March 1, 2000
Agenda — March 1, 2000
9:30 a.m.— Assembly Room of Wilson Library
I. Call to Order
II. Welcome Guests, Members of the Press
- Opening Remarks from Chancellor William McCoy
- Special Presentation
- State Employees’ Association of North Carolina President Paula Schubert
- Education Foundation Representative Meredith Snoddy
V. Human Resources Update
- Laurie Charest, Associate Vice Chancellor, Human Resources
VI. Approval of Minutes of the February 2, 2000 meeting P
VII. Unfinished Business
- Committee Sign-Ups
VIII. Employee Presentations And Questions (Adverse Weather & Other Topics)
IX. New Business
- Adverse Weather Discussion
- Resolution 00-1—Recommendation to Reverse Severe Weather Decision (First Reading)
- Resolution 00-2—Recommendation for Future Severe Weather Policy (First Reading)
- Resolution 00-3—Thanks to Employees Who Worked During Adverse Weather (First Reading)
- Forum Newsletter
X. Stretch Time
XI. Chair’s Report (Executive Committee): Joanne Kucharski P
- Committee Chair Meetings
- Resignation of Verdell Williams, Maxcine Barnes; Need New Executive Committee Representative from Division 4, Recognition & Awards Committee Chair
XII. Committee/Task Force Reports
- Career Development: Bobbie Lesane
- Communications: Suzan deSerres
- Forum Newsletter
- Employee Presentations: Kathy Dutton
- Nominating: Karen Geer
- Orientation: Bobbie Lesane
- Personnel Issues: Dave Lohse
- Recognition and Awards:
- University Committee Assignments: John Heuer
XIII. Task Force/University Committee Reports
- Master Plan Executive Steering Team—Joanne Kucharski
- Transportation & Parking Advisory —
- University Priorities & Budget— Joanne Kucharski
- Chancellor Search Committee—Jane Stine
- Provost Search Committee—Jane Stine
- Vice Chancellor for Finance & Administration Search Committee—Joanne Kucharski
- Faculty Council Liaison—Joanne Kucharski
- Women’s Center Director Search—Joanne Kucharski
- Pedestrian Safety Committee—Jill Mayer
P = Included in Agenda Packet
March 1, 2000
Jane Stine “
“ = Ex-Officio
Joanna K. Smith
Call to Order, Welcome to Guests, Opening Remarks
Chair Joanne Kucharski called the meeting to order at 9:34 a.m. and welcomed Delegates to the March meeting of the Employee Forum. She welcomed Chancellor William McCoy, guests, and members of the press. Specifically, she congratulated Scott Ragland, the publisher of the University Gazette. The University Gazette was the Case Award winner for Excellence for 2000.
McCoy congratulated Kucharski on her election as chair of the Forum and thanked her, Vice Chair Kathy Dutton and Secretary Karen Geer for their commitment to the future of the Forum and the University.
McCoy noted the many Employees who had worked so hard to keep the University functioning and open over the past four weeks of snow and ice. He noted that the University had held an appreciation day for many of these Employees the past Monday as a token of its thanks. McCoy had planned to attend this event but had been called to Raleigh to attend a legislative meeting on the capital facilities program. This meeting was all the more important given the need for capital improvements following the defeat of last year’s bond effort. The Legislature has commissioned a joint select committee to look into the needs of the University.
McCoy recalled that during the last legislative session, the Senate had passed a bill authorizing a $3 billion bond package for the University, with the House passing a similar $1.2 billion bill. The Senate’s bill did not require a referendum, whereas the House bill did. Reconciliation of the two bills was left to the joint committee, which is chaired by Representative George Miller of Durham and Senator Tony Rand of Fayetteville. McCoy praised the leadership qualities of Miller, Rand, and the committee members.
At the Monday meeting, Miller and Rand spoke briefly then called upon an analyst to recap the Eva Klein study results which detailed a $6.9 billion System facilities need. These remarks were followed by Board of Governors Chair Ben Ruffin, UNC President Molly Broad, and Community College System President Martin Lancaster, who detailed the physical and financial needs of North Carolina’s higher education institutions. Dennis Potts, a financial analyst for the Legislature, then made a presentation on revenue forecasts.
