June 6, 2001

Minutes

June 6, 2001

(Wilson Library Assembly Room)

Delegates Present

Chris Barfield Anderson

GeorgeAnn Bissett

Anita Booth

David Collins

Andy Chrismon

Suzan deSerres

Sue Dodson

Lee Edmark

Keith Fogleman

Jeffery Fuchs

Pam Griffin

Tracey Haith

Glenn Haugh

John Heuer

Tom Jenswold

Fred Jordan

Karen Jordan

Ramona Kellam

Barbara Logue

Gary Lloyd

Connie McPherson

John Meeker

Gail Plaisance

Clarence Peoples

Tom Rhyne

Freida Rosenberg

Rob Sadler

Sheila Storey

Bonita Summers

Kay Teague

Joanne Terry

Robert Thoma

Mary Ann Vacheron

Betty Waynick

Sylvia White

Laurie Charest“

Kathy Dutton “

 “ = Ex-Officio

Delagates Absent

Keita Cannon

Linda Collins

Lisa Croucher

Jo Parker

Wendy Riley

Darian Sturdivant

Elaine Tola

Chanetta Washington

Excused Absences

Diane Strong

Alternates Present

Edward Eldred

Tommy Griffin

Lauren Mangili

Cindy Reardon

Guests

Carolyn Elfland

Eric Ferreri

Martha Fowler

Barbara Prear

Scott Ragland

Nancy Suttenfield

Rachel Windham

Anna Wu

Call to Order, Welcome to Guests

The Chair called the meeting to order at 9:30 a.m.  He welcomed Vice Chancellor for Finance and Administration Nancy Suttenfield to provide opening remarks.  Suttenfield noted that a lot had occurred since the last time the Forum had met.  She said that Chancellor Moeser had appreciated the Forum’s special resolution expressing concern about proposed 7% University budget cuts.  She thought that the Forum’s resolution had registered some impact on negotiations.  She said that the University might need to call upon the Forum again if it appears that the University is again in a position where it might lose hard won gains.

Suttenfield noted questions about the specific effects of these reductions would be on this campus.  She said that Associate Vice Chancellor for Finance Roger Patterson would work with the University Gazette on a story about the cuts, but for now the information is still too new.  Concerning aggregate increases and reductions, the UNC System now receives over $1.8 billion in State appropriations.  Full funding of the expansion budget attached to campus enrollment increases would add another $28.4 million to this total.  It is anticipated that the Legislature will follow through with these enrollment-based increases.

However, the current (May 6) information estimates that distance education will face a 30% reduction, although this area would also receive some proportionate share of the expansion budget.  The Legislature would approve close to $9 million in student aid and $1 million in genomics and biomedical research, with UNC-Chapel Hill earning a part of that share.

The Senate has recommended a 5% across the board increase, on top of the increase recommended as part of the Governor’s budget.  Suttenfield hoped that the University would be able to use money from tuition increases in the manner in which they were originally planned.

With regard to reductions, the Senate has recommended cutting $9.2 million in SPA position funding and $2.5 million in EPA non-faculty position funding across the UNC System.  Suttenfield said that there seems to be an adequate ability to eliminate only vacant positions to meet this target without implementing reductions in force (RIF) on current Employees.  She did not anticipate the University having to release anyone from service, but the situation remains fluid.

The Legislature has proposed a $3 million reduction for UNC-Chapel Hill, North Carolina State and UNC-Greensboro to address productivity issues for these campuses’ faculty.  The base recommendation underlying this proposal is that all faculty should teach the equivalent of 15 credit hours a week.  Suttenfield pointed out that there are many other ways in which faculty contribute to the mission of the University through research and public service.  Also, faculty add value to the campus in other ways through earning federal and contract research dollars.  If faculty are removed from these projects to meet artificially proscribed teaching loads, there is the chance that the University would lose support for this research and its accompanying salaries and benefits.  Suttenfield pointed out that faculty members falling below the proposed 15-credit minimum play a teaching role for graduate students, which is not reflected in the calculation of credit hours.  The University is concerned about the message this proposal sends about System faculty.

Other cuts proposed include a $2.5 million cut to temporary wages, a $1.5 million cut to University community services, and $4 million cut from the General Administration budget and the Office of the President.

After adding all of the proposed cuts and increases, the University System would face an overall $3 million reduction from its $1.8 billion budget.  However, the budget still must face approval from the House and emerge from the inevitable conference committee.  Suttenfield noted that the System flexibility proposals also would have an impact on the final totals.

