September 5, 2001
Agenda —September 5, 2001
9:30 a.m.— Assembly Room of Wilson Library
I. Call to Order
II. Welcome Guests, Members of the Press
III. Opening Remarks
· Chancellor James Moeser
IV. Special Presentations
· Cindy Shea, Campus Sustainability Coordinator
· Derek Poarch, Chief of Campus Public Safety
V. Human Resources Update
· Laurie Charest, Associate Vice Chancellor for Human Resources
VI. Capital Improvement Update
· Karen Geer, Facilities Services (tentative)
VII. Employee Presentations or Questions
VIII. Approval of Minutes of the August 1, 2001 meeting P
IX. New Business
· Proposed Guidelines Change (1st Reading)
· Induction of New Forum Secretary (Sylvia White)
· Forum Resolution on Sustainability (1st Reading)
X. Stretch Time 6
XI. New Business
XII. Forum Committee Reports
· Career Development: Fred Jordan
· Communications: Suzan deSerres
Þ Forum Newsletter
· Employee Presentations: Sheila Storey
Þ Forum Elections
· Orientation: Suzan deSerres
· Personnel Issues: Mary Ann Vacheron
· Recognition and Awards: Karen Jordan
· University Committee Assignments: Lee Edmark
XIII. Chair’s Report (Executive Committee): John Heuer
XIV. Task Force/University Committee Reports
· Pedestrian Safety Committee— Sheila Storey
· Transportation & Parking Advisory — Chris Barfield/Joanne Kucharski
P = Included in Agenda Packet
September 5, 2001
(Wilson Library Assembly Room)
Chris Barfield Anderson
Mary Ann Vacheron
“ = Ex-Officio
Call to Order, Welcome to Guests
Acting Chair Suzan de Serres called the meeting to order at 9:34 a.m. De Serres noted that Chair John Heuer and Vice Chair Sheila Storey were out sick, and Secretary Tracey Haith had taken a new job outside the University in Greensboro. De Serres welcomed Delegates, alternates, and members of the press.
De Serres introduced Chancellor James Moeser to present opening remarks. Moeser said that his thoughts were with Heuer, and noted that Heuer was due to return home from the hospital that afternoon.
Moeser noted the major address he would give in the Great Hall of the Student Union that afternoon, with a reception to follow. He intended to address larger questions such as the University’s vision for becoming the best public university in the nation. What would it mean to achieve this mission, and following this accomplishment, how would the University differ from today?
Of more immediate concern, Moeser noted that the State had not yet approved its budget. Some have darkly observed that the Legislature might approve a Halloween budget, in more ways than one. Recent media reports indicate a downturn in the State’s economy, which might make it more difficult for the Legislature to approve a revenue package. Currently, the House wants a half-cent sales tax, while the Senate desires a full cent.
On the bright side, the Legislature recently approved a continuing resolution for this year’s budget which included enrollment growth funding for the University System. However, the University must still address a 2.8% budget cut. Moeser hoped that the University could address this shortfall by eliminating existing vacant positions, but could not say for certain until the University receives a final number. The University faces a balance between enrollment growth increases and position losses.
Also, State Employees face a 30% health insurance premium increase versus modest pay hikes. Human Resources has heard of the terrible situation facing some Employees who cannot afford family health insurance. Moeser said he would continue to fight on behalf of better pay and benefits packages for faculty and staff. However, he did not think that the State would find a quick fix to this problem.
This past week, the Robertson Scholars program inaugurated free bus service between Duke University in Durham and UNC-Chapel Hill. Moeser visited the “other place” and noted that the visit earned a large write-up in the Duke student paper. He encouraged Employees to use the service for transportation from Duke Chapel to Franklin Street every weekday into the evenings, and on weekends.
The University will hold a forum on the campus development plan from 5:30-7 p.m. September 10 in 111 Carroll Hall. Employees interested in the campus development plan can attend to ask questions and get answers. Moeser recognized the hard work of facilities planning, administration, and finance personnel in readying the plan for presentation to the Chapel Hill Town Council. The group worked through weekends and holidays to put together the University’s presentation. Moeser said that staff employees had done a brilliant job in putting together this material in response to concerns from the Town and local neighbors.
David Collins said that he was saddened by the lack of the University’s media presence decrying the legislative situation in Raleigh. He said that the State’s stance on internal hiring and health care premiums approached idiocy. He asked how the State could expect the University to educate its students under these conditions, and asked if the University could respond more publicly in these cases.
