May 1, 2002
Agenda — May 1, 2002
9:30 a.m.—Meeting, Wilson Library Assembly Room
I. Call to Order
II. Welcome Guests, Members of the Press
III. Opening Remarks–Chancellor James Moeser; Elmira Mangum, Associate Provost for Finance
VI. New Business
· Resolution Seeking Forum Representation on Chancellor’s Administrative Council (1st Reading)
V. Employee Presentations or Questions
VI. Approval of Minutes of the April 3, 2002 meeting P
VII. Forum Committee Reports
· Career Development: Fred Jordan
· Communications: Linda Collins
Þ Forum Newsletter
· Employee Presentations: Gary Lloyd
· Nominating: Kay Teague
Þ Forum Elections
· Orientation: Joan Ferguson/Barbara Logue
· Personnel Issues: Mary Ann Vacheron
· Recognition and Awards: Shirley Hart/Sylvia White
· University Committee Assignments: Lee Edmark
VIII. Stretch Time 6
IX. Chair’s Report (Executive Committee): Tommy Griffin
X. Task Force/University Committee Reports
· Transportation & Parking Advisory—Joanne Kucharski/Jimmy Workman
· Personnel Flexibility Study Committee—John Heuer
XI. Human Resources Update
· Laurie Charest, Associate Vice Chancellor for Human Resources
XII. Special Presentations
· Bob Knight on Winmore Project (Affordable Housing)
· Karen Geer on University Master Plan & New Construction this Month
P = Included in Agenda Packet
May 1, 2002
Wilson Library Assembly Room
Mary Ann Vacheron
“ = Ex-Officio
Chair Tommy Griffin called the meeting to order at 9:34 a.m. He welcomed Chancellor James Moeser and Associate Provost for Finance Elmira Mangum to the meeting, along with past Forum chair John Heuer and other guests. He also welcomed back Forum delegate Roy Caudle, who had been recently ill.
The Chair presented new delegate Wanda Gunter with her Forum pin, and congratulated her on her promotion. He then welcomed Chancellor Moeser to present opening remarks.
Moeser noted that the University and the State faced difficult budgetary times over the next one to two years. This year, the State faces a $1 billion shortfall, which could grow to $1.5-2 billion in the next fiscal year. April’s fiscal receipts were not encouraging for the State, which has led to a downgrading of the State’s financial position.
Moeser recalled that he had told the Faculty Council last week that while the University faces a very difficult managerial task and financial situation, the University also holds enormous potential for a bright future. While the State has undergone its own set of troubles, the University has increased its level of private support and faculty have increased the level of grant support to the University. Moeser said that the University is undergoing a subtle shift in its sources of funds, with less reliance on the State and more on private funds that it generates through the work of faculty and other ancillary activities.
Still, this fact does not take away from the immediate difficulty facing a budget still dependent on State appropriations. He recalled that two months ago he had asked departments to submit budgets anticipating cuts from 1-5%. He now thought that the Governor’s budget would ask the UNC System to absorb at least a 5% cut, based on the rough figures available.
Moeser noted that the chair of the General Assembly’s appropriations committee had suggested a $600 million cut, which would be an enormous blow to North Carolina’s educational framework, from K-12 to community colleges to the University System. He said that this cut would represent a sum well in excess of 10% of the University’s budget. However, at current he felt cautiously optimistic that the campus would be spared from a cut of that magnitude.
The Legislature also faces the prospect of redrawing its electoral district maps, and will concentrate most of its efforts on this topic and on the State’s budget crisis. He noted that both parties feel they have a shot to control the House in the coming elections.
Moeser predicted that the Legislature would lay out really bad numbers early on, when all areas of government will come into play. Then, the Governor will move for passage of a State lottery, although a lottery would not produce needed revenue immediately. There will be attempts to raid various trust funds such as the highway trust fund, which contains a huge well of cash. He thought that predictions of a 13% cut represented the worst case scenario, but added that anything could happen while the Legislature is in session. The University has powerful friends in the Governor’s Office, the Senate leadership, and the House, but must monitor the coming process closely.