Aside from the System’s operating budget, UNC-Chapel Hill’s repair and renovation budget is of deep concern to campus administration.  There had been talk of deferring ongoing funding of the maintenance and repair budget.  However, current proposals will maintain the level of funds for repairs and maintenance as previous years.

Suzan de Serres asked when the proposed tuition increase would take effect.  Suttenfield said that the increase would take place for this fall.  Concerned students should investigate need-based aid sources depending on their family situation.

Tracey Haith asked if the proposed $625 raise would count as a bonus or a continuing addition to salary.  Suttenfield said that the raise would count across the board and had been proposed to substitute for a percentage increase.

Keith Fogleman noted the perception that the raise had been taken out of employees’ retirement plan.  Suttenfield said that the retirement package represented a different issue.  She said that the Governor had proposed that the State not make a contribution to the overall fund this year.   She recalled that the retirement program pays out a defined benefit, so that employees retiring receive a calculated benefit based on years of service that the fund pays out no matter what.  Given this arrangement, the Governor can say that the fund is overfunded, in that the State could reduce its contributions without undermining the fund’s capacity to meet defined benefit obligations.

Associate Vice Chancellor for Human Resources Laurie Charest said that the Governor’s proposal would hold out all retirement contributions this year and possibly also next year.  Still, according to State actuaries, the fund should have the capacity to meet retirement obligations.  Fogleman commented that this practice could get out of hand.  Suttenfield agreed that the State could only go so far with these changes, but said that she was comforted to know that the current retirement benefits remain secure.

Lee Edmark asked whether the Governor had considered the possibility of changing calculations of the retirement factor.  Charest understood that the State would not consider increasing the retirement factor this year.  Edmark said that the retirement factor had changed in the past to anticipate cost of living increases.  Sheila Storey said that the State’s move to reduce contributions to the retirement fund could affect the ability of the fund to provide cost of living increases to retirees.  Charest said that the Senate’s proposal for the fund provides a 1.6% cost of living increase for retirees, roughly equivalent to this year’s raise for the average employee.  She had heard rumors that the reduction could affect future cost of living adjustments, but she had not seen evidence proving this assumption.  Suttenfield summed up that the fund’s formula to handle benefits had not changed.      Suttenfield noted that certain State senators had attached the University personnel flexibility provisions as riders to the State budget proposal.  She assumed that Delegates have received many questions from coworkers about the provisions.  She thought that the provisions stood as a very good thing for the University as a number of areas need recommended flexibility.  These areas include personnel, business management, purchasing, surplus property, acquisition and disposal of real estate, and information technology.

Suttenfield granted that naturally employees would have more interest in personnel flexibility proposals and how these proposals would affect them.  She noted the mistaken assumption that being part of the State Personnel system guarantees job security.  First of all, federal labor laws govern the treatment of employees, and the University would have to abide by all federal and state laws on campus whether it is part of the State system or not.  Secondly, the University wants potential job applicants to view it as a desirable employer, and so would want to provide the same protections as the State system.  Thirdly, whatever University personnel system emerges would represent the product of a participatory process.  University administration would work with the Forum and others to incorporate ideas and address concerns about the new system.  Suttenfield committed to providing Employees an ample opportunity to have their say.  She also did know if the flexibility provisions would make it through the Legislature this year in any event.

Nonetheless, Suttenfield said that it is in the Legislature’s interest to provide the University needed flexibility.  She recalled discussions that indicate the campus needs to compete with national research institutions in a national market.  She noted that UNC-Chapel Hill Employees, unlike employees at other State agencies, live in one of the highest cost of living areas in the State.  She said that the State system restricts the University when it attempts to adapt quickly to marketplace changes so that it can attract and retain Employees who have received outside offers for better positions.  Unfortunately, she said, the University does not have the flexibility for this purpose.

Suttenfield related the story of a temporary information technology employee who had earned a permanent position through their skills and effort.  Under the State’s classification system, this position required a specific amount of education and work experience.  Thus, the University had no way to give this temporary employee a permanent position in spite of the fact that the employee had proven they could do the job and that the department needed the employee.  Instead, the University must now continue to pay the temporary contractor to fill the position temporarily, when it would cost the University less to recruit the employee onto the permanent payroll.

Suttenfield cited another difficulty with the State personnel system that many staff supporting faculty research find the nature of their jobs changing, but their classification does not change.  While the University can identify classification areas to change, the State system requires a study before implementing a reclassification, and the University cannot recruit for the new position until it completes the study.  Suttenfield said that if the University wants to become the number one public university, it must be competitive in attracting top-quality research and research assistants.

