recognizing Employees who do a wonderful job on behalf of the University is very important to encourage merit and excellence in work activities. Charest added that awards carrying a monetary component are few and far between, and thus she encouraged Employees to take these opportunities seriously.
Charest chose to take the rest of her time to discuss the recently expanded University Child Care program. She knew that many Delegates have probably received e-mails concerning the high cost of care in the center, and wished to give listeners information and background on the formation of the center then open the floor for discussion.
The University Child Care Center is administered jointly by the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and UNC Hospitals. The new facility will have 120 children ages 6 weeks to 5 years and is currently under construction next to the Friday Center. The building will be jointly owned by the University and the Hospital, and will be a state of the art child care facility designed with children in mind. The center has an abundance of bright colors, natural light and outdoor play areas for different age groups.
The building will be operated under contract by Victory Village Day Care Corporation, the non-profit organization that currently operates Victory Village Day Care Center which has been in operation for 45 years. Victory Village Day Care Cent er is governed by a board composed of University, Hospital and parent representatives; Human Resources solicited Employee nominations from the Forum for the board the early last year.
When the new center opens in the first week of August, the current location of Victory Village will close, and children currently enrolled there will move to the new center. The current Victory Village holds 64 children, meaning that the new capacity of 120 children represents a significant expansion in day care slots. Victory Village Day Care Center will receive the use of the new building which will come fully equipped to meet licensing and accreditation requirements at no charge. Victory Village Day Care Center will be responsible for meeting all operating costs of the facility through tuition, fees, and any other fundraising activities it may undertake. The University and the Hospital provide the facility, but Victory Village sets the fees and must match its expenses to revenues.
Regarding the application process for day care, Victory Village is currently accepting applications for entry into the new center in August. Victory Village will conduct a one-time lottery of all applications received by April 14 — the dead line for inclusion in the lottery. The lottery is being conducted now in April to give parents as much time as possible to plan for day care arrangements, whether they will be entering the new center and ending current arrangements or whether they nee d to look for alternative arrangements because they did not find success in the lottery. The lottery will assign a number which sets an order to each application and Victory Village will immediately begin determining which children will have slots in the new center.
The process will not so simple as admitting the first 120 applications selected. First of all, because current enrollees in Victory Village will move into the new center, administrators will need to determine how many slots will be available in each age group. Secondly, the University and the Hospital each receive half the slots available: 60 slots each. This means that some University members may receive slots with low lottery numbers if a greater number of Hospital applicants draw high numbers, and vice versa. Thirdly, children will need to fit the age group of care that is available. If the first 50 numbers drawn all desire infant care (to choose an unlikely example), these applicants would not all receive admittance. The process will thus be somewhat complicated, but the lottery will establish an order for consideration of applications.
After the initial lottery, Victory Village will continue to accept applications and maintain a waiting list. Unfortunately, waiting lists are a common necessity in local day care centers. Applications received after April 14 will be added to the bottom of the wait list. Anyone interested in child care at Victory Village should contact Lee Zailon at 929-2662 or victoryvillage@mindspring.com. A fact sheet about the center is available from the Forum Office at 962-3779 or forum_office@unc.edu.
Concerning cost, Charest noted that the cost of day care in general is extremely high, and the cost at the University child care center will be no exception. The cost of day care is directly related to the ratio of child care providers/teachers to children, and the salaries of these providers. Interestingly, one of the most often used measures of the quality of a child care center has to do with the retention of the teachers versus teacher turnover. One of the reasons that the University is happy to be associated with Victory Village Day Care Center is its very fine record of retaining teachers. This record holds great sway with parents selecting a day care center who want continuity of care for their children. The University and Victory Village are concerned about the high cost of child care but share a similar concern about the quality of care.
At this point, Human Resources can only communicate Victory Village’s proposed rates. The contract between the University, the Hospital and Victory Village Day Care Center calls for the center to present an annual plan to the University and the Hospital for review. The annual plan is to include a rate schedule which has just been submitted to the University in the last couple of days, and the University and the Hospital are now in the process of review. The plan has not yet been approved, and the rates in question have only been proposed by Victory Village.