Moeser said that the Legislature faces a difficult task in balancing its budget this year, given a multiple range of factors. However, some legislators have attacked the University this year in a rather antagonistic manner. Moeser had experienced some rather frustrating questions about the reasons for University operations and procedures. Moeser praised local representatives Joe Hackney, Verla Insko, Howard Lee and Ellie Kinnaird as good friends who have fought for the University’s welfare as well as Employees’ pay and benefits.
In response to why the University has not been more confrontational in the newspapers, Moeser said that the University must maintain political relationships with members of the House and Senate. The University might need help with another issue in the future, and Moeser found it best not to sacrifice relationships for short-term gain. Instead, Moeser said he vigorously makes his case behind closed doors.
Moeser said that administrators, faculty, alumni, and trustees have made the University’s case with legislators throughout the summer. He noted that the State had voted to support the University System through its vote on the bond issue this past winter. However, he had never seen such a difficult environment with so little understanding as that in Raleigh. He did not understand the hostility in Raleigh towards State Employees.
Finally, Moeser said that he could not control what the media publishes. He noted that the press seems to pay more attention to crashes than to landings. In any event, the University cannot control what goes into newspapers, and has chosen not to fight all of its battles in the media. Instead, University leaders will use the most effective tools in dealing with legislators.
Moeser noted that legislators also have a very difficult situation, as sixty-one House members pledged not to increase taxes in a political environment very different from today. Eight of these representatives voted for the House tax package, opening themselves up to criticism during their reelection campaigns.
To sum up, Moeser said that the University is fighting hard for State Employees in intense conversations with the people who make decisions in Raleigh, but would not burn its bridges in doing so. He invited listeners once again to hear more in his State of the University address that afternoon.
De Serres introduced new University Sustainability Coordinator Cindy Shea. Shea has served as a senior researcher for World Watch in Washington D.C. for six years, and has spent five years in northern Europe working on regulatory issues, monitoring investment practices and working with sustainable community initiatives.
Shea thanked the Forum for its invitation to speak. She regretted that John Heuer could not attend as he has played a strong role in creating the sustainability coalition on campus.
Shea noted that her work is to improve University policies and practices to make the University’s work more sustainable. The term sustainable development involves environmental, economic, and social effects, and the broader implications of institutional decisions. In practical terms, she would work to make the University’s new development plan more energy, water and material efficient. Sustainable buildings make greater use of daylight than conventional buildings, reducing demand for air-polluting electricity and reducing campus energy bills. Also, Employees fortunate enough to work in sustainable, day-lit buildings feel more comfortable and enjoy productivity increases. Shea said that studies have shown children educated in day-lit buildings actually grow faster, have stronger teeth, and learn more than their counterparts.
Sustainable development also protects trees which beautify the campus, help to maintain cooler temperatures and reduce storm water runoff. As a result of past difficulties, all new buildings must have tree link fences, mulch, and logging mats for their surrounding trees to protect existing flora.
Sustainable purchasing includes using carpets, paint and supplies that do not “off-gas” (produce chemical vapors) which lead to poor air quality. Sustainable purchasing also ensures that manufacturers produce their products in environmentally sound ways. One company, Wilson Carpet, produces carpets with high recycled material content which does not off-gas. Wilson Carpet will take back these carpets for future recycling when they have worn out.
Shea was pleased that the Forum would discuss the sustainability resolution raised earlier in the meeting. She offered to answer questions during the discussion of the resolution.
Shea noted that people were probably not happy with the parking situation, and said that parking would only get worse in the coming years as 8,000 more people come to campus. The University will build 1,300 spaces for visitors but will not build many more Employee spaces. The University has encouraged Employees to pursue alternative transit options such as a light rail system and the upcoming fare-free bus system which will begin free service in January. She invited Delagates to pick up a brochure detailing the sustainability office’s work.
Shea asked what Employees need to make their daily activities more sustainable. She said that her office could conduct an environmental purchasing workshop, or a training session on green buildings for campus planners. She hoped that the University would pursue green construction methods in erecting buildings associated with the recent bond package. Shea has a number of videos and other resources which demonstrate use of environmentally preferable materials.
