Agenda — May 3, 2000

9:30 a.m.— Assembly Room of Wilson Library

I. Call to Order

II. Welcome Guests, Members of the Press and New Delagates
III. Special Acknowledgment of Provost Dick Richardson
IV. Special Presentations

    • Associate Vice Chancellor Carolyn Elfland on Proposals for Fare-Free Transit System
    • Ken Litowsky on WPPR Evaluation Standards

V. Employee Presentations And Questions

VI. Human Resources Update

    • Laurie Charest, Associate Vice Chancellor, Human Resources

VII. Approval of Minutes of the March 1, April 5, 2000 meeting P

 

VIII. Unfinished Business

    • Need for Executive Committee Representative from Division 4

IX. Stretch Time 

X. New Business

    • Request for Input on General Administration Annual Report

XI. Forum Committee Reports

  • Career Development: Bobbie Lesane
  • Communications: Suzan deSerres
  • Forum Newsletter, University Gazette Insert
  • Employee Presentations: Kathy Dutton
  • Spring Community Meeting
  • Nominating: Karen Geer
  • Orientation: Bobbie Lesane
  • Personnel Issues: Dave Lohse
  • Recognition and Awards: Joanne Kucharski
  • University Committee Assignments: John Heuer

 

 

XII. Chair’s Report (Executive Committee): Joanne Kucharski/Kathy Dutton P

    • Chancellor’s Response on Adverse Weather Resolutions

XIII. Task Force/University Committee Reports

    • Pedestrian Safety Committee—Jill Mayer/Sheila Storey
    • Transportation & Parking Advisory — Chris Barfield
    • Open Space Committee—Joanne Kucharski/John Heuer/Karen Geer
    • Chancellor Search Committee—Jane Stine
    • Provost Search Committee—Jane Stine
    • Payroll Issues Study Task Force—Jane Stine
    • Master Plan Executive Steering Team—Joanne Kucharski
    • University Priorities & Budget— Joanne Kucharski
    • Faculty Council Liaison—Joanne Kucharski
    • Vice Chancellor for Finance & Administration Search Committee—Joanne Kucharski
    • Women’s Center Director Search—Joanne Kucharski

XIV. Announcements/Questions

XV. Adjournment

P = Included in Agenda Packet

Minutes

May 3, 2000

Delegates Present

Forrest Aiken

Brenda Ambrose-Fortune

Christine Barfield

Anita Booth

Maceo Bullock

Suzan deSerres

Kathy Dutton

Monisia Farrington

Linda Ford

Jeffery Fuchs

Linwood Futrelle

Kim Gardner

Karen Geer

Sherry Graham

Dorothy Grant

Tracey Haith

Shelby Harris

Michael Hawkins

John Heuer

Diane Hill

Tom Jenswold

Joanne Kucharski

Ruthie Lawson

Bobbie Lesane

Dave Lohse

Jill Mayer

John Meeker

Margaret Moore

Diana Newton

Lynn Ray

Cathy Riley

Rickey Robinson

Joanna E. Smith

Rita Stone

Diane Strong

Cindy Stone

Sheila Storey

Darian Sturdivant

Joanne Terry

Robert Thoma

Elaine Tola

Laurie Charest

Jane Stine

= Ex-Officio

Delagates Absent

Terry Barker

Deedra Donley

Andy Johns

Karen Jordan

Ramona Kellam

Charlotte Kilpatrick

Denise Mabe

Susan Toppin

Excused Absences

Ken Perry

Alternates Present

Janet Aliff

Tommy Griffin

Lauren Mangili

Christine Morrison

Guests

Carolyn Elfland

Chris Kairo

Ken Litowsky

Scott Ragland

Richard Richardson

 

Call to Order, Welcome to Guests, Opening Remarks

Chair Joanne Kucharski called the meeting to order at 11:34 a.m. and welcomed Delegates and special guests to the gathering. She recognized Scott Ragland, Laurie Charest, and Jane Stine, among others. She also noted that the Recognition & Awards Committee had produced treat bags for the Forum and its distinguished guests, and invited members to help themselves. She also took a moment to acknowledge the work of Vice Chair Kathy Dutton and Secretary Karen Geer.