Suttenfield said that the proposed flexibility changes would move University Employees from the State system to either a system governed by the Office of the President or the Chapel Hill campus.  She said that whatever personnel system the University would eventually embrace, UNC-Chapel Hill Employees will remain State employees and eligible to participate in the same benefits programs as before.  Suttenfield raised the possibility that the University might establish its own benefits program using its purchasing power to create a better health insurance package with a more reasonable expense than the State plan.  She urged Employees not to be fearful of change.

Mary Ann Vacheron asked what timeframe would govern a move out of the State system.  Does President Broad have a system in mind or would the campus create one over time?  Suttenfield said that there have been many discussions.  She said that the UNC-Chapel Hill campus needs a system that can accommodate its goals in the information technologies and research areas, among others.  Fayetteville State University, for example, probably has very different priorities for its personnel system.  Vacheron asked if in the meantime the University still exists under the State Personnel Act.  Suttenfield said that all stands in the discussion phase and will remain that way unless the Legislature approves something by July 1.  She said that the Board of Trustees and Board of Governors have held very deliberate and thoughtful discussions.

Suzan de Serres asked if the rider designates a separate system for each campus or for the entire UNC system.  Suttenfield said that this question remains unsettled.  She said that the original rider provides UNC-Chapel Hill and North Carolina State University flexibility, but said that each campus remains a part of the UNC system.

David Collins noted the argument that personnel flexibility would provide resources for in-range salary adjustments for staff.  He said that departments dependent on State funding currently do not have the ability to fund these adjustments.  He asked how the administration would find ways to fund in-range adjustments to respond to market forces.  Suttenfield conceded that limited resources always confine the ability to offer better benefits.  In addition, the University cannot use restricted research dollars for plant maintenance.  However, as the University looks for in its strategic planning process, it will set goals and priorities supporting faculty and staff, and dollars will follow these goals and priorities.

Rachel Windham urged the administration to find ways to keep talented people on campus as well as attract new people to campus.  She noted a perception that the flexibility provisions would benefit new hires more than experienced Employees.

The Chair noted that Human Resources’ market salary analysis stands as one of the day’s scheduled items for discussion.  He said that the salary survey’s consultants had recommended introduction of a tuition credit for Employees’ dependents, a policy change that the State system would not currently allow.  He said that creation of campus-based flexibility would allow the system or campus to craft a personnel system unique to its own needs and goals.

Barbara Prear asked if the personnel flexibility provisions would mean a change in policies such as vacation and sick leave from department to department.  Suttenfield said that she did not envision such differences among schools, except to improve existing benefits.  Prear said that there are now different policies from school to school whether these policies are legal or not.  Charest said that the University’s basic policies, such as the number of sick days allowed, remain constant from department to department.  However, how these departments apply these policies, meaning what constitutes sufficient notice for an excused sick-leave absence, remains at the discretion of the department.  Charest said that the current legislation would require the Board of Trustees to approve personnel policy changes for the entire campus.

Prear asked if the new flexibility would imply a change in the grievance procedure.  Suttenfield said that the University would maintain the same procedure unless it could institute something better.  She hoped that the University could take advantage of fresh thinking among its Employees to do its best to attract and retain good staff.  Thus, the University would pick the best procedures available from among other universities, the private sector, and its own research.

Concerning other flexibility proposals, Suttenfield noted efforts to achieve campus purchasing flexibility subject to Board of Trustees approval.  This provision would allow the University to seek the best possible pricing for its unique purchasing requirements.  The University would rely on its leverage in the marketplace to get the best possible prices.  Suttenfield noted that the University receives only $1 out of every $10 from State funds but remains subject to State purchasing procedures.  Federal research contracts come with laws and regulations on purchasing procedures that the University must follow or face an audit censure.

Suttenfield said that if the University had to return to the State system, many of its partnerships with vendors could fall into jeopardy.  The University could face difficulties with pricing concessions, distribution of supplies, and traffic problems if held to State purchasing requirements.

The proposed legislation also provides the University additional flexibility to dispose of surplus property, which could create cost savings and more efficient procedures.  Currently, the University must store surplus in hallways and rented temporary space because the State cannot dispose of the property quickly enough due to its own staff reductions.

In the information technology area, the campus environment requires a flexibility that other State agencies do not need.  Legislators have voiced their support for University needs and flexibility in this area.