Nonetheless, whatever budget reductions occur will have a negative effect on University operations. Moeser said that the University cannot absorb further cuts without a loss of jobs. He would continue to make the case to the Legislature that every faculty and staff job is critical. He gained some hope from the Governor’s stance to protect education whenever possible.
Moeser noted that Mangum works with the University budget in the Provost’s Office. He said that the budget hearings reviewed possible scenarios, and do not represent an easy time for any of us. He said that the University must use its best thinking to protect its core priorities.
Changing the subject, Moeser noted that the Board of Trustees has approved a parking ordinance, with modified transit services making up the bulk of a budgetary shortfall. He said that cutting the EU route, with services absorbed by the RU route, and other Chapel Hill Transit cost savings measures will make up most of the shortfall in the Public Safety budget.
Moeser said that Employees will not pay more than the 20% increase already proposed by the Transportation and Parking Advisory Committee (TPAC). He said that the campus realizes that it faces a situation of increasing demand for parking and decreasing supply. He urged Employees to consider moving to the free park and ride option, and noted that the University had secured space for a park and ride lot on Jones Ferry Road. He said that North campus, in particular, would see a decrease in available parking spaces.
As a result of the Hanes Hall and Phillips Hall renovations, parking near these spaces will end very soon. Moeser said that alternative transit plans would enable the campus to pursue its master development plan while preserving and enhancing the beauty of the campus.
Moeser noted that Karen Geer would update the Forum concerning major construction projects over the summer. He noted that construction teams would try to minimize the noise, dust and disruption of walking paths associated with their work. He also noted that South Building would face renovation pressures with the installation of an elevator in that venerable structure.
Moeser asked how many listeners had to endure construction at their work place. He asked them to remind themselves that this work, as disruptive as it can be, will eventually result in a better University. He noted that students when they return will discover the reopened House undergraduate library, the first phase of the Student Union, and new residence halls. Moeser noted that construction will affect one of the main quads on campus as crews install new hot water lines. He granted that these disruptions are annoying, but urged patience.
He noted that Bob Knight would discuss the Winmore project, a affordable housing initiative that the University has entered with private developers. He said that this project represents a limited effort that might influence building practices in the Horace Williams project.
Moeser reported that the University had decided to close the Horace Williams airport. He said that one reason for the airport’s closing is fiscal responsibility, and said that the University had paid a $250,000 subsidy to the airport last year. He said that the University would also have had to pay an additional $2 million to bring the airport into compliance with Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) standards. Closing the airport resolves a sensitive issue with the Town of Chapel Hill, allows the University to acquire additional property, and avoids cutting down trees necessary for FAA compliance. Finally, the airport’s closure will allow the University the chance to begin development of the property at a more rapid pace.
On May 19, students will formally graduate from the University. Moeser noted that the University had appeared on Good Morning America, exposing the campus to millions of Americans.
Moeser recalled attending the recent 20-year staff employee banquet, and praised the depth of dedication of University staff. He said it was a pleasure to work with campus staff.
Gail Plaisance asked if the University had plans for an additional park and ride lot on 15-501 North towards Durham. Moeser said that the new Bible Church near Sage Road might provide this space, as might South Square Mall.
Roy Caudle asked how the closure of the airport will affect the master plan. Would the University redesign its plan to make use of this land? Moeser said that the University might use the new land to access Estes Drive rather than venturing through municipal bus facilities. He said that the University might also have to clean up a former municipal landfill in the area, but said that the extra land would allow a redesign.
Tom Arnel asked whether Moeser had attended retreats with leaders from other local governments. Moeser said that he meets regularly with Chapel Hill Mayor Ken Foy and other representatives from local towns and the county as part of the planning process for the development. He also noted that he planned to move away from referring to the area as the Horace Williams tract, instead looking to find another name. “Carolina North” has been ventured.
Moeser noted that the Carolina North project is the University’s largest undeveloped asset, in fact larger than the entire UNC-Chapel Hill main campus. Moeser said that the University planned to make the new project a total living and learning community, with housing as well as research buildings and classrooms. Thus, the possibility of public-private partnerships holds enormous possibility for the campus.