Sustainable building practices require lifecycle assessments of buildings which architects should include in their design. Shea noted a disconnect between those who pay for sustainable development improvements and those who benefit (the University versus everyone, for example). She said that the University might need to consult third party funding sources to find money to pay for efficiency improvements, or might petition the State to allow payment for these improvements in advance from anticipated cost savings. Currently, the State does not have a good system of incentives for sustainable development.
Shea offered to conduct departmental recycling information sessions or mass transit options. Alternatively, Employees can consult the sustainability website at http://www.fac.unc.edu/WasteReduction She said that the Sustainability Coalition and the Office of Waste Reduction & Recycling would publish an insert in the September 12 issue of the University Gazette.
De Serres asked why many University buildings’ thermostats are set so low in the summertime. She often found it difficult to work because her hands are so cold. Shea said that the cogeneration facility pumps chilled (42 degrees Fahrenheit) water into buildings for air conditioning. Ironically, the cooler buildings are, the more efficient they are in this system. Compressor-based air conditioners run more efficiently at higher temperatures. Shea said that she would relay De Serres’ concerns to energy services.
Shea said that one upcoming project is an energy management control system that would allow operators to monitor and control building energy use in real time. Shea also envisioned individual controls for desk-by-desk heating and cooling rather than building-wide thermostats. Robert Thoma said that many people have different internal thermostats and require different temperatures. He noted one such building in Pennsylvania which allows individual control over climate.
Shea also mentioned that recess lighting and pulsing of computer lights can have an adverse effect on workers. De Serres thanked Shea for her remarks.
De Serres introduced Chief of Public Safety Derek Poarch to make a special presentation on pedestrian safety initiatives. Poarch wished the Forum good morning. He said that the University had made progress in the area of public safety since the death of a graduate student in November 1999. He said that Public Safety had worked to increase the general recognition and awareness of pedestrians among motorists. However, Poarch granted that some balance must emerge between motorists, pedestrians, and bicyclists.
Poarch noted that the University pedestrian safety committee included representatives from the Highway Safety Research Center and the State Department of Transportation as well as campus faculty, staff and students. Vice Chair Sheila Storey and Jill Mayer represented the Forum and provided valuable insight from the staff point of view.
The pedestrian safety committee operated from several guiding principles, the first of which that a pedestrian-friendly campus is necessary and desirable. The University has generally held this position in its discussions on campus transit and parking. As the University builds more buildings on campus parking lots, there emerges a need for more pedestrian traffic and more mass transit.
Poarch admitted that the pendulum had swung in favor of pedestrians recently, but he said he would not apologize for this emphasis. When a vehicle and pedestrian strike each other, the pedestrian is much more likely to be injured or killed. Poarch said that increasing motorist awareness and compliance with pedestrian traffic was the proper place for the committee to begin. As the campus moves forward, Public Safety will begin to educate pedestrians and cyclists of their responsibilities. Poarch noted that the committee has had only a year or so to initiate its education effort.
Poarch hoped that the campus would optimize safety for vehicles and pedestrians in its designs for the campus development plan. He said that the crossing near Craig and Manning dormitories represent a clear failure of design, as students are led from sidewalks to the middle of the road to cross traffic. Poarch said that Public Safety will work to channel this traffic to a signaled crosswalk. He said that planned construction should observe the new safety principles.
One of the pedestrian safety committee’s recommendations were to act quickly to prevent accidents and injuries in the Manning Drive, Ridge Road, and Morrison Drive areas. The campus has initiated a pilot safety project with landscaping, signal markings, and crosswalks to limit danger to pedestrians in these areas. On Cameron Avenue, the campus has placed street side chains to channel pedestrians to crosswalks. Poarch said that the campus might use these chains elsewhere on campus if it can obtain legislative funding.
Poarch said that Public Safety had requested permanent funding in the University’s repair and renovation budget to construct similar landscape buffers across campus, such as planters and ornamental chains.
The Highway Safety Research Center has begun the first of two phases in its pedestrian safety awareness program by scheduling talks in all residential halls. Traffic safety officers will outline pedestrians’ and motorists’ rights and responsibilities, speaking particularly on State law and what one should do to remain safe. Poarch said that the committee will begin press releases to the Daily Tar Heel following the example of the campaign against underage drinking.
Poarch said that the committee’s first goal is to insure that pedestrians, cyclists and motorists all understand what rules govern campus traffic. Only after this education and awareness campaign will Public Safety move to issue warnings to those who do not abide by the rules. Following warnings, Public Safety would then move to enforcement actions. Poarch said that the committee did not think it fair to write tickets before completing an education and awareness campaign asking for compliance.