Rates in question may seem somewhat extravagant to those who have not been involved in child care before. Rates proposed for infant care: $970/month; for toddler care: $810/month; 2-3 year-olds: $685/month; 3-5 year-olds: $620/month.
Human Resources has read Employee questions on the Forum listserv asking why these rates are so high. The difference in rates among age groups is a direct result of different teacher/child ratios for each age group. For example, with reg ard to infant rates there will be two teachers assigned for each six infants in a 1:3 ratio. For the 3-5 year old group, there will be two teachers assigned for each seventeen children. Obviously, the cost for caring for an infant is much higher than the cost of caring for a 3-5 year old.
Another change occurring in Victory Village which is an important determinant in costs is that the new center will be open additional hours in order to respond to the needs of those operating on different work schedules. The center will be o pen from 6:30 a.m. to 6 p.m., and these additional hours will require added staffing. Staffing requirements are the most important determinant of child care cost.
Charest said that the University is indeed concerned about the cost of child care not just at the University child care center but also throughout the community. Orange County has the highest cost of child care of any county in the State. For that reason, several years ago UNC started a subsidy program which allocates $70,000 in child care subsidies for UNC faculty, staff, and students. To qualify for this program, a family must earn $28,000/year or less. The University coordinates this subsidy with Day Care Services Association to insure that recipients are utilizing any other available community subsidies. This arrangement insures that the University’s dollars are the last dollars spent. In this way, the University can thus help people who may not qualify for other subsidies.
Families of children applying for the Victory Village Day Care Center are being informed about the subsidy program and how to apply. Charest said that funds are available through this program; students but not Employees are currently on the program’s waiting list.
In addition, Victory Village Day Care Center has itself established a scholarship program which will help families afford the cost of care. Victory Village is planning a number of innovative fundraising activities to enhance private contributions t o the fund. Finally, Employees can designate contributions in the upcoming University Campaign to scholarships supporting enrollees in the University child care program.
Charest granted that the cost of child care is an important and difficult issue. She hoped that as this issue receives discussion, it will raise the awareness of those not paying for child care about the enormous financial burden placed on fellow Employees absorbing these costs. Charest has three children herself but does not pay child care as her children have grown past the relevant age. However, she remembered thinking earlier in their lives that she was paying the equivalent of college tuition for their child care. This cost is understandable very difficult for families to absorb.
Charest introduced Andi Sobbe, Chair of the University Child Care Center Advisory Committee, a group which has labored for many years to meet campus child care needs through the subsidy program and other means. She also introduced Nora Robbins, member and budget officer of the Victory Village Day Care Center Board. Charest said that the child care advisory committee has closely scrutinized the budget to find places to cut with limited success.
Charest opened the floor for questions. Sherry Graham asked if the child care fact sheet is located on the web. Charest replied that these facts are not available on the web but said that Human Resources would be delighted to post the document.
Betty Averette asked if Victory Village workers are State employees. Charest said that these workers are employees of Victory Village Day Care Corporation, non-profit organization.
Charest was surprised at the dearth of questions. She recalled speaking to the Carolina Women’s Club (average age around 55) and having caused some great amazement among her listeners in reaction to the high cost of care. She felt it was vital for the University to discuss what its Employees are paying for quality child care, and felt the high cost of care contributes to Employees’ feelings of economic frustration. She urged members to discuss the issue with others and particularly to think about what can be done to help ease this burden.
Stephanie Stadler confirmed that the accreditation and certification levels at the new center will match those of the old. Charest said that certifications are the same; Victory Village Day Care Center has a “AA” license in North Carolina an d is NAEYC certified (National Association for the Education of Young Children) which is considered the highest standard in day care accreditation. Teacher/child ratios are the same between the two centers with the exception of that the current Victory Village Day Care Center does not offer infant care. Infant care was deemed extremely important to the child care advisory committee given how difficult and expensive infant care is to offer. In addition, infant care is an area in which county residents are struggling the most to find appropriate avenues. Required teacher/infant ratios drastically increase the cost of infant care.