Regarding property acquisition, Suttenfield noted reports in the media about University discussion to acquire and dispose of property with the Town.  She said that the University would like to revert some of its surplus property to the tax rolls to assist the town-gown partnership.

Suttenfield encouraged Employees with questions to contact the Chair or her office, particularly as these relate to personnel flexibility.  She hoped to put to rest potential fears about this new opportunity.

The Chair noted that the administration had invited participation and concerns from the Forum.  He in turn invited Delegates to bring their concerns to the Forum to insure their visibility.  The Chair recognized University Gazette editor Scott Ragland and Chapel Hill Herald writer Eric Ferreri.

The Chair welcomed Associate Vice Chancellor for Auxiliary Services Carolyn Elfland and acting director of Facilities Planning Anna Wu to make a presentation on the Rams Head Plaza project.  Wu directed those present to a model of the new project at the center of the room.

Elfland noted that the University had considered two projects key to implementing the master plan’s goal of linking north and south campus.  The Rams Head project would install parking decks with grass on top in the current Bell Tower lot.  Student life buildings would surround the project, in an effort to provide a greater sense of community for south campus students.  The project would be one of a series of steps to provide more services for south campus students.

The Rams Head project on Ridge Road would contain a three-story parking garage with a dining hall, recreation center, three gymnasiums, a workout space and climbing hall atop the area.  The project would also have a dining hall and sports bar with non-alcoholic beverages.  Grass recreation fields will make up the roof of the project.

The project will serve as a bridge between north campus and Morrison dormitory, with a bus stop, ATM kiosk and small grocery store nearby.

The parking deck will house student permit parking, visitor and alumni parking, and incremental hourly parking.  Elfland recalled that the University’s transportation strategy is not to increase on-campus parking, but to allow emergency parking for doctors’ appointments and teachers’ meetings.  Employees using park and ride will apply for passes to use the deck in these situations.  Elfland said that as of now, the University has zoned and allocated all of the deck’s spaces, and that there will be no place for free passes.

The Board of Trustees has approved the design for this project, which will also include a major streamline replacement and a major storm water improvement for Ehringhaus Field.  Elfland noted that while under construction, cars would park on the gravel at Ehringhaus Field.  One can see a flowing stream from Wilson Library to the Rams Head parking lot.  The project would dig out Ehringhaus Field for several feet of storm water storage and build a playing surface on top.  During major storms, water will flow into storm water storage instead of an adjacent creak.  (The Ehringhaus grass will retain an inch of storm water.)  This improvement will serve a major environmental campus need.

De Serres asked when Facilities Services anticipates finishing the project.  Wu said that the project would begin in phases, with the earliest starting possibly this spring.  The Ehringhaus Field portion would begin first, with the deck starting when commencement finishes next year.  Facilities Services will plant native water-loving foliage when they are dormant in February.  Wu anticipated that the dining hall would come on-line in 2004.  She said that these three very large projects would take a long time to build.  The Chair commented that this project represents a first in combining so many different purposes.  Wu said that the construction manager will have to administer the project in a much more comprehensive way than normal, given the interrelated elements involved.

Gail Plaisance asked where students would play in the meantime in the absence of Ehringhaus Field.  She is a parent of a student in Ehringhaus dormitory, and found that students have a hard time negotiating current construction.  She hoped that the University would find some way to provide playing fields.  She said that the walking areas had been very muddy.  Wu said that the University must work hard to insure that it does not inconvenience students with its construction.  Plaisance was irritated that construction workers cleaned the muddy staging areas only when parents came to pick up their children.  Wu agreed that students needed more consideration in the process.  Elfland said that the University plans provisions for affected students, such as a major pedestrian and student bicycle path.

At this point, the Forum took its customary stretch time break.

Human Resources Update

The Chair introduced Charest to present the Forum’s Human Resources update.  Charest announced that the campus had hired Pam Barkett from Johns Hopkins University’s employee relations division to serve as the campus’ new employment director.  She thanked acting director Ken Litowsky and the employment director search committee, chaired by Mary Marsh, for their work in the interim.

Secondly, Charest noted changes in a number of departments that have elected to take responsibility for making SPA job offers.  Department representatives have attended training on qualifying salaries under the State system and signup procedures.  Human Resources and the State system will still process paperwork associated with new hires, but departments now have authority to make formal job offers.

The nomination period for the University management awards program will begin soon.  Interested parties can access the Human Resources website or call Training and Development at 2-2550.