Mary Johnson asked if the University had one specific city in mind when constructing this project, such as Silicon Valley. Moeser said that the University did not want a project like the Research Triangle Park or Silicon Valley, in which a huge mass of land contains buildings isolated from one another. Instead, the University wants a walkable environment with mixed uses. University officials have spent a lot of time working on how to fit these different concepts together at the new Carolina North. He hoped to connect the main campus and the new Carolina North in a seamless community that will add value to both places.
Matt Banks asked about the University’s project with Gerrard Hall. Moeser said that planning for Gerrard Hall as an interfaith chapel and meeting place will take place as part of that for the arts common. Steve Allred will lead a large planning group which will address the footprint of everything from Playmakers Theater and Gerrard Hall all the way to the Ackland Museum and elsewhere on North campus. He noted that the Alcheck partners have helped to plan renovations of Memorial Hall, and noted the contributions of delegate Georgeann Bissett towards this effort.
Moeser said that Gerrard Hall is envisioned to become a mixed use facility, used as a nondenominational chapel and a meeting space much as it was when constructed in 1822.
Moeser introduced Associate Provost for Finance Elmira Mangum. Mangum noted that the campus budget is fast approaching the end of the fiscal year. She said that resource issues on campus will force difficult choices with regard to facilities and resource reimbursements and overhead. These choices in turn will affect attempts to improve the student/faculty ratio and Employee retention, among other areas. In turn, these problems will affect the campus master plan and the University’s provision of services and programs.
Mangum said that University Employees are critical to the University’s success, and said that erosion of Employees will affect everyone. She noted that the University had completed its annual budget process a few months ago. She noted that the University now will begin preparations for its expansion budget for the 2003-2005 biennium.
With regard to the campus budget process, this work should finish in a few weeks after meetings with deans and vice chancellors. She noted that the University had received instructions to prepare for cuts from 5-10%, representing a $20-40 million reduction in the campus’ recurring budget. Following these hearings, the University Priorities and Budget Advisory committee (UPBAC) and chancellor’s cabinet will discuss the next State budget process.
When the General Assembly does reconvene, it will consider the next biennial budget. Mangum said that the campus’ would coordinate its expansion budget work with the Office of Financial Planning and Budgets in response to direction from the Office of the President and the Legislature.
Mangum said that the State has identified six areas of concern: intellectual capital, such as libraries and professorships; K-16 initiatives, such as access and support of public school needs; creation and transfer of knowledge; stimulation of economic development; transformation and change resulting from technological and computer-based initiatives; and internationalization. However, the University does not expect to receive additional funding to support these priorities.
Magnum said that there is some chance the University will not receive enrollment change funding promised to mitigate accepting additional students this year. This subject remains under discussion along with the tuition increase issue. Her office would continue to respond to questions from the Office of the President and the General Assembly concerning University needs and concerns. She asked staff members to assist her office in forming these responses, in order to position the University to lessen the impact of proposed cuts in the coming months.
The Chair noted that the Forum had received a resolution seeking Forum representation on the Chancellor’s administrative council. The Forum heard the resolution on first reading and would consider it again in June.
The Chair asked for a motion to approve the minutes of the April meeting. Rob Sadler made this motion seconded by Kay Teague. The motion carried by acclamation.
Forum Committee Reports
Fred Jordan, chair of the Career Development committee, said that Arlene Rainey of Continuing Education and Stephanie Lombardo of Human Resources had joined their group. The committee continues its discussions of staff training fund recommendations. The committee had considered ways to publicize computer training courses, but found that the Communications committee had done much of this work. The committee hoped to have a resolution encouraging supervisor support of educational and training classes ready for the next meeting.
Linda Collins, chair of the Communications committee, noted that InTouch had come out that week. She noted that issue had highlighted training opportunities and Forum news. The next edition will focus on computer training classes. She encouraged Delegates and others to submit their ideas for stories. She also noted that the committee would publish a University Gazette insert this June. She asked members to submit their ideas for improving the Forum website. The Chair noted that he had heard from many Employees stating how much they enjoyed reading the newsletter.