The Chair then introduced Secretary Karen Geer to read a special resolution honoring Provost Richard J. Richardson, on the occasion of his retirement from the University. The Forum approved the resolution unanimously.

Richardson thanked the Forum for its recognition and noted the 31 years he had spent at the University and five years spent as interim provost had been very busy. He was grateful for the Forum’s kindness, and said that he had enjoyed his relationship with Forum chairs Joanne Kucharski, Linwood Futrelle, Jane Stine, and Bob Schreiner. He noted the great importance of staff to the work of this institution, and joked that he had been utterly dependent on staff to make him look good. He had formed warm relationships with secretaries and housekeepers that he would carry forward from this place.

Richardson recalled a talk before the faculty alumni association in which he raised a point about faculty salaries. What if an epidemic struck the University and obliterated one-third of the faculty on the UNC campus. Would the University be able to sustain itself? What if this epidemic picked out only the most senior faculty on campus? Fortunately, this situation has not happened, but the senior one-third of the faculty are due to retire within eight years, around 500-700 professors. Among these are the “star” professors who have made the University’s reputation since World War II. Unless the University is able to replace these professors with people of equal quality, it will not be able to maintain its place in the national imagination with Cal Berkeley, the University of Virginia, and the University of Michigan.

Richardson conceded that there is something wrong with this story which the University has presented to its faculty, to its Board of Trustees, and its State Legislature. While the University is correct to present this important story about its faculty, it is not doing nearly as well in articulating the story about the staff story, in either frequency or intensity. Similar numbers of staff Employees are due to retire in the next eight years, in a time when the University faces difficulties already with unfilled positions. University Employees also face strange difficulties with a job classification system that cannot bring individuals up to the levels that they deserve, leading to job transfers and increased vacancies.

Who is telling this story? Associate Vice Chancellor for Human Resources Laurie Charest has worked hard, but she cannot do this job herself. University Employees need more forceful helpers to couple the staff story to the faculty story. The University had been able to help librarians to receive a raise, and has asked General Administration to loosen other constraints on helping staff. Given the extraordinary commitment to the University at every level of campus, the Forum represents the best chance to put this question forward in the public mind.

Richardson noted that there is no direct reporting line from the Forum to the upper levels of administration, a situation that he hoped would change soon. He hoped that the Forum and the University would come to tell the staff story, in a voice neither whining or hyperbolic. He hoped that the University would live up to the promise to tell this story forcefully in the years ahead.

Dave Lohse noted that when he was a student on campus in August 1977 he had studied with Richardson and as a result wanted to be a professor of political science. He noted that Richardson is one of the preeminent political scientists in the nation, as well as a fine provost. The Chair added that she had never heard Richardson forget to acknowledge the accomplishments of staff in his public comments. She wished Richardson all the best in his retirement and tour of Europe this summer.

Vice Chair Kathy Dutton introduced Chris Chiron to make a few remarks on the Human Resources facilitator of the year program. Chiron passed out nomination forms and directed members to the Human Resources web site for more information. He asked Employees to think about making nominations from their department to recognize one of the over 350 Human Resources facilitators on campus. Nominations are due May 12 and there will be a reception June 7 to recognize facilitators and nominees.

The Chair asked members to examine and circulate the routing files on the tables during the course of the meeting, or afterward. The file includes Chancellor McCoy’s responses to the Forum’s statements on adverse weather, among other items.

The Chair introduced Vice Chancellor for Auxiliary Services Carolyn Elfland to speak on proposals for a fare-free transit system. Elfland thanked the Forum for inviting her and underscored the importance of communicating as much as possible. She appreciated the opportunity to speak.

Looking back, the birth of this idea came in 1996-97 with the work of the Transit and Parking Task Force. The task force was charged to look at transportation and parking campuswide along with prospects for the future. The University has been under increasing pressure to find ways to deal with traffic given the increased number of campus buildings. Anticipating revision of the campus master plan, the task force recommended that the University not build parking on campus to keep pace with campus growth. This decision reflected the fact that the University did not have the funds to keep building decks, and did not want to tear up campus green space to supply these decks.