Jeffery Beam asked if there are public meetings planned concerning the child care issue. Charest did not know that if there were public meetings planned but added that the advisory board meets regularly in public meetings. Nora Robbins reported that the board meets the third Tuesday of each month but has been meeting more frequently recently in planning for the new center. Parents and others are welcome to contact Kim Schneider to reserve space on the agenda. Robbins has attended one open meeting and has planned to speak with the Forum about day care developments.
Beam noted that the Employee Presentations Committee has considered inviting the University Priorities and Budget Committee to be the featured guests at the Forum spring community meeting, but reported that delays may force the UPBC to wait until fall. He asked if the child care group would be willing to serve as the focus of the spring community meeting. Charest and Robbins thought child care would be a good topic for a spring community meeting, and offered to confer with Beam following the meeting.
As a mother living in Alamance County (where child care costs are not as near as high in Orange County), Denise Childress felt that the advisory committee may need to reexamine its eligibility cap on salaries for subsidy assistance. She thought this cap excluded the average University clerical worker who still cannot afford to pay their child care bills. Charest thought Childress’ point was a very good one, recalling that the cap for subsidies is a family income of $28,000/year. The child care advisory committee reviews this cap regularly, and, if not enough people qualify for the subsidy at the cap’s current level, the committee will shift this cap to admit applicants of a higher salary level. However, there has been some reluctance t o raise the cap permanently or too early to ensure that the most needy people receive the subsidy. If the committee were to raise the salary cap to $35,000/year, some Employees earning substantially less than this figure may be missed. Charest said there had been an effort to carefully examine the salary limitation, and said that the salary limit was not a hard and fast rule. In fact, the program has yet to award all of its subsidies in one calendar year. The committee however has designed the program so that dollars are reserved for the most needy. Also, the committee did not want to have a large number of applicants apply needlessly when they would probably be refused.
Cheryl Stout asked whether the subsidy for all families is the same. Charest said that subsidies are adjusted according to family income, number of children in the family, and the quality of care selected. For example, a family choosing a “AA” licensed facility receives a higher subsidy than the family choosing an “A” licensed center. The formula is somewhat complicated but resembles the formula in place to determine all government and community subsidies.
Childress asked if there are plans in place to provide before and after-school child care. Charest said that the child care advisory committee has been struggling with this issue for a long time. She said that the issue of after-school care, and child care in general is not considered solved by University administrators. Before and after-school care, sick child care, teacher workday care, and drop-in care (care provided on an irregular basis to allow attendance at evening classes, for example) a re among the concerns still under discussion.
Aretha Chavis asked the family size necessary for subsidy eligibility under the $28,000 cap. Charest replied that an Employee at this salary level need have only one child to qualify for this subsidy.
Nancy Tannenbaum remarked that the public schools do an incredible job with after-school child care. Charest reminded the Forum that not all children of University employees and students are enrolled in the Chapel Hill/Carrboro or Orange County school systems. This geographic diversity, combined with the strong opinions parents generally hold about the care and feeding of their children, makes University child care administration very difficult. To illustrate, Charest recalled a recent survey of parents’ personal preferences which found that half of the respondents want child care located close to the workplace while half prefer care close to home. There are an enormous amount of variables to take into account. Some schools do a wonderful j ob with before and after-school care while others may do a great job but are filled to capacity and still others do not provide any service at all.
Scott Ragland asked if Human Resources has any idea of the number of people at the University who use or desire child care resources. Charest said this data did not currently exist, and this fact contributes to administrative frustrations. Prior to Charest’s hiring at the University, a survey had been distributed asking parents to identify their status. However, the University does not know how many people have children, the ages of their children, or their child care arrangements. (Just be cause someone has children does not mean they require child care.) The University does know that it is very difficult to find quality day care in the area, and that this problem reflects itself in the workforce.
Martha Davidson asked if there are plans to gather this data. Charest said that the University could only gather this data on a voluntary basis, as the University does not have a right to know whether Employees have children in this situation. S he thought the advisory committee may wish to explore whether it is time to disperse this survey again.