Potts’ presentation was not encouraging for the University. The floods following Hurricane Floyd have drawn approximately $850 million from the State budget, and various court cases have incurred another $1 billion in debt from the State budget. In addition, the Governor has made ongoing commitments to fund pay improvements for primary and secondary schools and for Smart Start initiatives.
In total, the sum of money available in the State treasury is very sparse. Potts thought that the effect of recent tax cuts would continue to strap the State budget. Potts also mentioned other signs of rising interest rates and a slowing economy.
Thus, the University will have a less robust budget from which to target its needs. The joint committee will hold a series of meetings through the month, convening March 7 in Greenville and March 17 in the Triangle, to learn first hand the needs of the System. Legislators will observe firsthand the needs of buildings while students and faculty will try to tell the story of their campus’ needs.
Here at UNC-Chapel Hill, the campus is one of the very few in the University System that need space to handle anticipated enrollment growth. There are a terrific amount of scientific space and upgrade needs in campus laboratories. McCoy said that soon teaching and research budgets may need to be cut simply because the campus does not have enough room to add to its research operations. Such a cutback would be a shame because Carolina has grown its research grants by a rate of 13% over the last few years.
In addition, Carolina has a $60 million medical research building in its plans, with plans to ask the State to fund half the cost with the remainder to come from overhead receipts and grants.
McCoy said that UNC will work hard to tell its story. However, he did not have information about specific legislation that the University would target.
McCoy noted that the University Priorities and Budget Committee entered a planning retreat in early January. He thought that participants had gotten two good days of work in to develop monitoring processes during this time. Jane Stine, the Forum’s 1999 Chair, had participated in this retreat. The University Priorities and Budget Committee has sent out letters to set up budget hearings in the first part of April. During these meetings, cabinet representatives, deans, and faculty, student and staff representatives will hear presentations from campus schools and departments. McCoy said that these meetings will involve a lot of work, but should provide a solid foundation for the UNC-Chapel Hill’s budgetary planning process for the next biennium budget. The University will need to submit its next biennium budget to the Governor by November of this year in time to incorporate suggested changes and modifications for the legislative session next February.
McCoy offered to take questions from the group. Jill Mayer recalled that the News & Observer reported had reported that the business lobby had come out in support of University construction. McCoy praised North Carolina Citizens for Business and Industry for its presentation outlining the issue of capital facilities needs. He anticipated that, as time grew closer to legislative approval, the State would hear more from this organization.
Dorothy Grant asked if McCoy thought that justice had been done in the case of the days that the University had closed. She noted that University Employees would be forced to make up days lost when the campus was closed, but she did not understand this requirement since no money or services were lost during the closed days.
McCoy understood Grant’s complaint, and noted that the University had run into difficulties because of General Administration’s requirement that campus teach 150 days. At UNC-Chapel Hill there is already an adverse weather policy that the University intended to follow which stated that certain days in which the University is closed do not require Employees to make up time lost. However, the University has received a directive from the Governor through the Office of State Personnel, which ruled that Employees would have to make up these days over the space of 24 months. Administration officials talked about this ruling and agreed to make efforts to change this interpretation. Unfortunately, these serious efforts were not successful.
McCoy had met with faculty and student representatives who felt that holding the University to teach 150 days was not appropriate, as other schools have to teach different numbers of days. He offered to let the Forum see as much information as he had on this subject and would be glad to make an appropriate recommendation once all factors are considered. He noted that advocacy on this subject had not stopped with two efforts to convince Director of State Personnel Ron Penny.
Dave Lohse asked why the Office of State Personnel felt it had to take such a hard line. Vice Chancellor for Finance and Administration Jack Evans referred listeners to a quote in the News & Observer’s Under the Dome section in which Penny calculated a cost to the State of $5 million + if salary payments were made for these three days without the correspondent time worked. Penny thought that the administration would not be responsible for taxpayers’ money if it paid for these days without receiving work or compensation of some form.
Mike Hawkins noted that the Forum had already planned to address this subject later on in the meeting. The Chair thanked Hawkins for this recognition.
McCoy thanked the Forum for its leadership and good work done through the years. The Chair thanked McCoy for taking the time to address the Forum that morning.
The Chair introduced Paula Schubert, the President of the State Employees’ Association of North Carolina (SEANC), to make a special presentation to the Forum. Schubert said that she had been a twenty-year State Employee, serving with Continuing Education in Health Affairs.
