February 7, 2024 Employee Forum meeting minutes
Delegates Attending: L.E. Alexander, David Barnette, Randall Borror, Sharron Bouquin, David Bragg, Shavon Carey-Hicks, Denise Carter, Tiffany Carver, Matthew Chamberlin, Gabriela de la Cruz, Elizabeth Dubose, Jay Eubank, Shayla Evans-Hollingsworth, Adrianne Gibilisco, Leslie Heal, Leah Hefner, Jessi Hill, Shayna Hill, Keith Hines, Jonah Hodge, James Holman, Linda Holst, Rebecca Howell, Jacob Hurst, Brigitte Ironside, Kira Jones, Stacy Keast, Amber Meads, Arlene Medder, Vanessa Mitchell, Vanessa Morris, Katie Musgrove, Katherine Neer, Joseph Ormond, Lisa Petersen, Sara Pettaway, Laura Pratt, Charlissa Rice, Drexel Rivers, Kelly Scurlock-Cross, Audrey Shore, Theresa Silsby, Janice Singletary, Sarah Smith, Jake Stallard, James Stamey, Mathew Steadman, Annetta Streater, Julie Theriault, Michael Williams, Tyrone Williams, Jacob Womack
Excused Absences: None
Chair Katie Musgrove called the meeting to order at 9:15 a.m., welcoming all to the meeting including special guests and new attendees. She welcomed the first of these attendees, Interim Chancellor Lee Roberts, to introduce himself to the group. Roberts thanked the Forum for having him at the meeting, praising their critical role in representing the concerns of university staff from around campus. He noted the volunteer status of most Forum delegates and he thanked delegates for their care for the institution and what happens here.
Roberts said that he had served in the position of Interim Chancellor for around a month, and he loved getting to know UNC-Chapel Hill and its students better. He had visited the Adams School of Dentistry and the Carolina Black Caucus leadership the previous week, noting the challenges and opportunities each organization faces. Once again, he praised the terrific work that staff do every day to build the university.
Roberts expanded his remarks to say that his role is to champion the work that the university does in conversations in Raleigh and around the state. He thus looked forward to meeting more delegates and learning more about their work. He sought feedback on things that work or do not work as well as they could, planning to make progress on these items. He understood that some things are intractable but said that a world-class organization should not be impeded by bureaucracy. As a result, he looked forward to working with the Forum to address areas in which the university can effectuate change. He similarly looked forward to the Forum’s recommendations and feedback, noting that improvement depends on everyone.
Roberts recalled a couple of people stating that “Carolina runs on love” and he thought that there was a lot of truth to this statement. He said the affection that most people have for this institution is almost palpable, as if one can feel it in the air. As a result, Roberts thought a lot of things get done here. Because, almost despite the infrastructure and bureaucracy, the university has so many committed people who know how to get things done and care about getting things done in the right way. He included the many people participating in the meeting that morning. Once again, he welcomed feedback from the Forum and said that he was eager for this perspective.
The Chair thanked Roberts for his remarks and offered delegates the opportunity to present questions to the Interim Chancellor. Arlene Medder asked if Roberts had drunk from the Old Well yet, a tradition among students at the beginning of each semester. Roberts said that the Old Well is around 30 yards from his office. He looked forward to the good luck that act would bring him. Medder then asked what Roberts thought of the university campus. Roberts said that he knew the campus previously, but had gotten to know UNC much better over the past month, almost every day visiting another extraordinary place here. Roberts praised UNC-Chapel Hill’s remarkable physical infrastructure, in spite of the many outstanding repair and renovation needs. He thought that people may lose sight of its many remarkable spaces, from Graham Memorial to Hyde Hall, to Wilson Library, to Roper Hall and many other locations. Roberts said that the opportunity to visit all of these interesting places was part of what made his job fun.
Laura Pratt welcomed Roberts to campus. She asked his top priority for the semester ahead. Roberts recalled that he had spoken earlier about finding things that can be made to work a bit better. He recognized Rick Wernoski of the Operational Excellence group and noted the group’s recent conversations on the university hiring process. Roberts bemoaned the difficulty in hiring currently as well as a lack of transparency in the hiring process. He noted that this is an area in which there are a lot of state laws and procedures, so the process is not entirely within the university’s control. Still, he would rely on Wernoski and the Operational Excellence group to make progress in this area.