As a result, the task force looked for alternative means of transportation, such as bicycles, walking, and park & ride lots. The task force also recommended that the University look for incentives to encourage voluntary use of park and ride lots. Elfland said that the University had done what was recommended and made the park and ride system completely free, with no parking permit required and free bus passes. People parking in these lots can use in case of family emergencies.

However, someone must pay for these amenities. The University has looked into the idea of allowing people who use the bus most of the time to park a certain number of days on campus per semester.

The University has also looked at charging market rates for parking permits. However, since campus permits now could command as much as $720/year, the University has decided to charge as little as possible while keeping the system financially viable.

The University has worked to keep the low-cost alternative to parking on campus, the free park and ride alternative. In 1997-98, the University master plan steering team was formed in conjunction with planners Ayers Saint Gross. The team reaffirmed the principle that the University would not build campus parking to keep pace with growth. Instead, the University would emphasize a three-pronged approach: mass transit, park & ride, and eventually building housing near to work sites (such as on the Horace Williams tract).

What are the issues that must be faced to encourage people to use mass transit. People have complained that the bus does not run late at night, giving people who work after 6 p.m. little chance to ride the bus to get home. Another problem is that the frequency of service is variable, with some rides spaced by as much as an hour. In addition, one-third of the year Chapel Hill Transit runs on a reduced service schedule, cutting frequency nearly in half. Finally, students face inequities in the payment system for mass transit. All students pay a $30 fee to Chapel Hill Transit and receive nothing more than the right to purchase a bus pass, and free campus shuttle service.

Employees who ride the bus from home do not receive free bus passes, counter-intuitively unlike those who use the park and ride system. This fact seems to penalize those who use their cars less than those who use their cars partly. Elfland was happy that the University had been able to make the cost of a bus pass available as a pretax benefit.

The University is trying to remedy these inequities in negotiations with Chapel Hill Transit and the Towns of Chapel Hill and Carrboro. All of these parties have signed a memorandum of understanding which governs their status as partners in the bus system. The University is in the midst of trying to change the memo of understanding, a process which takes a long time to negotiate.

In this negotiation process, there has been considerable sentiment to increase the amount of bus service instead of removing fees from the system. The media have reported that making the transit system fare-free would cost $1.3 million. However, the University is already paying half of this cost to support the free ‘U’ and ‘RU’ campus shuttles and the free morning buses from the S11 lots to south campus. The University has also budgeted $400,000 to pay for park and ride shuttles, as well.

Elfland said that the students want a fare-free system very much. She had worked with Student Body President Brad Matthews, who had run on a platform that would have student fees or the University in general cover a quarter of the cost. Yet, the University would need to define a source of revenue to cover the total cost of a fare-free service. While the University could raise more recurring revenue through increased enforcement, ticketing, and a tightened appeals policy, there would need to be a considerable contribution from the Towns of Chapel Hill and Carrboro.

Recently, The Town of Carrboro held a summit to discuss this plan, and attendees were generally not in favor of a fare free transit option. These civic leaders favored a plan which would make the system free for University students, but the problem is too difficult for the University to pick up by itself. Many students and staff members pay into the system twice through their bus passes and their taxes.

Given the logistical difficulties in making the system fare-free just for University students and staff, Elfland said that she would be surprised if the proposal was enacted. However, town managers and the University have come together to define some improvements for the system in August. These improvements seem easy to implement and address a number of concerns which have been raised about the bus service in general. One of these ideas is to increase the number of buses running short trips along major routes, with an added number of small neighborhood buses. A number of people are investigating ideas to improve and indeed overhaul the transit system.