In her capacity as President of SEANC, she looked forward to serving the State’s employees in the short legislative session. SEANC is a non-profit organization that is dedicated to protecting and enhancing benefits for past, future and current State employees. SEANC is the largest independent employees’ organization of its kind in the nation.
SEANC has stepped forward as a powerful voice for employees. Longtime members are aware of SEANC’s advocacy and preservation of salary range adjustments, health care benefits, longevity pay, and tax-sheltered retirement plans, among many other achievements.
Schubert noted that State dollars are becoming more precious every day. In general, State Employees face a situation in which the press is not an advocate, people who rely on State services are often disdainful, and legislators come and go. This year in particular, things do not look good for State Employees. Around $836 million was devoted to the Hurricane Floyd flood relief package, which necessitated a 4% cut in State operations, with the potential for an additional 2% cut. The Legislature has pledged to find this money without raising taxes. Schubert said that the State cannot continue to balance its budget in this way and provide quality services to its people.
Around North Carolina, Schubert has heard employees’ concerns about increases in salary. The Office of State Personnel has told SEANC that salaries are set at the level that the market can bear. Schubert found this assertion hard to believe given current vacancy figures. At UNC-Chapel Hill, there are over 600 vacancies, representing almost 10% of the workforce. At Dorothea Dix, the State mental hospital, there is a 26% vacancy rate. State hospitals face similar vacancy rates. The Department of Corrections has an 11% vacancy rate, with a 67% turnover rate. The starting pay for correctional officers is under $21,000/year. Schubert spoke with nurse in a hospital with 50 vacancies, who had put in 97 hours overtime in one pay period (28 days), and was taxed 48% on overtime worked. This nurse had worked 22 days straight. In addition, nurses typically work double shifts, with others often pulled from days off to make up the numbers. Schubert said that no one could tell her that State employees are paid competitive wages given these working conditions.
Schubert was pleased with SEANC’s success in finding approval for the State Health Plan prescription drug card program. The State was able to find $10 million in its budget to fund this program. However, the State is looking at another increase in health care premiums of around 25-30%. This increase means that the typical employee who received a 3% salary increase with a $125 bonus would bring home much less money. As a result, State analysts are proposing that individual employees pay a portion of their individual premiums. Schubert was frustrated that once again the Legislature would try to balance its budget on the back of State employees.
Marsha Barnes has said that the retirement system is sound, but the State is looking to reduce the employer contribution to the system. Barnes has said that the State could reduce its contribution to 1% and not harm current benefits. However, retirees would no longer receive a cost of living adjustment. In any event, the contribution factor would not exceed 1.80.
Schubert called for a strong, unified cry of outrage from employees; for their own self-preservation, employees must mobilize themselves en masse to let the Legislature know about their needs. She hoped that employees would seek out their legislators now for comment, and would participate in the State Employee rally at the Legislature May 17. In addition, she urged employees to register to vote and to go to the polls in November.
Schubert said that SEANC needs employees to join and to become active in its work. She thanked the Forum for its time and attention.
Meredith Snoddy of the Educational Foundation gave the next special presentation on events surrounding the spring football game. She noted that a great number of donors to the Educational Foundation, the fundraising arm of the Athletic Department, give less than $150 a year.
One opportunity for donors and Employees generally to support the UNC athletic program and to have a good time will come during the weekend of the April 8 spring football game. The spring football game has typically been used for community service activities such as the United Way effort to cater to at-risk children. This year, the Educational Foundation will cater to these children by an NFL autograph clinic. Children from the Frank Porter Graham Center will attend as well as other children. The Foundation will set up a Fan Center near Dye Hall for tailgating that weekend, to reward the University, fans, and contributors for their support of UNC athletics. She hoped that Employees would publicize the event and would attend the UNC baseball game, which is also held that weekend. Snoddy noted that Employees receive free athletic passes to attend all regular season athletic events excepting football and men’s basketball.
Donors to the Educational Foundation will receive a private lunch with the head coaches of the football and basketball programs.
Snoddy invited Employees to this free family event. Interested parties can find more details at the carolinablue.com and the Educational Foundation web sites, or they can contact Snoddy directly at 945-2000.
Human Resources Update
Associate Vice Chancellor for Human Resources Laurie Charest arose to give the Forum’s customary Human Resources update. Charest reported that the University would undergo a change in its term life insurance program effective March 1. The University will switch from Prudential to Met Life, with all current enrollees automatically transferred. The new plan comes with portability; if Employees choose to leave the University, they can still continue with the plan under slightly higher portability rates.