Gary Lloyd, chair of the Employee Presentations committee, said that the group had cancelled its May 6 meeting. The committee will meet in June to make its final preparations for the June 23 community meeting.
Kay Teague, chair of the Nominating committee, noted the group had considered revisions to the attendance policy. These revisions will next go to the Executive Committee for consideration as part of the Forum Guidelines The first electronic call for nominations for next year’s delegate elections will go out that month. She asked Delegates to speak with worthy co-workers about possibly serving.
Joan Ferguson, co-chair of the Orientation committee, said that Dean Smith had declined to address the Forum at its January retreat. The committee now will write to one of four nominees asking them to speak. The committee will soon meet with Recognition & Awards committee representatives to discuss ten-year anniversary plans.
Sylvia White, co-chair of the Recognition & Awards committee, reminded Forum members of the appreciation luncheon to take place May 9. She asked committee members to come early to the meeting to help with table set up. Members could still respond indicating that they will attend.
The Personnel Issues and University Committee Assignments committees did not report.
At this point, the Forum took a ten minute stretch break.
The Chair noted that he had attended the Carolina Center for Public Service banquet and had been impressed with the range of work done by grant recipients. Grant recipients had fed the hungry, helped the homeless, taught in schools and taught Spanish. He noted that Jennifer Morris had won an award for staff service, among others.
The Chair felt pleased that the parking and transit discussions were complete for this year. He said that he would like to see the University use its money wisely in this area. He also felt that parking should come as a benefit for staff, but granted that we must all do our part in these difficult times.
He had also attended a meeting about restructuring the Transportation and Parking Advisory committee (TPAC). He said that the University needs to develop a five-year parking and transit plan, so that Employees know what to expect from year to year. He said that the University planned to hire a new consultant group to improve its decision-making process. He asked Employees to send him their suggestions.
The Chair noted that University Day will fall on a Saturday this year. He granted that Employees might be reluctant to return to campus for ceremonies. He reported that there will be an Arts Common dedication that day, and should be a reception with food following. He asked Delegates to put October 12 on their calendar.
The Chair praised committee work on the ten-year anniversary and staff development fund projects.
The Chair recalled watching North Carolina Perspective Sunday night, during which David McCoy said that he thought the State could balance its budget with a 3% cut. He hoped that McCoy was correct.
The Chair urged Employees to support one another and share the pain during these difficult budgetary times. He thanked everyone present for their time, effort and dedication to the Forum and the University. He remained optimistic that things would move in the right direction soon enough. He praised Moeser for lobbying for staff, faculty and students in discussions with the Legislature.
The Chair introduced 2001 Forum Chair John Heuer to discuss the personnel flexibility initiative. Heuer said that in recent months, he had been forced to work harder on design projects for billable opportunities.
Heuer noted that Moeser had appointed the personnel flexibility study committee last fall. Mangum and Associate Vice Chancellor for Human Resources Laurie Charest co-chair this committee, which has done a lot of good work studying the question of personnel flexibility in a University setting. After some discussion, the Forum appointed Kay Hovious, Steve Hutton and Mary Marsh as staff representatives.
The committee has benchmark and input subcommittees, the former studying practices at other institutions and the latter studying Employee feelings and concerns. The committee plans to fold these two efforts together in a report which it will share with the Chancellor’s office later this year.
Heuer noted that the Legislature has proposed studying whether the University System should receive personnel flexibility away from the Office of State Personnel. The committee is designed to begin a collaborative process of discussion and work with the Legislature and the Office of the President on this question.
Heuer said that the input committee had hoped to find what was most important to campus Employees, be they either to preserve protections and benefits, streamline administrative processes or some other factor. Heuer said that the best administrative personnel system can only function if adequately staffed.
The committee will also study emphasizing performance as a basis for promotion, evaluation and training for supervisors, a performance based pay system, and other training opportunities.
On another topic, Heuer thought that the Chair had done a tremendous job in his work this year and particularly praised his expressions of hope, good faith and optimism during this extremely difficult time.
