April 13, 2023 Vice Chancellors’ Representatives’ Meeting
Attending: Linc Butler, Leah Hefner, Keith Hines, James Holman, Kira Jones, Nate Knuffman, Arlene Medder, Katie Musgrove, Joe Ormond, Carly Perin, James Stamey, Julie Theriault, Tracy Wiley, Tracey Wetherby Williams, Tyrone Williams
Katie Musgrove welcomed all to the meeting at 10:02 a.m. She read Annetta Streater’s question, in her absence:
(Streater) Can the leadership provide an update on the increases in salary band ranges? Also, can the leadership provide an update on the state of the 23/24 budget approval, specifically on raises?
Linc Butler noted that much of this information had been covered at the Forum meeting the previous day. He said that the System Office had received additional authority to update the salary ranges. The Office has engaged with its external consultant, Buck, and has composed a steering committee to work through the initial formatting necessary to get information out to campus via an initial review. The System Office will likely seek campus input on whether or not proposed ranges will address the issues currently facing UNC System campuses.
Butler was hopeful that there would be something to review and provide feedback about by June or July, after which the ranges will be refreshed and updated, allowing implementation towards the end of the year. Butler said that if the System Office were not able to obtain this authority, this process would lengthen to at least three years.
Regarding the state budget, Butler said that the Governor has issued his budget proposal. In turn, the House had also issued their budget. The Governor proposed an 8% salary increase over the next two years, 5% in year one and 3% the next. The House proposal was a little smaller, providing 4.25% in year one and 3.25% the next. We await the Senate’s budget proposal and the beginning of formal negotiations.
Butler said that he had no crystal ball as to where exactly things would end up. He noted that the Governor’s budget did include opportunities for one-time bonuses of different amounts, depending on employee salary. There was no such provision in the House budget. In addition, it looks promising that another labor market adjustment reserve will be authorized. Butler hoped that this reserve would have fewer restrictions on its use than the previous one.
All concerned have said that the legislature hopes to conclude its work in July, although Butler was skeptical about this target. Nate Knuffman added that the state is in a relatively strong fiscal position, as revenue continues to exceed initial planning numbers. This fact puts the state into a relatively stronger position to provide staff salary increases from this legislative process. He was cautiously optimistic about the overall outcome.
Musgrove asked about the university’s salary band system transitioning to the state agency system. Butler said that the initial plan was that the university’s system would shift over. However, conversations with the UNC System Office made clear that a simple shift over to the state system would not be an ideal situation because many of the unique aspects to jobs in the university do not fit the state’s criteria. This concern led to advocacy to transfer authority to the UNC System Office so that they can manage the current system and to keep bands updated on a regular basis.
Musgrove confirmed that the state system has been keeping up to date with market rates and has been doing wholesale updates along the way. Butler believed that this was so. He thought that the state system has a regular schedule on which it works to update its ranges, or at least to do market studies to determine if certain ranges require more market points to move. Musgrove noted her curiosity about the state system in the event the university might transition to it. For example, she asked if there is a cost-of-living adjustment provision in the state system. Butler did not believe that the state system makes this provision.
Musgrove said that it would be difficult to advocate for or against the move to the new system without knowing the variables of how the current system differs from the new system. She said that it would be helpful to obtain key metrics about the state system to advocate effectively, with understanding.
Tracey Wiley raised the next question of the meeting:
(Wiley) Will you please elaborate on personal information being leaked to inappropriate parties? I heard on WRAL news there was an issue with “some” 1099’s and I would like to know more, as future IC’s may inquire. Also, my supervisor mentioned that some employee/staff personal information was also compromised, can you confirm this? Thank you!
Nate Knuffman said that there was indeed an incident related to a processing issue of IRS forms for employees. Only 2,214 mailings were processed for a total of 3,403 Form 1099’s, leading to the reissue of the total number later on. Knuffman said that the vast majority of these forms were for independent contractors, with a handful of university employees impacted.
Knuffman said that the university immediately sent out a letter to those affected to lay out what had happened and to clarify current events. He said that there is no evidence to suggest that any of this information has been misused. He reiterated that the university is committed to protecting the privacy, security, and confidentiality of this information. The university has offered triple-bureau credit monitoring and counseling about how this monitoring would occur.
Moreover, Knuffman said that the university has done a full review of how this incident occurred and will update its processes and make technical improvements to ensure future compliance with procedure. Tracy Wetherby Williams said that it would be nice if employees as a whole would have received notice before they read about the issue in the paper. She works with a security team that had no advanced knowledge that this had occurred. She was glad that the university had this difficulty in hand but urged more general communications in advance of disclosure to the media.