Premiums for every Employee will be lower, with the degree depending on age. The oldest Employees will receive the most benefits, with an average decrease in premiums of 27%. These cuts will become evident in Employees’ March paychecks.
The total of all University life insurance coverage is $84 million, and this change will represent annual saving of $413,000. Enrolled Employees must do nothing to have their transfer from Prudential to Metropolitan take place, and Employees will have the opportunity to increase their coverage.
Charest reminded Employees that the enrollment deadline for Carolina Kids Camp is Friday, March 3, at 9 a.m.
Non-supervisory Employees are particularly needed to serve in the performance pay appeal process. In each performance pay hearing there must be one supervisor and two non-supervisors to complete the process. Interested Employees should contact Ken Litowsky.
Judith Scott has produced a handout detailing sexual harassment information resources. This program provides Employees a number of additional points to understand the sexual harassment system.
Concerning adverse weather, Charest announced that the Office of State Personnel has extended dates for the adverse weather exception. Employees now will be allowed to use sick leave to make up dates used from January 25 through February 4. This exception has not been extended backwards to the week before the big storm, and dates lost for adverse weather before January 25 are subject to existing rules. Charest thought that the Office was trying to match the dates of school system closings.
Approval of the Minutes
The Chair called for a motion to approve the February 2 minutes. Delegates noted that Tracey Haith, Ruthie Lawson, and John Meeker were all incorrectly listed as absent. Given these corrections, Robert Thoma made a motion to approve the minutes, seconded by Karen Geer. The motion was approved unanimously.
The Chair asked Delegates who had not yet signed up for a Forum committee to do so. She reminded Delegates that they are required to serve actively on at least one Forum committee.
Employee Presentations and New Business
The Chair noted that there are three resolutions on the agenda concerning the adverse weather situation. She noted that the author of the first resolution, Mike Hawkins, was unfortunately not present due to his attendance at a meeting with General Administration officials. She noted that the Forum had included time on the agenda for Employees to voice their opinions on the adverse weather situation, or on any other topic of interest.
Barry Williams arose to make a few comments on the adverse weather situation. He noted that the University Benefits Handbook says that when catastrophic weather occurs Employees are not required to make up time. Decisions made by the chancellor or his or her representative determine whether the time lost is considered merely adverse or catastrophic.
Williams recalled that the snowstorm was the worst the state had seen in many years. The U.S. mail had not delivered for four days, and some locations did not receive mail for seven days. Grocery stores were closed for two days after the January 24 snow, and stores that did open found their shelves emptied within minutes. The snow was so deep that the RDU airport and Highway 85 were closed the latter at the ruling of the Highway Patrol.
The snow stopped one UPS trucker who drives between RDU and Danville, Virginia on the night of January 24, along with more than 100 other trucks. His cohorts only picked up this trucker on Tuesday afternoon at 1 p.m.
Williams noted that two main suppliers, Anacom and Hannister, were closed for three days during the storm. He added that University Employees were given two days paid time off to assist flood victims. Yet, the University and the State insist that Employees make up days when they were the victims of catastrophic weather. Williams found this requirement particularly unfair given that the Department of Transportation and the University do not have the machinery to handle this amount of snow to clear their own roads and parking lots.
Williams noted that the Governor had declared a State of Emergency and urged drivers to stay off the roads. He said if the decision were not reversed, the next time Employees would try to come to work to avoid losing hours and would possibly endanger themselves. Williams had sent an email to Director of State Personnel Ron Penny asking why this snowstorm was not considered catastrophic.
Williams conceded that no one was perfect. However, he thought that the State should be big enough to admit its mistake and not require Employees to make up time lost due to the biggest snowstorm in the past 100 years.
Elaine Tola reported that she had received many emails from Employees asking how the Forum would address the issue. She thought that Williams had done a great job describing the hardship that Employees had undergone.
Tola was concerned about the image the Forum would present to the general body of Employees if it failed to approve the proposed resolutions protesting the State’s decision. She noted that Employees are living in an area in which the employment level was the lowest it has ever been. Employees are dedicated to the jobs that they do, and recognize that working for the University means making less than they would in private industry. However, Employees want to continue here because they are happier with their community and work situation.