The committee also recommended pedestrian overhead bridges for the South Road crossing. Poarch said that police direct traffic near the Student Union and School of Dentistry during busy periods. The committee prefers to move pedestrians and motorists along different pathways whenever possible, such as with the Manning Road pedestrian bridge.
Poarch urged that the plan to develop the Horace Williams tract avoid unfriendly design from a pedestrian and motorist perspective. He said that the pair could coexist without trouble for either side.
Poarch said that the campus plans to settle on a standard crossing protocol for its sidewalks. Now, under the pilot program, motorists must negotiate different street markings, signs, and lights. The pedestrian safety committee will develop a campus standard soon.
Community members can now use the University’s pedestrian safety hotline, 843-PEDS. Callers can file complaints about particular intersections, motorists, or bus numbers. The operator will refer these calls to a traffic safety unit.
Poarch said that the University will initiate another pilot project on Stadium Drive in the next two to three months. Stadium Drive will feature an executive-style pedestrian crosswalk, in which lights will illuminate when a pedestrian crosses.
An Employee asked about the number of service parking places. This Employee said that he has to drive University vehicles and has experienced difficulty in finding parking in service spots. Poarch said that the new construction has taken away some of the previous space. Also, with the new parking situation, the campus has encouraged a review of all departments’ service permit use.
An Employee asked what the law says about pedestrian and motorist responsibility. Poarch said that the driver must yield the right of way by slowing or stopping when a pedestrian is crossing a roadway. When a pedestrian steps off a crosswalk, that person has the right of way. Poarch admitted the difficulty of having pedestrians cross everywhere other than the marked crosswalk at an intersection. The law says that pedestrians must cross at crosswalks and Public Safety is working to design the campus so that pedestrians must use the crosswalks.
Poarch said that cyclists are deemed vehicles and are subject to the motor vehicle law. Poarch said that the balance has swung towards pedestrians and cyclists and against motorists, and said that the campus might need to move to warning and ticketing those who do not use crosswalks, after a suitable awareness campaign.
Keith Fogleman noted a Facilities Services newsletter that said that cyclists should be treated as moving pedestrians. Poarch said that this quote was incorrect, and that the writer had not consulted him about the piece.
Ramon Kellam asked the logic behind closing the back entrance to the Mason Farm Road from the Health Affairs parking deck. She said that buses, cars, and pedestrians all seem now to clog up Manning Drive as a result of the closing. Poarch said that upon opening the new deck, Town of Chapel Hill standards forced the University to close the back entrance. The University had put up a 4-way stop sign, but preferred to leave the back entrance open. Kellam said that it was easier to exit the Cardinal deck when there were two exit options.
Also, Kellam noted that the bioinformatics building would not help move traffic through the Health Affairs area. She also reported that the bus stop on Manning Drive across from the School of Dentistry seemed to block traffic leaving the lot which must turn right in front of stopped buses. Poarch said he would send staffers out to investigate the area.
Kellam said that crossing the street from the Cardinal lot was particularly difficult since cars in the first lane of traffic will stop at crosswalks but the second lane will not. Poarch recalled that this situation had led to the death of the graduate student in 1999. Kellam said that she had seen fire trucks not yield in crosswalks. Poarch said that the University must still work to educate everyone about the importance of stopping at crosswalks. He encouraged people to use the pedestrian hotline to report those who have not stopped appropriately.
Tom Jenswold commented on bicyclists who ride on sidewalks, noting that people have been killed in similar collisions. He noted that some campuses have banned bicyclists on their central campuses. Poarch said that he did not know if cyclist education on this point was part of the overall education campaign.
Andrew Maglione said that the pedestrian crossing on South Street near Fetzer Gymnasium becomes hazardous at nighttime, although it seems relatively safe during the day. He said that the crossing was poorly lit, and advised that Public Safety install a street light at this intersection. Poarch said that Public Safety would investigate the situation.
Andy Chrismon said that some officers do not seem active in directing traffic during busy mornings. Poarch said that he did not want police officers directing traffic as they need to be available for other duties. He had involved some officers to work during the morning and lunch rush hours. Last year, Public Safety did not have a traffic unit in place. He said that the traffic unit should be more visible this academic year.