With regard to the status of Wellpath health insurance enrollees, Charest said that the State had lost its appeal to prevent Wellpath from no longer serve State employees after June 30.  However, the State is appealing this decision.  Wellpath enrollees should begin the process of switching to the State health plan before July 1.  These Employees should complete an enrollment form and mail it in as quickly as possible.  Human Resources sent out a memo on this subject Monday with links to the enrollment form and a frequently asked questions (FAQ) document.  Affected Employees should move quickly since processing these forms will take time administratively.  Charest did not want these Employees to fall into a position in which they do not have health care.  [This information is no longer applicable due to the State’s successful appeal against Wellpath.  Interested Employees should contact Human Resources benefits for more information.]

An Employee asked if one could join Prudential health insurance instead of the State plan.  Charest said that after October 2001, the State plan remains the only option that the University System offers.

De Serres asked how the State plan would handle preexisting conditions.  Charest said that the State plan should cover whatever illness or condition mentioned.  Fogleman asked if all State employees must now register with the State plan, why should the premium continue to rise.  He reasoned that if all State employees must register with the State plan, the increased number of people should lessen the premium costs.  Charest said that the State plan has lost money badly over the last several years.  As part of the effort to keep the plan solvent, the State plan will implement a number of changes that will hurt employee pocketbooks.

Charest said that her she and her staff would answer any questions employees might have about the benefits situation.

With regard to legislative items, Charest noted that the Senate version of the State appropriations bill will provide a $625 pay raise added to employees’ base salary.  This provision remains subject to House revision.

Concerning health insurance, Charest had two pieces of good news.  First, the State will continue to cover the entire portion of the employee-only premium.  Secondly, the State has agreed to extend the lifetime maximum benefit for State plan members to $5 million, very good news for the very sick.

However, Charest had a great deal of bad news about the plan.  First, deductibles will increase from $250 to $400 a year for individuals, and from $750 to $1200 for families.  The maximum out of pocket cost will rise from $1000 to $1500.  The plan will impose a 30% premium increase and an increase in the copayment for non-generic drugs from $25 to $30 when a generic equivalent is available.

Ramona Kellam asked if Employees could fill out the Wellpath enrollment change form on-line.  Charest said that Employees must print out the form and mail it to the proper address.

Edmark commented that teachers receive significantly higher raises under the Senate bill (2.86% to 1.6% for average employees).  He thought that Governor Hunt’s last budget had completed the drive to increase teachers’ pay to the national average.  He saw this discrepancy as a slap in the face to State employees.

Charest moved to the results of the SPA salary survey which the University and NCSU had commissioned in April and May.  Charest produced a reduced version of the presentation she made to a group of campus representatives.

[The Forum outlined this presentation in the June issue of InTouch.  Interested Employees can contact the Forum Office at 962-3779 or forum_office@unc.edu to obtain the survey overview handout or the Forum’s notes.]

Christine Barfield asked why the Legislature chose to grant a $625 raise across the board instead of a 2% increase, as in prior years.  Charest said that the Legislature had chosen this number because it represented a 2% raise for average SPA employee.

Clarence Peoples asked the prospects for reinstating the merit system.  Charest said that this year’s salary increase includes a provision for performance pay.  However, this provision does not equal the merit system.  A real merit system would find a way to pay employees for performance.  Any merit system must obtain legislative support before it can receive approval.

Rachel Windham asked the reason for the change in vacation benefits for EPA non-faculty.  Charest said that effective July 1, all EPA non-faculty will earn 24 days of annual leave a year, with those earning 26 days a year grandfathered in at their prior rate.  The University will retain limits on payout in the first two years of service.  There has always been provision for exceptional leave for EPA non-faculty applying for exceptions with the Board of Trustees.  Usually, the Board only granted this leave to those departing a previous job.  However, this exception created a lot of problems.  In the process of trying to fix this problem, the University found that other institutions simply grant a flat amount of leave each year while eliminating completely exception procedures.  The Board of Trustees must approve this change before it becomes official University policy July 1.

Windham asked about the budget implications of this policy change.  Charest thought that the cap on leave payout in the first couple of years would minimize the budget impact.  Vacheron confirmed that beginning EPA non-faculty employees earn 24 days of vacation leave a year, while beginning SPA employees earn 10 days a year.

The Chair thanked Charest and Chris Chiron for their presentation.

The Chair elected to defer consideration of the resolution on fare-free transit until the next meeting.

Committee Reports

Fred Jordan, chair of the Career Development committee, reported the group had met May 24 and concentrated on finishing the staff training brochure.  The group will meet again June 28.