Efland offered to answer any questions about the fare-free transit system. Karen Geer noted the complaints about traffic entering Carrboro and Chapel Hill which is University-related. She asked what the Towns would like the University to do if not create a fare-free system. Elfland said that the opinion of the Towns is that paying a fare is not a primary impediment to ridership. Town leaders believe that the service’s limited hours and availability limit ridership, and believe that spending to improve these factors would improve ridership more than reducing fares. Both Towns have expressed a willingness to spend more money to make these and other improvements.

Lynn Ray asked how much implementing these improvements would eventually cost the University. Elfland did not have a dollar figure, but said that the memo of understanding states that the University will share with the Towns any excess of costs of the system. The University is committed to pay 39% of cost over expense.

Elfland said that the University’s share of the proposed improvements is not much more than $150-200,000, a sum the University could cover with its increased fine revenue. She did not foresee a parking fee increase to cover the cost of improvements.

Suzan Deserres asked if the ‘P’ lot was the only free park and ride lot on campus. She asked if there are plans to make more park and ride lots free. Elfland said that there are plans to make the Highway 54 lot near the Friday Center free as well. The University has an arrangement to lease the land there for $1 a year, and uses the market value of the land as a match for a federal grant for park and ride lots. Thus, the University was able to build on its own lot with federal money. The University is in the process of arranging similar agreements with a lot off Old Fayetteville Road from the west of campus, Eubanks Road from the north, and Southern Village to the south of campus. The University hopes to be able to give free bus passes to people using these lots.

Deserres noted that many Employees who park in these lots have to pay for their bus passes now. Elfland recalled that when the University started its park and ride service, there was a fear that the lots would overflow if there were unlimited free bus passes. So, the University limited the number of free bus passes given away. In the first year, the 54 lot had severe overflow problems. Of course, that year construction of the Health Affairs parking deck pushed 800 people off campus. This year, the Health Affairs 2 deck has partially opened, bringing many of these Employees back to campus. As a result, utilization of park and ride has dropped.

Elfland noted that park and ride users closed out of receiving one of the limited number of free bus passes will end up paying for a pass anyway. She conceded that this system is not fair to these people. In response, with the opening of the Health Affairs deck this fall, the University will life the restriction on free bus passes for park & ride users. Should a lot become full, the pass will be issued for park & ride users of another lot.

Deserres asked by what method the passes will be assigned. Elfland was uncertain, but said that distribution would be part of the parking allocation system. Employees should consult their parking coordinator for information in the same process as registering for a permit.

Dave Lohse noted a complaint that visitors often have a very difficult time finding a place to park. He cautioned that increased enforcement of parking fines could affect visitors who park innocently without knowing the location of visitor parking. He also worried about what message drastic enforcement might send. Elfland agreed that there is a shortage of visitor parking, and hoped to add some signs detailing location to major campus entrances. Lohse added that weekends are not as difficult for visitors as weekdays.

Dorothy Grant noted that people who commute from near Research Triangle Park are not encouraged by the time needed to find a place to park after enduring morning traffic. She thought that park and ride lots should be located as close to major arteries as possible. Elfland recalled that the Carrboro Plaza park & ride lot serves people coming from the west, the Eubanks lot serves people coming from the north, the Southern Village lot serves people from the south, and the Friday Center serves for people from the east. However, there is still needed a lot for people coming on 15-501 East, in the neighborhood of Lowes. The University will work with local churches to find a solution.

The Chair thanked Elfland for her remarks.

The Chair introduced Human Resources Policy Director Ken Litowsky to talk about the upcoming WPPR evaluation period. He had received a flurry of questions following the publication of an article in the recent University Gazette. He made it clear that nothing in the article represents a dictate from Human Resources to automatically lower performance ratings.

Litowsky cited the watchword of performance management: “If you let performance ratings be driven by performance results, everything else will take care of itself.” Essentially, everyone is evaluated on a scale of five performance levels: Unsatisfactory, Below Good, Good, Very Good, and Outstanding. All of these ratings are possibilities when the performance cycle begins and when performance is reviewed at the end of a cycle. Evaluators and Employees must look at the work plan and the principal functions to decide what needs to be done in the coming performance cycle.