One source of reluctance to gather this data is the feeling that the survey would create unrealistic expectations that the University would immediately resolve this problem. Charest noted the difficulty involved in reigning in expectations. Davidson th ought that it could work best to coordinate this survey with the Forum community meeting to provide a full picture to interested Employees.
Al Jeter recalled a meeting with constituents discussing day care costs. He asked whether the Victory Village rates are proposals subject to negotiation or are figures “cast in stone.” Jeter hoped that these figures would be revised downward. Charest regretted that these rates, while now only in proposal form, are very unlikely to fall. The only means to lower rates would be for the facility to cut its hours of operation. In any event, it is difficult for Victory Village administrators to plan f or the facility’s first year given the many unknowns associated with the new site. For example, no one knows what utility costs will be in the new building. Administrators are working from their best estimate while trying to be as financially responsible as possible. Nevertheless, Charest did not think it likely that rates will fall much lower.
Charest offered to stay on after the meeting to address further questions from the Forum. The Chair encouraged members to contribute to the day care subsidy fund in the University Campaign.
Employee Presentations
There were no Employee presentations.
Approval of the Minutes
The Chair asked for a motion to approve the minutes of the March 4 meeting. Tommy Brickhouse made a motion to approve the minutes of the previous meeting. Denise Childress noted that a sentence in the first full paragraph of page 7 of the minutes should read “Employees working more than 20 hours but less than 30 hours a week….” Brickhouse accepted this amendment. Nancy Tannenbaum seconded Brickhouse’s motion, and the minutes were approved as amended.
Unfinished Business
There was no unfinished business for the Forum to discuss.
New Business
The Chair directed members’ attention to a resolution concerning funding of the University Campus Diversity Training Project. This program is conducted by Pat Fischer, a professor in the School of Public Health. Fischer is retiring from the University and funding for the project is in danger of being discontinued.
The Chair felt that the project was an important project deserving support from the University. To this end, he introduced the resolution asking the University administration to fund this program with appropriate administrative support and to suppl y it a permanent home.
The Chair opened the floor for discussion. Jeffery Beam confirmed that there is some urgency associated with approving the resolution. The Chair said that there is a necessity for speed as the budget group is currently investigating budget alter natives and could choose to discontinue the program in the next few weeks. He recalled that over 2,000 people a year complete diversity training; the Chair personally had undergone the program and has required that his staff do the same. He felt diversity training to be of great value to the University community.
Beam recalled that passage of this resolution would normally require a first and second reading over the course of two monthly meetings. The Chair said that this was correct, unless the Forum chose to suspend the rules. Stephanie Stadler moved to suspend the rules in order to consider approving the resolution on first reading, and Beam seconded this motion. The motion to suspend the rules was approved without opposition.
Bob Schreiner asked why funding for the program was in danger of being discontinued. The Chair explained that the project was originally supported through Pan-University funds which were originally designed as short-term “seed” monies. This year, the University has begun withdrawing funds from these pilot programs; other campus projects are also feeling the impact of this withdrawal. A benefactor has yet to step forward and accept financial responsibility for continuing the campus diversity project. The Chair noted the difficulty in securing continued financial support for volunteer-based programs.
Schreiner recalled that Fischer’s duties were compensated as part of her salary, but the Chair said that this stipend disappears when she retires.
Anne Montgomery moved that the Forum adopt the resolution in question. Steve Jones seconded this motion. There was no further discussion, and the resolution was adopted unanimously. The Forum Office will forward the resolution to the Chancel lor’s Office for consideration.
The Chair noted that discussion of the child care issue had taken place earlier in the meeting. There was no motion to resume discussion.
The Chair noted the proposal from Martha Barbour of the Personnel Policies Committee to support the institution of staff meetings in various departments. It was suggested that the Forum garner ideas on ways to conduct staff meetings and the dissemination of information at these meetings. In the interest of time, the Chair suggested that the Forum table this discussion until the May 6 meeting. Barbour moved that the issue be tabled until the next meeting, seconded by Jackie Overton. The Chair imagined that the Personnel Policies Committee may eventually take on responsibility for further discussion about the structure of these meetings.