Suzan de Serres, chair of the Communications committee, said the Forum insert would run in the University Gazette around June 20.  The committee would meet June 7 to discuss the next issue of InTouch and the possibility of getting InTouch onto the web.

Sheila Storey, chair of the Employee Presentations committee, said that the Forum would hold its spring community meeting June 14.  Chancellor Moeser, Provost Shelton, and Secretary of the Faculty Joe Ferrell will present.  Committee members should meet in Hamilton Hall at 8:30 a.m.  Storey encouraged Delagates to post meeting notices around their offices.

Tracey Haith, chair of the Nominating committee, said that the solicitation letter for new delegate candidates should go out in the next week.  She asked Delagates to think of potential members for the fall.  The committee plans to meet again June 28.

De Serres, also chair of the Orientation committee, said the group continues to work on finding a keynote speaker for the January retreat.  The group will hold Orientation for new Delagates next October.  The committee will meet again June 13 at Jade Palace.

Mary Ann Vacheron, chair of the Personnel Issues committee, said that the group had spent the last four months studying the State Personnel system and meeting with Human Resources managers.  The committee should issue a report on its findings after its meetings this month.

Karen Jordan, chair of the Recognition & Awards committee, elected to defer her report to the next meeting.

Lee Edmark, chair of the University Committee Assignments committee, said that the group had received fourteen responses to the forty-four letters it had sent out to University committee chairs.  The committee will meet again June 13.

Sheila Storey, Forum representative on the pedestrian safety committee, said that group should present its annual report to the chancellor July 1.  The current draft will outline rights and responsibilities of pedestrians, bicyclists and drivers.  Fogleman said that he had still not seen evidence that Public Safety had begun to ticket bicyclists and pedestrians who break traffic laws.  Storey said that Public Safety had hired two people for this work.  Connie McPherson said that Public Safety had promoted officer Nato to lieutenant to supervise this work.  However, due to staffing shortages, Public Safety has not moved staff from normal squads to traffic.  She said that Public Safety plans to start issuing jaywalking tickets in the fall.  Storey said that C-Tops has begun pedestrian safety presentations to first-year students this summer.  She said that the pedestrian safety campaign should get into full gear next spring.

Fogleman urged Public Safety to make an emphatic presentation to the first-year students.  Storey noted that the Forum has scheduled Chief Derek Poarch of Public Safety to make a presentation in September.  Fogleman recalled that a bicyclist had run a red light, placing himself in danger, but placing the automotive driver at fault.  Glenn Haugh said that he had seen motorists who will not stop when pedestrians cross in the white lines.  Fogleman said that Public Safety should ticket all classes of offenders, to preserve safety rather than parking rights.  Tom Rhyne noted that the motorist had never seen the bicyclist who ran the red light.  Storey hoped that the pedestrian safety campaign would begin to make progress.  The Chair encouraged everyone to observe their safety obligations, noting that a graduate student lost their life when a motorist pulled around a car stopped in front of a crosswalk.

Windham suggested that Public Safety install signage in every pedestrian crosswalk, instead of sporadic installation across campus.  Storey noted the money factor.  Tom Jenswold noted that some pedestrian related signs near Morrison dorm might have fallen due to campus construction.  He advised that drivers take special care near these areas, and hoped that the situation would resolve itself before the students return August 15.

Chris Barfield noted that the Transportation and Parking Advisory committee would not meet until August.

The Chair called for a motion to approve the April and May meetings.  Robert Sadler made a motion to approve these minutes, seconded by Robert Thoma.  There was no opposition, and the minutes were approved.

The Chair noted that Ramona Kelly of the English Department had won the University’s Unsung Hero award.

The Chair encouraged Delegates to attend the May 14 community meeting, recalling that the University considers the meeting worktime if essential department functions are covered.

The Chair mentioned the possibility of finding a larger space for the Forum Office to Suttenfield in a private meeting. The Chair recognized volunteers who assisted with the Employee Appreciation event in May, among them Bonita Summers, Fred and Karen Jordan, John Meeker, and Lee Edmark.  He requested comments from Delegates about the event.  He also recognized Joanne Kucharski for her work and the work of the University Managers’ Association in staging the event.

Rachel Windham noted that Matt Banks had won one of the Carolina Center for Public Service staff grants to provide improvements to the Rainbow Soccer fields on 15-501.  Banks thanked Windham, the Center, and Chair John Heuer for their support and inspiration.

In the absence of further discussion, the meeting adjourned by acclamation at 11:30 a.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Matt Banks, Recording Secretary