Tola thought that decisions like the one requiring Employees to make up adverse weather hurt the good reputation of working at the University. She thought that Employees had read the adverse weather policy, which said that when the University is closed, Employees are paid for time lost. She surmised Employees were mystified by the State’s decision to make up the lost time on the backs of Employees. She further concluded that the University’s attrition rate would continue to worsen for a long time to come.
Tola said that on balance the closing of the University for three days was a small thing given that the President of the United States had declared the Triangle a disaster area. She saw no reason to require Employees to make up the time since no one could get on the roads. The decision put the onus of responsibility on Employees. She thought that the University and the State could reverse the decision as a gesture of good faith. Tola felt that such a gesture would encourage Employees to stay with the University even though benefits and pay are not comparable with private industries in Research Triangle Park.
Tola summed up that the decision was a slap in the face of University Employees. She knew that many Employees tried to telecommute during those three days because of their dedication to the job, but others were not able to do so. She thought that if the University were to stick by this decision, many of its Employees would leave to work in Research Triangle Park, where they would work for an employer who treats them the same way but for better money and benefits. She failed to see the logic of the decision in light of the campus’ 600 vacant positions.
The Chair asked if any other Delegates wished to comment at this point. She noted that Laurie Charest, Jack Evans and other administrators across the Triangle had worked hard to obtain a reversal of the decision, but Ron Penny had his mind made up from the start.
Evans said he was very sympathetic with Williams and Tola’s statements. He was part of the group of people who was trying to formulate the University’s position. Evans said that it was a reasonable thing to do to not require Employees to make up this time. Part of this thinking was that many Employees come to campus to provide services to others. During the snowstorm, when no one was here, the demand for these services drops dramatically. Thus, the issue of making up the time is not the same as making up for services rendered. In addition, Evans noted that many Employees have a pile of work waiting which will require their attention whether the time is made up or not.
In context, Evans did not think it was practical to apply the same remedy across a geographically dispersed workforce (namely, the entire state). Different decisions are required in different locales. The University has its own adverse weather policy in which the chancellor or his or her representative has the authority to make determinations. The chancellor’s advisors recommended that he invoke the policy and not require these three days to be made up due to the University’s closing.
Evans participated in a conference call involving Ron Penny, Charest, the Vice Chancellor for Finance at North Carolina Central, and the Senior Human Resources Director at North Carolina State. The group made several arguments to Penny that since these universities were closed and roads were dangerous, Employees should not have been required to account for this time. Employees defying the Governor’s order and braving the dangerous roads would have faced clogged parking lots on campus.
This conversation also touched on the authority of a chancellor to make personnel decisions affecting their campuses in times of catastrophic weather. Penny denied this authority in the conversation, a break with years of precedent.
Evans thought it was important for all three Triangle area universities to have the same decision on this matter. He thought that the University had fought the right fight against this decision and said that the administration was prepared to carry this argument forward. He furthermore said that the issue was not resolved, and was larger than that of one snowstorm and three days lost.
Dorothy Grant asked how many days Penny had worked during the snowstorm.
Jeffery Fuchs noted that University Employees had lost a workday due to the onslaught of Hurricane Floyd, and were not forced to make up this day. The Office of State Personnel had not objected to this decision. Evans was not certain that all State agencies had done the same thing in this incident, or were treated the same way by the Office.
Evans discussed with Penny the subject of University authority in light of the need for the right solution to this problem. He said that campus Employees had faced span of control cuts, budget cuts, and a burden of 600 vacancies while carrying out an increasing workload. University administrators concluded that it would be the right thing to do to clear the books and allow the time not to be made up. He did not think the State’s position was the correct one.
Tola asked what the Forum could do to help the University make clearer to Penny the implications of his decision to the future of the University. Evans surmised that Penny felt that his executive responsibility is to the taxpayers of the State. He disagreed with Penny’s interpretation. Tola asked if a flood of letters and email might have an impact. Evans could not say whether it might or not.
Grant thought that it would be unfair to blame the University totally for this decision. She was tired of hearing about the affect of Employees not make up the time on the State budget. She said that the University and the State had made the decision to close the campus and close the roads. She did not think that the State would lose anything if the time was made up. Others countered that the Office of State Personnel would lose leave time that Employees now must use for this purpose. Maceo Bullock commented that Penny works for the Governor.