Beam recalled that part of this idea was designed to allow the Forum a means to communicate with its constituents. He urged members to consider the implications of this idea especially with regard to departments lacking Forum representatives.
Chair’s Report
The Chair reported that he had been unable to finalize a presentation on the Human Resources Information System (HRIS) with Kay Straughn. He imagined that the Forum will need to schedule a classroom for a separate presentation on the HRIS a part from its monthly meeting. The Chair would try to set up this event.
The Forum distributed via its routing file a response from Dennis Press concerning payroll lag times for new Employees.
The Forum Highlights page had been distributed via “hot memo” in the last few days.
Pete Andrews, Chair of the Faculty Council, has responded to the Forum’s letter concerning supervisory training for faculty.
The IACLEA report on the University police department is available for Forum members’ perusal. Employees may obtain a loaner copy of the report from the Forum Office (962-3779). Employees may also request the Executive Summary of recommendations from the Forum Office. Jeffery Beam assumed that the recommendations have been summarized in the press.
The Forum Guidelines and Committee Review has been postponed by the Executive Committee until June to make way for the Forum presentation to the Board of Trustees May 28, the Employee Appreciation Fair May 29, and the spring community meeting June 9.
Committee Reports
Bob Schreiner, Chair of the Career Development Committee, reported that the group’s recent minutes were included in the April agenda packet. He noted that a number of problems have arisen with the joint Faculty Council/Employee Forum resolution on Employee tuition waiver programs. The committee is working on this proposal with the Faculty Council and has asked Laurie Charest for additional recommendations to improve the list of proposed changes to the program.
The New Careers Training Board has published a list of its accomplishments which accompanies the Career Development Committee’s minutes. The board has just begun to discuss computer literacy issues. In addition, Schreiner was very pleased to h ear about progress related to the Computer Based Training (CBT) initiative.
Jennifer Henderson, Chair of the Communications Committee, said the group had yet to discuss the proposed process for Forum press releases. There is a rough draft of the prototype Forum web site revision contained in the routing file. In addition, the committee hopes to work with the University Gazette to work on obtaining a regular column or article in that publication. Finally, the committee discussed the issue of a possible name change for the Forum and a redesign of its log o in order to better reflect its current mission. The Chair asked that the Forum take some time to elaborate on a proposed name change before bringing the issue to a formal vote.
Tommy Brickhouse, Chair of the Compensation & Benefits Committee, reported the group had not held a formal meeting that month, but Lucille Brooks and Betty Jones had worked together to create a set of generic guidelines concerning Employee lobbying the Legislature for full funding of the comprehensive compensation pay plan. Brickhouse was encouraged by Chancellor Hooker’s response to the Forum’s resolution on the comprehensive pay plan, especially his use of the word “un conscionable” to describe the level of past pay raises for State employees. The committee will continue to work on this package.
Jeffery Beam, Chair of the Employee Presentations Committee, directed members to the group’s minutes which were included in the April agenda packet. The committee has approached a number of Employees to speak about their experiences taking classes at the University to improve job skills. The committee has scheduled a presentation for the June meeting and Bob Schreiner has spoken with Milton Anthony, a former delegate, about making a similar presentation.
The Forum’s spring community meeting will take place June 9 in the Hanes Art Center auditorium. The committee is considering changing the focus of the meeting from the University Priorities & Budget Committee to child care issues at the Un iversity.
Lucille Brooks, Chair of the Nominating Committee, reported the group met March 25 and minutes are included in the April packet. Linda Drake has been elected Vice-Chair and Dail White elected Secretary of the committee. The committee also drafted a calendar of events and deadlines to take place between now and fall 1998, and its call for nominations letter will go out to Employees in mid-July. The group’s next meeting will be April 22.
Nancy Tannenbaum reported that the Orientation Committee did not meet that month.