Roberts said that he had also been working with Provost Chris Clemens on ways to update the university’s strategic plan. He said that the current plan has served the campus well but has some areas that need updating. As an example, he cited artificial intelligence advancements, which weren’t a part of the strategic considerations four years ago. As a leading global research university, UNC-Chapel Hill must develop a leading-edge strategy for A.I., perhaps the most important development of our careers. The university will put together a working group of internal and external folks, including the Dean of the School of Data Science, to develop a strong strategy in this area.
Roberts said that the university needs to think about enrollment and its profile relating to engineering. Furthermore, he said that the university needs to update its campus master plan. All of these efforts will compose part of the refresh of the strategic plan, Roberts said.
Jacob Womack appreciated Roberts’ comments about working with and within bureaucracy on campus and externally. He also noted the range of decisions with strategic goals that will arise soon. Womack asked Roberts’ lodestar that will govern making these decisions, as he would need to counterbalance different perspectives, desires, and efficiencies versus cost savings and employee retention. Womack commented that these decisions will always leave some people mildly upset. He thus asked Roberts’ rule of thumb or guiding principle in these deliberations.
Roberts recalled two ways to answer this question. In the first, he recalled a quote from previous Chancellor Michael Hooker from around 30 years ago that says, “the affect of the reason that we have a state university is to serve the people of the state and the problems of the state are the problems of the university.” He would thus ask if a particular decision serves the state of North Carolina, one of the fastest growing and dynamic in the country. UNC-Chapel Hill must lead that growth in many ways and keep pace with it in other ways, all the while never losing sight of the role of a university in service to the state.
Alternatively, he asked why UNC-Chapel Hill could not become the number one ranked public university in the United States. Currently, the university ranks among a group of five or six top institutions, but Roberts thought that UNC-Chapel Hill should set as an ambition achieving this higher rank and make decisions based on that objective. This improvement would not occur overnight, but the overall goal is a worthy objective for this institution, Roberts said, given the university’s heritage and resources.
L. E. Alexander recalled a comment made by a former delegate to a former Provost during the formation of these strategic plans. This delegate said that the Employee Forum has committees that do really far-reaching work on a range of campus concerns. She reiterated this sentiment, advising Roberts to use these groups of people who are in the trenches but are also aware of current practice among leadership. She said that the Forum is here and is ready to help with these initiatives, along with many other different groups on campus such as STACC, the Staff Advisory Committee to the Chancellor.
Roberts appreciated this offer of help. He noted that the South Building administrative team does a terrific job in these matters. Still, given the enormous complex and decentralized institution that is Carolina, most people here serve in particular silos. There is a very thin layer of senior administrators here that must be responsive to the university’s needs and priorities by means of feedback. Roberts said that decision-makers would welcome and depend upon this feedback.
Roberts thanked the Forum, looked forward to working with delegates, and appreciated the chance to speak. The Chair reiterated Alexander’s comments, noting that the Forum is one of the far-reaching institutions that cover many of these different silos. She asked Roberts to let the Forum know how it can help with his transition to this new role. She looked forward to working with Roberts.
The Chair then welcomed Provost Chris Clemens to speak in the Forum’s monthly roundtable. Clemens said that the university had secured a leader for the School of Information and Library Science, Jeffrey Bartell, who will start in this position April 1st. Clemens was very pleased with Bartell’s arrival and vision for the school. He was also happy to have completed his tenth Dean search since becoming Provost two years ago. As of now, the university does not currently have any further open Dean searches, Clemens happily relayed.
Clemens said that the university has hired a great team of Deans who are working together to advise him on matters. He said that the university has a nice group of candidates for head of the new School of Civic Life and Leadership, a school within the College of Arts and Sciences without its own administrative structures or curriculum.
Clemens said that the Students for Fair Admission (SFFA) Supreme Court case decision is approaching its one-year anniversary. The university has had to deal with this change to the law around how it considers race and admissions, noting the over 200 ways one may gain admission to the university. The Provost’s Office SFFA team is considering four key areas and released guidance in Fall 2023 on how those processes should be configured to conform to the Supreme Court decision.
Clemens said that the university has issued guidance regarding its pipeline programs from other UNC System institutions. He said that campus Deans have expressed interest in expanding these avenues, leading to further guidance on how to manage these pipeline programs. Regarding recruitment, Clemens said that these efforts are different and the university is allowed to do much more in this area, for example by targeting regions by demographic to find students interested in coming to UNC-Chapel Hill.