Human Resources Update
Associate Vice Chancellor for Human Resources Laurie Charest presented the customary Human Resources update. She noted that the Office of State Personnel is working on a proposal to change the State’s compensation system to allow career banding. Career banding would create broader salary bands instead of discrete job classifications for areas such as Systems Analyst I, II, and III. One larger band would have a larger salary range and more flexibility within that band.
Charest understood that the Office of State Personnel (OSP) would try to begin a pilot project for this work in several agencies this summer. This change would make the State’s classification system a bit more modern, given that the current system has been in place since 1948.
Diane Strong asked if these banded classifications would exist across campus or solely within the information technology fields. Charest said that the bands would reach across the SPA system, eventually. She expected that the bands would begin with law enforcement and information technology. Strong asked if Charest knew of a timeframe in which these classifications would be considered. Charest did not remember, but said that the five year rollout plan was already a year behind. She granted that implementing the banded system would represent an enormous effort to reach the more than 100,000 State Employees.
Tom Arnel asked what the banded system would mean to people in terms of compensation. Charest said that in these difficult times it would be unrealistic to expect immediate changes in compensation. Every Employee when studied fairly and appropriately will expect a fair reward. She noted that OSP is excited about working with a different compensation system, but worries that about the timing of implementation without funding support.
Charest said that May means that supervisors must complete their performance reviews. Employees will receive information about getting their ratings into the Human Resources Information System (HRIS) shortly.
Charest reminded Employees that last year’s pilot project of allowing a tuition waiver for summer school will continue this year. She noted that the first session of summer school will register May 6. She said that the new summer school waiver represents an important Employee benefit. However, she added that Employees can use this benefit for only two courses a year.
Charest noted that the Heels for Health Spring Fling will take place Friday at noon. She expressed pride in the number of Employees attending the 20 year banquet.
The Chair introduced Bob Knight to speak on the Winmore project. Knight’s presentation is on-line at http://www.unc.edu/staff/forum/InTouch/InTouch3-4.html#winmore
Dana Xiao wondered who would have responsibility for traffic on Homestead Road near the development. Knight said that this responsibility would be that of the community, although he did not think that it would represent a large problem. Arnel asked if the developers intended to widen Homestead Road. Knight said that the developers had talked more about Weaver Dairy and Estes Drive. Johnson asked how many units the project would offer for those making under $30,000 a year. Knight said that University was not trying to solve the entire problem with this one project. Responding to Chris Koltz’ question, he said that the arrangement would allow the University to control rent at the apartments for the long term. Andy Maglione asked if a homeowners’ association would control how and whether homeowners could sell their property. Knight said that the University would control the land under the affordable housing apartments.
Nora Robbins said that many groups had commented around Chapel Hill and Carrboro about efforts to find affordable housing for residents. She said that the Winmore project was merely one idea out of many. Another idea is providing low-interest loans for teachers and others. The University might explore establishing below-market interest rates for applicants.
The Chair thanked Knight, the administration and the Board of Trustees for their hard work in this area. He felt pleased that the University had made these steps toward providing affordable and reasonably-priced housing for Employees.
Karen Geer noted that the University has approximately $100 million of construction projects to begin in May. She said that Peabody Hall, the Old Dental building, the Stone Center, South Building, and the storm water projects all will be active for all. Work on Alexander, Connor and Winston dormitories, as well as the School for Public Health, will begin in June. In August, construction on the Health Sciences Library and Memorial Hall renovations will begin. A hot water line running from Hill Hall to Battle Hall will see work beginning in July, for an operational date of October 1.
The Hot Water Phase 1 project will run waterlines to dormitories along Raleigh Road, meaning that road will close the week after graduation but should open by fall. She advised Employees to avoid that road during nights and weekends.
Geer said that her office would work with Scott Ragland to publicize these changes. Matt Todd asked if Raleigh Road would close all the way to Franklin Street, and Geer said that it would. Maglione asked if work would soon begin on Burnett-Womack. Geer said that work would not begin until the Bioinformatics building is complete, hopefully by the end of the year.
In the absence of further discussion, the meeting adjourned at 11:40 a.m.
Matt Banks, Recording Secretary