Knuffman thanked Williams for her comment. He agreed with her, noting that these incidents are challenging because the university must follow certain protocols with respect to privacy. He said that the university tried to send its letter to employees as soon as it could but recalled that this effort does not always line up with media coverage. He offered to take Williams’ comment back to these discussions.
Katie Musgrove read Lonnie Hawley’s question, as he was not on the call:
(Hawley) Given the permanent move to remote working for many UNC staff, what if any accommodations are being considered for providing support for the added cost to the individuals for items such as internet, telephone/cellphone, and parking when required for campus visits?
Butler responded by saying that there has not really been any conversation about providing these accommodations to employees working remotely. Mobile communication device stipends are available if units choose to use them. He was unaware of any discussions about providing parking as a free benefit to employees working from home. Katie Musgrove recalled that this question has arisen in Operational Excellence conversations regarding the Future of Work. Butler said that the university is reaching the end of its first year regarding remote work. OHR will inquire about whether remote work is meeting departmental and employee needs. Joe Ormond noted that there are multiple parking options now in place for employees working fully remote, depending on the number of times parking on campus is needed per month.
The Chair invited James Holman to read the next question.
(Holman) When will the University start advertising job openings on TV and Radio?
Carly Perin noted her interim status as head of Facilities. She said that this is a new request that to her sounds like an interesting and good idea. She would follow up with Tracy Agnew in the Service Center to see if this option had been previously explored. She said that openings are advertised broadly through current tools and web opportunities. Musgrove thought that the TV and radio options seem a bit more accessible to prospective candidates. She hoped that Facilities would work to broaden its recruiting options.
James Holman asked another question regarding getting equipment repaired. He said that zone managers are personally spending their own money to buy parts to repair equipment, as orders made through the university are not getting through and are resulting in equipment not getting fixed. He asked if someone could find out what is happening related to this situation.
Nate Knuffman appreciated Holman raising this question again and asked him to provide more detail for subsequent research. He said that university resources should not be in question related to supplying needed equipment.
Musgrove read Stacy Keast’s question for the group:
(Keast) Will the university be bringing back the Veterans’ Breakfast at Hill Alumni Dining Hall? We have a couple of employees who enjoyed the event.
Butler said that this event is one of the many events held on campus regularly up until the pandemic. Now, the university is trying to manage reinstatement of these arrangements. He recalled the great amount of interest in getting this event back on the calendar.
Leah Hefner read the next question:
(Hefner) On March 30, 2023, the U.S. Department of Education issued new guidance recommending institutions of higher education help eligible students sign up for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) before a COVID-era expansion expires on May 11, 2023. Specifically, the new guidance recommends institutions “conduct immediate and targeted outreach to their students enrolled at least half-time who are either eligible for work study or have an [Expected Family Contribution] of 0 and provide them with information about SNAP and assistance applying.” The guidance also recommends institutions “examine their student work policies to support student success and avoid limiting public benefits eligibility. Some IHE policies for student work, while an important consideration for student success, may create unintentional barriers for students to receive public benefits.”
- What is UNC-Chapel Hill’s plan to help eligible students sign up for SNAP before the May 11, 2023 deadline?
- Does UNC-Chapel Hill’s current student work policies limit public benefits eligibility? If so, what is UNC-Chapel Hill’s plan to change those policies to align with the U.S. Department of Education’s guidance?
- How many staff employees are eligible for SNAP? Does UNC-Chapel Hill have a plan to help connect any eligible staff employees with SNAP or other relevant public benefits?
Butler said that OHR is working to manage these types of student appointments. Some students are paid hourly and thus can use their pay stubs as required documentation in the benefits application process. Other graduate students do not submit hours and so do not have this information readily available. He said that making this information available on appointment letters could provide the needed documentation. He thanked Amy Johnson, Beth Meyer Davis, and Beverly Wyrick for their assistance in connecting these folks to these benefits.
Butler did not think that policies limit eligibility for people but granted that barriers described could be in place. He did note that eligibility is in part determined by size of household, something that the university does not track.
Hefner asked if OHR could make staff aware of these qualifications, so that people could self-identify. Butler said that leaders could think through this suggestion. He noted that there could be challenges regarding how comfortable people would be sharing this information.