If the Employee’s job results are equal to what is expected in the workplan, the relevant evaluation should be Good. Litowsky said that “Good is good.” If an Employee exceeds what is expected, the rating should be higher, either Very Good or Outstanding. If an Employee fails to meet the standard, the rating should be Below Good or Unsatisfactory. Litowsky emphasized that all five rating levels are on the table.

Litowsky said he had heard reports that no one had received an Outstanding rating in a particular department, because that department “does not give Outstandings.” Litowsky found this approach ill-advised, since no supervisor can know what performance level will exist before the fact.

Recently, Human Resources has sought to remind evaluators and Employees about the ratings standard, and remind both that the WPPR process is supposed to be a dialogue between the two. Performance management is meant to be a communications tool to help an Employee succeed at their job. He drew an analogy to an answer sheet to the test of performance. An Employee can be happy with this level of achievement (Good), or can push themselves to achieve more for a higher rating (Very Good or Outstanding).

Training & Development offers training on performance management as part of supervisory resources training, or as a standalone class this October 4. Supervisors and non-supervisors are invited to take the class. In addition, Litowsky offered to come speak to departments about this area of Human Resources. Employees with questions should contact him at 962-3894 or ken_litowsky@unc.edu.

 

Human Resources Update

Cindy Stone asked if Laurie Charest could give the reason why social security numbers are used by insurance agents, when they are not used in other campus operations. Charest noted that the Forum Personnel Issues committee had raised the same question during a recent meeting. The State Health Plan does use social security numbers as identifiers, but concerned Employees can make special arrangements for alternatives numbers by contacting the University benefits department.

Charest announced that Governor Jim Hunt had signed Executive Order 168 granting community service leave for State Employees. Community service leave will replace school involvement leave, and will allow Employees to count leave for school involvement as well as programs and services related to preschools, non-profit organizations, and special needs work. Employees can use one hour of leave a week, and will receive 24 hours leave, or the equivalent of three days paid leave.

The Executive Order became effective on the date it was signed, but there are not yet rules or guidelines associated with the order. Charest did not know if Employees would receive the full 24 hours this year, or how to code the leave. Also, since this new policy is an executive order, it will expire when the governor leaves office in January. However, the Office of State Personnel intends to incorporate the leave into its policies and procedures before the governor leaves office.

In summary, community service leave is a new kind of leave only available to SPA Employees. Community service leave replaces and includes school involvement and child leave involvement leave for SPA Employees. As of now, there is still child involvement leave for EPA Employees and Human Resources is watching the Office of State Personnel for signs this EPA leave will continue. Charest hoped to have more information available in a coming issue of InTouch.

On another topic, a Faculty Council committee on domestic partner benefits which includes some previous Forum Delegates, have pushed for a long time to extend health insurance to domestic partner couples. The University Insurance Committee has learned that MetLife has extended an offer to cover these couples through premiums paid by Employees. The University Insurance Committee must ask by July 1, 2000 for MetLife to implement the program.

With regard to housing issues, UNC, the Health Care System and the Town of Chapel Hill have held discussions about building affordable housing for Employees on Rosemary Street. Surveys have been sent to 600 faculty and staff asking how they would feel about living close to campus and their housing needs. The study committee will consider these responses carefully in their deliberations.

Charest clarified a response from two meetings ago concern tuition waivers and distance learning. General Administration has produced information which states that Employees can take distance learning and independent learning courses during the summer as long as an Employee has not already taken two courses during the academic year.

Concerning adverse weather, President Molly Broad has forwarded a proposal to Director of State Personnel Ron Penny which was originally formulated by the Human Resources Advisory Board. This proposal was modified to state that the chancellor of each institution shall make the decision to close their campus with the approval of the System President. The proposal would not require Employees to make up time lost to catastrophic weather and would provide critical Employees with additional compensation. An answer from the Office of State Personnel should be forthcoming soon.

Charest reminded everyone that Employee Services will accept nominations for the Excellence in Management award through Friday May 26. Recipients will receive $500 and a special dinner. The campus Spring Fling walk will take place this Friday, May 5.