Last fall, the SFFA team provided the Chancellor’s Office guidance related to financial aid, in many ways the most complex guidance of the lot. There are many scholarships within or without the university that do consider protected status when awarded. He noted the number of Federal program minority fellowships that students apply for that are subject to federal rules. The university must work through all of these iterations and should issue some initial guidance soon. Financial aid officials and gift officers must think through how their projects are constructed. As the ruling states, if the university is both the dispersing authority and the selecting authority for aid, this aid needs to be race blind. Clemens said that this has not always been the case in the past.
However, if someone else is doing the selection, leaving the university as solely the dispersing agent, the university can follow the rules of that agency as long as the university does not have a strong presence with its employees in the selection process. This situation will require some negotiation with some officials who provide financial aid to corporate partners. Clemens granted that the guidance would provide a framework for future conversations.
Regarding artificial intelligence, Clemens noted that the university has commissioned a group on A.I. which had representation from the Forum for the purpose of issuing guidance for faculty and staff. Eventually, this effort will receive a separate, featured website with more than just guidance featured. Clemens noted that AI software is now available to faculty and staff through Bing. It has been enabled for everyone but students, although they will receive access soon as well. The Bing chat provides UNC community members free access to Microsoft’s most current version of AI software.
Clements also said that the university has a contract with Microsoft 360, which features a new tool called Co-Pilot from which one can access AI tools. He said that it is very expensive to have everyone on campus on Microsoft 360 Co-Pilot, far out of reach for current budgets. Thus, the question becomes, who would use this feature productively? Additionally, how would the university navigate the feature to see what is necessary to enable and support it?
Mike Barker has drafted a proposal to campus Deans to do an initial pilot study with a number of faculty, staff, and students getting access to this feature for four months in exchange for feedback on its use. The Deans of the schools would receive an allocation and the authority to decide on these initial seats. People who are at the cutting edge of using Chat GPT already in their work will want to communicate to their Dean a willingness to participate in this pilot. The university will move quickly on this study, hoping to have a proposal available within the next month.
The second thing is to consider real A.I. applications in research or in an operational manner, much as Rick Wernoski’s Operational Excellence group would do. The university must commission a sandbox to obtain the full set of capabilities that are not available to all. Already, the School of Data Science has set up one sandbox through which it is learning how to manage these sites. For staff, this effort would streamline processes in Human Resources or other areas.
The third thing is cloud services, through Azure or some equivalent service. How much will the university do with its data storage and computing infrastructure in the cloud versus locally? Clemens said that these are the three areas of A.I. under current consideration. Regarding the university’s approach to these questions, Clemens was generally happy with where the university is now. He noted the need to move quickly, but also to progress in a way that respects what the needs are rather than just creating capabilities that are not understood or not used. Clemens thought that the university had created a measured approach to these questions that would help advance progress in this area.
Clemens offered to take questions from the Forum, thanking all again for their work for the university. The Chair understood that the financial effects of some of these A.I. technologies are fairly vast. She recalled Clemens’ earlier comments that there would be some allocation to departments, and she asked if the university had delineated how these allocations would work.
Initially, Clemens said, the university will attempt to bear these expenses centrally. However, there will come a point at which judicious decisions must be made. He did not know how leaders would arrive at these decisions. He would like to say more about pricing, but he felt uncertain about aspects of the university’s non-disclosure agreement (NDA). The university has discussed these matters with Microsoft 360 given the previous existing relationship. However, Clements thought that the university would also try to explore expanding partnerships with other companies.
The Chair thanked Clemens for his comprehensive remarks. Clemens noted that staff employees may lead the university on this in ways because they know where in their work they could use a tool like A.I. He thanked Rick Wernoski and the Operational Excellence team for their work on the staff guidance effort and their effort on the operational use cases that may be deployed in the initial sandboxes. He appreciated their work turning these efforts from imagination to reality.
Arlene Medder asked if there had been any operational wins in this area. Clemens said that there have not been as the university is still early in the process of conceptualizing the use of those cases. He would consult with Stan Ahalt of the School of Data Science and Society on Medder’s question. Clemens said that he saw little wins every day, such as the use of an image that could not be created with an internet scan or personal drawing. He would report back with news of any larger wins. The Chair thought that as people hear more about this work, the more their imaginations will be peaked, and the more they would begin using this new feature in their day-to-day work.