Martha Barbour, Chair of the Personnel Policies Committee, reported the group had held a very productive meeting March 24 which was described in the group’s minutes. Ken Litowsky was the featured guest. The committee hopes to meet with Senior Director of Human Resources Administration Drake Maynard in April. The committee listed its priorities for the coming year in its recent minutes, and the group’s first priority is the continuing discussions on the University compensator y time policy. Peter Schledorn has agreed to draft a statement of the goals for SPA and EPA non-faculty with regard to receiving fair treatment as far as the number of hours worked in the workplace, and should forward this draft to Barbour before the committee’s next meeting. There has also been some concern about policy and procedure in the Physical Plant concerning lack of confidentiality between supervisor and Employee related to candidates for jobs. The committee plans to investigate and report back on this subject.
At the meeting, Barbour had requested an update on revisions in the application process, and Litowsky had reported that a new Office of State Personnel policy had been drafted in Human Resources language. The Chair thanked Barbour for the committee ’s great efforts.
Joyce Dalgleish, Chair of the Recognition and Awards Committee, said the group had met March 11 with Patti Smith of Human Resources. She praised Smith as a most valuable resource to the campus and the committee. The committee is looking into the provision of service awards across campus and Smith has said that there will be a survey commissioned about this topic this summer. In addition, the group is reexamining the recognition of deceased Employees and will meet with the new editor o f the University Gazette to discuss publication of Employees’ names. Finally, the committee plans to follow up on recognition programs at the departmental level.
Anne Montgomery, Chair of the University Committee Assignments Committee, referred members to the group’s minutes. She added that Laurie Charest has encouraged members to submit nominations for the Chancellor’s Award. The University Committee Assignments Committee has worked with Patti Smith to confirm Employee membership and length of term on the Chancellor’s Award Committee. The committee is also searching for three people to serve three year terms on the Chancellor&# 146;s Award Committee. Montgomery urged members to consider serving on the committee that makes selections for this coveted award. She said that one SPA Employee and one EPA non-faculty Employee are required for service on the committee, and that the award committee meets only twice or so a year.
Task Force Reports
The Chair reported that the Board of Trustees Presentation Task Force was meeting weekly to prepare its slideshow and talk. The group will meet that afternoon at 2:30 p.m. in 102 Abernethy. Progress is occurring slowly but surely.
The Chair said that he and Linda Drake had met to discuss arrangements for the Employee Appreciation Fair Booth. He encouraged other members to volunteer as they are able.
Bob Schreiner reported the Grievance Procedure Task Force met March 5 and will continue to examine data from a recent survey. The Task Force’s minutes are available from the Forum Office. The group’s next meeting is April 9 at 1:30 p.m. at 725 Airport Road.
Jeffery Beam noted that the Intellectual Climate Response Task Force has received more than 1,044 surveys out of around 6,800 surveys distributed to University Employees. The group was very pleased with the response and met the previous week to code the results. The task force hopes to create a 3-4 page report summarizing the general aspects of the Forum response in order to provide immediate input to the Faculty Committee on the Intellectual Climate. Following this, the task force wi ll return to classify the survey data in much greater detail.
A great number of respondents agreed to be contacted later in order to pursue intellectual climate activities. Employees expressed the greatest interest in mentoring, campus book clubs, foreign language lunch tables, expressing or learning about creative talents, or simply assist organizing intellectual activities. The group hopes to find ways to utilize staff talents and constructively involve faculty, staff, and students in each others’ intellectual lives. Around one half of the surveys have been coded to this point.
The Outsourcing Steering Team had not met since the last Forum meeting.
There was no report on the activities of the School Volunteerism Task Force.
Gwen Burston reported that the Parking & Transit Task Force will hold community meetings April 8 at times and places to be announced. Three meetings are scheduled for that day.
Bob Schreiner of the UNC System Staff Assembly noted President Broad’s earlier remarks on the progress of this group.
The Chair reported the University Priorities & Budget Committee (UPBC) continues to meet every Thursday morning. The Chancellor’s Office has issued a copy of the UPBC’s final report which was included in the routing file . The UPBC has now reached the time during which it must make difficult choices.
In the absence of further discussion, the Chair called for a motion to adjourn. Joyce Dalgleish so moved, seconded by Connie Boyce. There was no discussion, and the meeting adjourned at 11:28 a.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Matt Banks, Recording Secretary