Ken Litowsky added that he would welcome nominations for the performance management review board. Interested Employees can find more information on the Human Resources website and must obtain supervisor consent to participate.

Approval of the Minutes

The Chair requested a motion to approve the minutes of the March 1 meeting. Kathy Dutton made this motion, seconded by Mike Hawkins. The motion was approved unanimously.

The Chair then requested a motion to approve the minutes of the April 5 meeting. Kathy Dutton made this motion, seconded by Robert Thoma. The motion was approved unanimously.

At this point, the Forum took a five minute break.

Unfinished Business

The Chair was happy to announce the appointment of Ruthie Lawson as the Executive Committee representative from Division 4. She thanked Lawson for agreeing to serve.

New Business

The Chair was encouraged by a request from General Administration that each University staff organization produce an annual report at the end of each academic year. She had begun work on this document in consultation with the chancellor’s office. President Broad had suggested in a letter to Chancellor McCoy that the report highlight problems or questions that transcend single campus interests. She took this interest as a positive sign.

To produce the report, the Chair had asked the Executive Committee to provide a list of concerns. She had also consulted documents related to a Forum presentation to the Board of Trustees in 1998. The Chair invited members to share their interests and concerns with her. She would pull the document together over the next two weeks or so.

Committee Reports

Bobbie Lesane, chair of the Career Development committee, said that group was working on a flier describing career growth initiatives at UNC. The committee also hoped to portray some UNC staff “success stories,” namely people who had used campus resources to achieve something for themselves. Lesane invited Employees to submit their stories of success about how UNC has helped them to succeed.

In addition, she thanked Norm Loewenthal and Mary Shaver for agreeing to be full members of the Career Development Committee.

Suzan Deserres, chair of the Communications committee, reported the group had met April 6 and would meet again May 4 at the University Gazette offices. The committee is in the process of assembling the University Gazette insert. Committee chairs who had not submitted their committee descriptions should do so that day. The insert will include an overview of Forum work, pointers to the Forum website, an article depicting a day in the life of Forum Chair Joanne Kucharski, updates on the wage-hour survey and adverse weather proposals, a Human Resources question & answer session, an overview of pedestrian safety action, and a brief description of each Forum committee. The committee planned to get the May version of InTouch out to campus as soon as possible.

The deadline for InTouch publication is May 10, and the University Gazette insert articles are due to Scott Ragland by May 15.

Kathy Dutton, chair of the Employee Presentations committee, hoped members had been able to attend the spring community meeting which was held last Thursday. Consultants Ayres Saint Gross made a presentation on what the University might look like 40 years from now. Over eighty people attended, by far the best attendance of the various master plan sessions this semester. Dutton appreciated that Gordon Rutherford and members of his staff were available to answer questions. Interested Employees can obtain more information at http://www.unc.edu/planning

The committee will begin its planning for the fall community meeting in a month or two. The committee will use evaluation forms as input for future community meetings.

Karen Geer, chair of the Nominating committee, said that the group would meet again April 26. The committee will forward the name of a Division 2 Employee to fill a vacant position to the Executive Committee, for later presentation to the Chancellor, as per the Forum Guidelines. The Forum elections also will begin soon, and Geer asked members to keep in mind possible nominees for this summer.

Bobbie Lesane, chair of the Orientation committee, noted that the group had reviewed the “Unknown Facts” document and had made some changes. The committee reviewed the menu for the Orientation on October 20 and had confirmed use of Toy Lounge for that date. The committee also asked that Matt Banks send out a note to all Forum alternates reminding them that they can attend monthly meetings on work time with the agreement of their supervisor. The committee was worried about the low turnout of first alternates to monthly meetings. Diane Newton has been confirmed to do the team building exercise for the October 20 orientation.

Dave Lohse, chair of the Personnel Issues committee, thanked Laurie Charest for attending the last meeting and responding to members’ questions. He thought the meeting had been very constructive. He had received quite a few emails on personnel issues matters and had been pleased to raise these with Charest. The committee’s next meeting will take place Tuesday, May 16 from 10-11:30 a.m. in the press room of the Dean Smith Center.