De Serres thanked Poarch for his remarks.
Human Resources Update
Associate Vice Chancellor for Human Resources Laurie Charest rose to give the Forum’s customary Human Resources update. She said that the University must still observe a freeze on salary increases for internally promoted employees until an approved State appropriations bill removes the freeze. She agreed that this provision does not make a great deal of sense, as people hired from the outside can receive salary improvements. Departments can make promotional job offers to current employees, but cannot increase their salaries. Some employees have chosen to accept these offers to avoid losing out on promotions.
Diane Strong asked about the possibility of retroactive pay increases. Charest said that retroactive increases were a possibility but that the University could not commit to this promise. Employees accepting promotions without increases are asked to sign a waiver stating their understanding of the situation. The University does not have the authority to promise the retroactive increases.
Keita Cannon found it strange that departments cannot discuss salary with promoted candidates even if salary levels fall under promotion guidelines. Charest said that departments can discuss what they would prefer to pay their employees, but they do not have the authority to give the expected increases nor do they know when the increase will take place. Cannon asked if the department can state that a salary will fall within a certain range. Charest said that the waiver form is not the appropriate place for these statements.
Drake Maynard said that the memo of understanding accompanying the job offer represents the appropriate place for salary agreements. Cannon asked who drafts this waiver, and Maynard said that Director of Employment Pam Barkett can look at the waiver and add extra space as needed.
Elaine Tola asked if it were not a violation of the Office of State Personnel rules not to provide a salary increase to a promoted employee. Charest said that the recent legislative statute has trumped the OSP code. Departments can choose not to make offers to current Employees, and some departments are trying to outlast the Legislature. However, other departments must fill their positions, and are relying on these memos of understanding rather than hiring external candidates.
Kellam asked if Employees offered a lower figure for a promotion than external candidates might have some grievance to take to the State. Charest said that there is nothing logical about this situation. Kellam confirmed that a current Employee must leave the State for 30 days to come back as an external candidate.
Charest said that Human Resources has completed the process of transferring Employees in defunct health maintenance organizations to the State plan. The University has not received instructions from the State plan about the need to do this, but has chosen to enact the transfer to avoid problems with uninsured Employees. Most affected Employees have responded in a timely fashion, although staff have needed to call others involved who have not responded.
Secondly, the State’s most recent continuing resolution has confirmed funding levels for the State health plan. Employees will see a 30% in health premium increases, with the University and State covering the full cost of employee-only coverage. However, as before, Employees must bear the full cost of employee family or children coverage. Paying for the October coverage in advances, biweekly paid Employees will see the new deductions in their September 21 paycheck, and monthly paid employees in their September 28 paycheck. Charest thanked the payroll and benefits office for their work in this area, as their efforts have saved employees from bearing double deductions.
Strong said that the health insurance coverage seems more like a sacrifice than a benefit. She asked why people with employee-only coverage do not need to pay anything. Charest said that many think that free employee-only coverage is a sacred cow which the State should replace with a small monthly fee to supplement those with children and family coverage. A legislative committee investigated this option but felt the date was too late in the session to make changes this year.
Charest said that Human Resources had not had time to do a payroll memo to all Employees about the change, and had relied on Human Resources facilitators to distribute the news via e-mail and other means. The change will affect anyone who currently has a deduction for health insurance.
Charest said that the University Insurance committee will study Employee paid health insurance for spouses and dependents which would be payroll deducted. The committee is developing request for proposals (RFPs) and the earliest date the University would offer coverage is January 2002. Many University Employees cannot afford spouse and dependent coverage at all.
Fred Jordan asked if this RFP included provisions for a health maintenance organization. Charest said that an HMO is a possibility, but the committee had not discussed the option in detail. Jordan suggested a separate rate for family and dependents. He hoped that the committee could find something more attractive than the State plan.
Charest noted that the State had increased the North Carolina Flex plan 2002 spending limit to $3600, which somewhat offsets out of pocket expenses under the State plan. The enrollment period for North Carolina Flex is October 15 to November 9, and Human Resources will work on an awareness campaign for the plan. Human Resources is also working on other potential benefits areas to assist with Employees’ health care costs.
Charest reminded members that Judith Scott stands available to make sexual harassment presentations to departments and groups.
Charest announced that TIAA-Cref will continue its sponsorship of the StarHeels award program. The kickoff event will take place in October.