Leah Hefner read the meeting’s final submitted question:
(Hefner) Goldman Sachs released a report on March 26, 2023 predicting that up to 300 million jobs worldwide could be automated with Artificial Intelligence (AI). The report states that “roughly two-thirds of US occupations are exposed to some degree of automation by AI, and that of those occupations which are exposed, most have a significant – but partial – share of their workload (25-50%) that can be replaced.” The report goes on to predict that the top five US economic sectors with work tasks “exposed to automations” by AI are:
- Office and Administrative Support (46%);
- Legal (44%);
- Architecture and Engineering (37%);
- Life, Physical, and Social Science (36%); and
- Business and Financial Operations (35%).
Has UNC-Chapel Hill started planning for the changes to work caused by AI-driven automation (potentially both positive and negative)? The existing “Future of Work” campus initiative considered “flexible work arrangements,” but, given the ongoing rapid development of AI platforms far more powerful than ChatGPT, may need to expand to consider the more fundamental question of who, or what, is doing the work.
Butler said that employees are quite a way off from being replaced as a result of technological advances. He said that artificial intelligence advances are currently making the jobs of humans easier as opposed to more difficult or non-existent. Still, to his knowledge there has been no discussion around planning for automation to replace employees. It seems that this prospect is a good way off, Butler said.
James Stamey raised a new question live during the meeting regarding the search committee for the Vice Chancellor for Facilities Services, replacing Anna Wu. He asked why representatives from the Forum or other Facilities employees were not selected for this group.
Carly Perin replied that the composition of the search committee is already large, with a long process engaging a search firm. The on-site phase of the process will bring in top candidates to campus to meet with a variety of campus constituents, which will include Forum and Facilities representatives.
Stamey asked if Forum delegates would have a chance to meet with candidates separately from large groups. Perin will bring this idea to the selection committee chair for their consideration. Katie Musgrove said that this concern has been brought to the Chancellor and his team previously to allow more active staff participation in these searches. She hoped that this option would be provided to the Forum, in a manner similar to the Provost search.
Leah Hefner asked for more details regarding the mobile device stipend. Musgrove said that this stipend varies by department, but it has been phased out by many units. Butler said that the stipend is still an option on campus.
James Stamey asked if the various phases of employees receiving bonuses through the retention program or other means have been completed. Perin said that there are a few more employees due to receive increases in this next pay cycle. She said that Facilities has nearly made it through the first two phases of these increases. Facilities is constantly considering new positions for the bonus program, as warranted.
Tyrone Williams said that the last housekeeping hiring process had over 40 applicants for fourteen open positions on second shift. He said that most of these vacancies came from current housekeepers switching to the more desirable first-shift positions, with only a few outside candidates. He said that this process is not really filling the void and instead leaves excess work for managers, crew leaders, and staff in the unfavored shifts.
Perin appreciated this comment. She said that Facilities is leveraging all tools available to decrease its vacancy rate in these critical service areas. However, Facilities also doesn’t want to prevent current staff from moving to a shift that they prefer. She will follow up with OHR and the Housekeeping unit to see if any new information has arisen to improve recruiting. She noted the institutional commitment to filling these vacancies.
James Holman echoed Williams’ concern about housekeepers moving from shift to shift. He said that the university is still not hiring people without housekeeping experience for these positions. He offered to train people willing to do the job, instead of leaving candidates by the wayside while current housekeepers must do the work of two to three people. He said that anyone with a good work record and a clear background check could be trained to do a housekeeping job.
Carly Perin said that she had heard this concern from Anna Wu prior to her retirement, with a request from various groups to revisit these requirements within the structural hiring rules already in place.
Arlene Medder asked the status of invasive plants on campus. Perin did not have an answer on this issue immediately available. Katie Musgrove thought that Grounds workers would have some answers to this question.
Tyrone Williams followed up on his earlier question, asking why candidates are assigned by working unit rather than according to the overall need of the university. Most of the time, the zones that really need help due to being short-staffed do not attract candidates to these areas. Perin said that she needs to delve into this question further. James Stamey thought that perhaps the university would do better to post zones that need people first to obtain new workers sooner.
Katie Musgrove asked a question of Linc Butler regarding the guidance around the retention and recruitment bonuses, particularly whether there had been any instruction provided to HR units across campus that retention bonuses must be tied to a vacant open position in a similar classification type. Butler said that OHR is discussing this provision with departments, asking them to consider current employees when contemplating offering sign-on bonuses for difficult to fill positions.
Musgrove asked if a similar restriction exists that departments cannot offer a retention bonus unless they are offering a sign-on bonus to a vacant position. She said that comparable open positions are likely affected by this rule. Butler said that he did not believe this rule is in place but said that he would confirm his understanding.
In the absence of further discussion, the meeting adjourned by acclamation at 10:49 a.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Matt Banks, Recording Secretary