Lohse reported that a source of frustration for the committee had been the question of what the group actually can and cannot do. Committee members have wanted to define more clearly the powers of the Forum and wanted to find a way to accomplish more than just talk about mutually frustrating issues. For example, former committee chair Martha Barbour had attended the meeting and had not been pleased with the chancellor’s response on SPA exempt Employee issues. Lohse said that some committee members felt that these Employees were exploited in their working life because of their exempt status, driven to work 60-80 work weeks without overtime or compensatory time off. He said that some members suspected that supervisors have found it advantageous to add duties to Employees’ job descriptions rather than hire new workers. There are hopes that the Forum would push the envelope on behalf of these Employees.

Lohse applauded the extension of insurance benefits to same-sex and opposite sex domestic partners by MetLife and the University. He noted that there used to be a committee on domestic partner issues and he hoped that the Forum would appoint a member to serve on a new incarnation of this committee. He would contact newly elected Faculty Council chair Sue Estroff about recomposing the domestic partner benefits committee.

The Chair noted that an overwhelming concern for the state of staff vacancies and salaries had come out during campus budget hearings. She was encouraged that campus leaders were recognizing the real importance of addressing these issues and looked forward to working with the new administration on this topic.

Joanne Kucharski, chair of the Recognition & Awards committee, said the group had met this month but had not put minutes on the web in order not to ruin the morning’s candy bag surprise. The committee plans to look at resurrection of the three legged stool award and the Forum’s University Day work, in addition to other items. Kucharski welcomed Anne Aldridge and Dianne Hill to the committee.

John Heuer, chair of the University Committee Assignments committee, said the group had met April 18. The committee also had not posted minutes to protect confidential matters related to committee appointments. The committee also discussed the protocol of these appointments and planned to discuss these and other committee matters with the Forum Executive Committee this month.

The committee had appointed Joanne Kucharski to the Excellence in Management Award committee and Chris Barfield to the Transportation and Parking Advisory Committee. In addition, the committee worked with the Forum Office to request that the Chancellor’s Office appoint Linwood Futrelle to the Chancellor’s Buildings & Grounds committee.

The committee is looking for Employees to fill vacancies in the Chancellor’s Child Care, Facilities Planning, Student Stores, Trademark Licensing, and Grievance committees. The group will meet again Tuesday May 16 at 9 a.m. in 202 Carr.

Jill Mayer reported that the pedestrian safety task force had met April 12 and would meet again May 10 in 212 Peabody. The committee is scheduled to hold its last meeting this month, but will probably continue its work through the Transportation & Parking Advisory Committee. The pedestrian group will work on a draft of its strategic principles and accomplishments, the latter of which include moving bus stops closer to crosswalks and increasing penalties for jaywalking. The committee will prepare a final report for the chancellor by June of this year. Public Safety Chief Derek Poarch will write a summary of the committee’s work for the Forum’s University Gazette insert.

The Transportation and Parking Advisory committee is on sabbatical until August.

The Open Space committee showed a video on use of open space at its last meeting, reported the Chair.

The Chair noted that 1999 Forum Chair Jane Stine would remain on the Provost Search Committee while she would serve on the Vice Chancellor for Finance & Administration. Of course, the chancellor’s search had ended with the appointment of James Moeser from the University of Nebraska at Lincoln.

Stine will remain on the 27th payroll study committee. Laurie Charest noted that the committee will produce a draft communication to all Employees each July explaining how their salaries are calculated.

The Chair said that the University Priorities and Budget Committee had concluded its budget hearings and would now work on a plan of action to use this information, and to document what had been done.

The Chair had sent new Faculty Council chair Sue Estroff a message of acceptance.

The Women’s Center director nomination has been forwarded to the Provost’s Office.

The Chair encouraged members to watch WUNC TV to see a documentary on a campus building conditions. Show times are available on the UNC website (http://www.unc.edu)

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

Respectfully submitted,

 

Matt Banks, Recording Secretary

 

Print Friendly