Cindy Stone asked who decided that Employees could have worktime to help victims of the floods down east. Members responded that the Governor’s office made this decision. Diana Newton noted that the Governor feels he has a responsibility to the taxpayers of the State, but may have forgotten that he represents University Employees, who are taxpayers also. Christine Morrison knew one Employee who hit a telephone pole while trying to get to campus during adverse weather. She wondered if this Employee could submit their deductible bill to Ron Penny for time lost.
Dave Lohse asked what could drive Penny to take such a hard-line on this issue. He thought the decision would create horrible public relations for the State in the struggle to find new workers. Laurie Charest could not adequately explain Penny’s reasoning but thought that he did not intend to change his initial position. As Penny proceeded through the conversation, he acknowledged difficulties with adverse weather, but said only that he would be willing to look at future changes. Lohse asked what the Governor indeed knew about this decision and what were his wishes in this matter.
Williams asked how the State could question that this weather was catastrophic. Charest said that Penny had attempted to make a distinction between catastrophic tornadoes and hurricanes versus snowstorms. However, she had difficulty applying Penny’s distinction consistently.
Denise Mabe again asked where the Governor stood on this question. Diane O’Connor thought that the decision represented a slippery slope in the area of State and university relations. She knew of one employee who had their carport collapse and was without power for four days and would love to talk with the Governor.
An Employee opined that the decision was nothing more than theft, in which budgeted days were taken away from Employees.
The Chair moved to a discussion of the resolutions before the Forum. She asked Delegates to think very clearly about the wording and content of these resolutions. She asked Matt Banks to explain the Forum’s process for passage of resolutions.
Banks noted that the Forum had passed a one-meeting waiting period requirement for proposals of substance. This requirement was enacted to protect the rights of members to study a proposal and to consult with fellow Employees before being forced to make a final vote.
However, the Forum could bypass this requirement for a one-month waiting period by voting to suspend its rules. Motions to suspend the rules require a two-thirds majority to approve since the rules of debate (known as Robert’s Rules of Order) are generally in place to protect the rights of individual members. A compelling reason is required to suspend the rights of individual members to consider and study a proposal of substance for a one-month period.
Generally, proposals of substance are introduced to the Forum at one meeting, and are then brought back to the Forum for final approval at the next meeting. The act of introducing a proposal is known as the proposal’s “first reading,” and the reintroduction of the proposal at the next meeting is known as the proposal’s “second reading.”
Karen Geer moved that the Forum adopt Resolution 00-01 concerning adverse weather on first reading. Elaine Tola seconded this motion. Tom Jenswold noted that the resolution said nothing about those Employees who worked during the snowstorm. He asked that the Forum include some reference to these Employees when discussing compensation. Grounds and other Employees did not leave the University for three and four days during the snowstorm. Geer accepted Jenswold’s friendly amendment.
The Chair noted that Mike Hawkins and the SEANC organization had written the original, but noted that Hawkins was at a meeting with members of General Administration about the adverse weather situation.
Other members of the Forum wished for the resolution to be directed not only to the Chancellor, but also to the Office of State Personnel and the Governor. These Delegates noted the question of the chancellor’s authority in this concern. Jeffery Fuchs asked if the resolution should not be sent straight to the Governor, but others noted that Ron Penny had been the one to make this decision. As the Forum is an advisory body to the chancellor, the Forum could not bypass the chancellor in its deliberations. Denise Mabe wondered if the Forum could invite the Governor to speak on this topic to discuss the motivations of his administration in greater detail.
Robert Thoma asked if the resolution would not have greater impact if it were delayed over two months by following the regular two-reading process for proposals of substance. Rita Stone thought that the University’s Employees expected the Forum to take immediate action if at all possible. Jeffery Fuchs thought it was important to express Employees’ feelings on the subject in as many ways as possible.
It was noted that the resolution could gain more substance by adopting language included in Resolution 00-02, which addressed future administration of catastrophic weather situations. This language also addressed Jenswold’s concerns about Employees who worked during the adverse weather situation. Geer agreed to adopt these changes to her motion.
The Forum closed discussion of Geer’s motion, and voted unanimously to accept Resolution 00-01, as amended, on first reading.
Kathy Dutton moved that the Forum suspend its rules, waive its one month waiting period, consider approval of Resolution 00-01 at that same meeting. Tom Jenswold seconded Dutton’s motion. In the absence of discussion, Dutton’s motion was approved unanimously.