The new compensatory time program for exempt SPA Employees took effect September 1. Interested Employees can find more details on the Human Resources website.
Human Resources is seeking nominations to serve on SPA grievance panels. Interested parties should contact Joe Totten, Director of Counseling Services.
Drake Maynard, Senior Director for Human Resources Administration, planned to make a full report on the University’s activity with regard to departmental in-range salary adjustments at the October meeting. He had been unable to prepare a report for the day’s meeting due to a miscommunication with AIS.
De Serres asked if Charest could comment on the work of the administrative flexibility study committee. Charest said the group had met for the first time August 31. The group had spent most of the meeting organizing its efforts, and had agreed to split into two subcommittees: one to gather input from campus, the other to study other public research universities. The committee set an ambitious completion date of the end of the semester.
Mary Ann Vacheron asked for a list of committee members. Matt Banks said that he would place the list on the Forum website.
Approval of Minutes
De Serres asked if there were any corrections or changes to the Forum minutes. Robert Thoma noted that page 7 of the minutes should note the blood drive had missed its goal of 1,000 units collected by two units. Given this change, Thoma moved that the Forum approve the minutes of the August meeting, seconded by Robert Sadler. The Forum approved the minutes by acclamation.
Banks reminded the Forum that the group would take its annual portrait at 9:15 a.m. on the steps of Wilson Library October 3.
De Serres noted that the Executive Committee had presented the Forum with proposed guidelines changes, for consideration on first reading. The Forum would discuss the changes in more detail at the October meeting.
De Serres noted that Sylvia White had volunteered to replace Tracey Haith as Forum Secretary through the end of the calendar year. She asked for a motion to close nominations and install White as Forum Secretary. Thoma made this motion, seconded by Jenswold. The Forum approved the motion by acclamation.
De Serres noted the submission of a Forum resolution on campus sustainability practices on first reading. The Forum would discuss the resolution in more detail at the October meeting.
Elaine Tola asked Cindy Shea why the sustainability coalition had chosen heavy card stock for its brochure. Shea said that the brochure had been produced before she came to campus. She noted that recycled paper and soy-based inks made up the brochure.
Fred Jordan, chair of the Career Development committee, reported the group had not met in the last month. He noted that the Forum Office had approved ordering 10,000 staff training brochures which should go out to all permanent faculty and staff in the next month.
De Serres, chair of the Communications committee, asked that committee chairs submit their articles by September 12 for inclusion in the next InTouch newsletter.
White, chair of the Nominating committee, said the group would meet September 12 to count delegate ballots. White would announce the Delegates-elect at the October 4 meeting. The group will also meet September 27 to discuss Forum officer candidates. White also noted Haith’s departure from the University and said that she would be greatly missed.
De Serres, chair of the Orientation committee, said the group continues planning for new delegate orientation and the January retreat.
Mary Ann Vacheron, chair of the Personnel Issues committee, said the group had not met in the past month but would soon meet with Charest and Vice Chancellor for Finance and Administration Nancy Suttenfield to discuss a committee report on campus personnel issues.
Karen Jordan, chair of the Recognition & Awards committee, thanked the University Gazette for publishing the deceased Employee memorial list in the last issue. She noted that the Forum prize patrol had made deliveries across campus August 30. The patrol had taken pictures for publication on the Forum website.
Jordan said that the committee had ordered the Forum flag in time for University Day October 12. The committee also plans to send out solicitations for the Forum community award by the end of October. She reminded Delegates and alternates of the Forum community lunch October 4. The committee will meet again September 10 in 104C Hanes Hall.
Lee Edmark, chair of the University Committee Assignments committee, said the group had come up with three staff representatives for the administrative flexibility committee. The committee forwarded these selections along with alternates to the Forum Executive Committee, which in turn forwarded these nominees to the administration. The nominees were Mari Marsh, Kay Hovious, and Steve Hutton. Charest reports that the committee is now seeking additional staff representatives.
Edmark noted that the Transportation and Parking Advisory committee was seeking a new member. Edmark recalled that Jim Workman of ATN had signaled his interest and received this appointment. The committee will meet September 12.
Banks noted that divisions 3 (Skilled Craft) and 5 (clerical/secretarial, health affairs) need Executive Committee representatives.
In the absence of further discussion, the meeting adjourned at 11:24 a.m.
Matt Banks, Recording Secretary