Rita Stone moved that the Forum approve Resolution 00-01 as amended on second reading, and formally transmit its contents to the Chancellor for his action. Elaine Tola seconded this motion. In the absence of further discussion, Stone’s motion was approved unanimously.
Discussion moved to consideration of Resolution 00-02. The Chair noted that this resolution had grown out of an Executive Committee discussion with Laurie Charest, and its text was drawn from recommendations by the UNC System Human Resources Advisory Board.
A delegate asked if the second resolution was indeed necessary. Another noted that this resolution addressed future concerns about catastrophic weather more than current complaints. The Forum was informed that approval of this resolution would reinforce current discussions with Ron Penny about future administration of catastrophic weather situations. In fact, those discussions would take place that afternoon.
Dave Lohse moved that the Forum accept Resolution 00-02 on first reading, seconded by Tom Jenswold. In the absence of further discussion, the motion was approved unanimously.
Lohse moved that the Forum suspend its rules and waive the one month waiting period for consideration of proposals of substance, in order that the Forum consider passage of Resolution 00-02 at that meeting. Dutton seconded this motion, which was then approved unanimously.
Lohse then moved that the Forum approved Resolution 00-02 on second reading, and formally transmit its contents to the Chancellor for his action. Jeffery Fuchs seconded this motion. In the absence of further discussion, the motion was approved unanimously.
The Chair noted that the Executive Committee had authored Resolution 00-03 to honor those Employees who served the University during the recent snowstorm. She asked if there were any discussion of the merits of this resolution.
Dave Lohse moved that the Forum accept Resolution 00-03 on first reading. Denise Mabe seconded him. Robert Thoma said he thought this resolution was a fine idea. In the absence of further discussion, the motion was approved unanimously.
Lohse moved that the Forum suspend its rules and waive the one month waiting period for consideration of proposals of substance, in order that the Forum consider passage of Resolution 00-03 at that meeting. Jeffery Fuchs seconded this motion, which was then approved unanimously.
Lohse then moved that the Forum approved Resolution 00-03 on second reading, and formally transmit its contents to the Chancellor for his action. Dorothy Grant seconded this motion. In the absence of further discussion, the motion was approved unanimously.
The Chair noted that the Communications Committee had asked for input on the naming of the Forum newsletter. She was excited about the potential of the newsletter to communicate across campus. Suzan DeSerres, chair of the Communications Committee, said the group planned to publish the newsletter monthly. The newsletter would include reports from committees and topical discussions of policy, such as this month’s discussion on adverse weather. The newsletter would be distributed on one and one-half pages to all campus staff Employees. DeSerres hoped that Forum committee chairs could contribute articles for inclusion in the newsletter later this year.
The Forum moved to allow the Communications Committee to choose from a list of suggestions, including “Your Forum Voice” and “In Touch.” (The committee eventually settled on “In Touch.”)
John Heuer noted that he had agreed to serve as the Forum’s temporary representative on the Transportation & Parking Advisory Committee (TPAC). He asked Delagates to consider serving as the Forum’s permanent representative. Heuer noted that at its latest meeting, TPAC had heard recommendations that the University raise fees for failing to yield at crosswalks from $25 to $200 and for obstructing traffic from $25 to $50. A proposal to implement a night parking permit scheme was tabled due to unanimous dissent by student members.
One delegate asked about projections of a $65,000 surplus in Transportation and Parking revenue for the year. Karen Geer noted that any departmental surplus is immediately diverted to debt service on campus parking decks. Heuer said that Delagates could indicate their interest in serving on TPAC by contacting him.
The Chair noted that the Executive Committee would work on a set of goals for the upcoming year at its March meeting. She asked other committees to do the same.
The Chair said that she would be involved with approximately 28 hours of budgetary hearings with the University Priorities & Budget Committee (UPBC). She said these meetings would take a great deal of time through the month of April.
Jill Mayer noted that the pedestrian safety committee would continue to meet through the next few months, and possibly beyond. She noted that a list of short- and long-term objectives has been constructed, with some of these proposals already implemented by campus, Town, and State officials.
The Chair asked members to consider making nominations for the Information Technology Awards.
In the absence of further discussion, and due to time constraints, the meeting adjourned at 11:40 a.m. by popular agreement.
Matt Banks, Recording Secretary