Jacob Womack asked if there was a working group and timeline related to A.I. technologies like security cameras. Clemens said that he had not participated in any discussions outside those he had previously mentioned. He was not in the loop on any implementation of A.I. resources on the operational side. He offered to answer direct questions about concerns via email but said that as far as he knew, the university is not contemplating its own use of A.I. through A.I. enabled tools or technologies. He did remember that the new license plate readers may have A.I. as a tool in their technology.
Womack said that he is now upgrading security systems at the Carolina Union and observed that almost all new security systems have A.I. capabilities. Currently, staff are not allowed to use these capabilities, although an appetite does exist for their implementation. Clemens replied that this sounds like an impediment but observed that the university may want some of these impediments, as it must be thoughtful about supporting a whole new set of technologies and what they might do to network security and similar items. He thought that these were likely more technical than administrative issues that Mike Barker and his IT team will need to work through. He pledged to report back on progress in this area.
The Chair thanked Clemens for his remarks. She noted that Dr. Perrin Jones of the UNC-Chapel Hill Board of Trustees was originally scheduled to speak with the Forum but is currently on call due to his duties as a working surgeon. She hoped that Jones would be available later but granted that his work with patients takes priority.
The Chair welcomed Vice Chancellor for Finance and Operations Nate Knuffman to present his quarterly update. Knuffman shared a slide deck with the Forum regarding the 24-25 budget process that began in October. Finance and Operations (F&O) had then sent out instructions to campus and received many thoughtful and informative submissions from campus units. F&O has been reading these submissions and holding meetings with everyone across campus. The division is at the stage at which it can put the budget together and make final decisions on recommendations to the Board of Trustees for its March meeting. After getting approval at that stage, the budget would then go to the Board of Governors in May.
Knuffman said that all university units combined submitted about $125 million in requests, a very large number but also a figure smaller than the $170 million received two years ago. Reconsidering his estimate, Knuffman said that the operating side’s budget actually is less than $100 million, for the most part concentrated in three really big units.
Knuffman thought that these requests demonstrated a better alignment with revenue, as units must work with the resources and expectations in terms of what is being requested. He acknowledged that several units did not ask for anything in this process and seem to be really maximizing their existing resources.
Knuffman praised the budget meetings for this year and thanked the Forum for its contribution to these successes. He was pleased to report that a new tool for these discussions had worked successfully in improving efficiency. Between the new tool and a better document of record, the budget process has increased consistency. There are also new focus areas. Knuffman said that if units have space implications in their request, they should make F&O aware of these factors to increase understanding and allow F&O to conduct its negotiations in a better way.
F&O has also been sensitive about putting all figures available into the published budget. Knuffman recalled that the university started the all-funds budget process a couple of years ago which has been a great step forward for transparency. The process has also shifted the university conversation on budgets to questions of return on investment of these dollars. Knuffman thought this an important consideration as the university consumes information about what its costs look like across the enterprise.
As a result, F&O has discussed trying to add some context around return on investment in its final published report. The UNC System Office has stressed the importance of finding efficiencies, and F&O has responded in its engagement with units. Knuffman thought that the university had done a good job with finding efficiencies although it perhaps had not told its story so well regarding this work.
The university has worked on allocation of tuition and appropriation dollars to different academic units and what factors drive these decisions and their underlying logic. Knuffman said that currently F&O is working through an enrollment allocation that rolls forward. He said that a lot of the funding model changes the UNC System Office made two years ago roll these allocations forward and also standardize how the university shares tuition revenue centrally versus in an academic unit. With that said, F&O is trying to standardize this process, supporting provisions around return-on-investment decisions.
Knuffman said that the university wants to solidify several investments made in schools and other projects. He said that the university always has in mind the state’s priorities regarding requests on the workforce side. The university must ensure that it is following through and upholding safety and accessibility in its deliberations on budgetary matters. Carolina’s excellence then really becomes about investing in itself and ensuring that it has the dollars to remain competitive here with its workforce, among other issues.
Knuffman said that it is important to develop a bigger-picture understanding of university budgeting. Fiscally, the university is in a good position, as it has built up healthy reserves over several years. Revenues have exceeded forecasts at the state level for several years running, improving the university’s position.
This advantageous fiscal position is important to the state’s commitment to affordability which has implications for how the university manages its budgets through growing revenue and other means. Knuffman reminded the Forum that UNC-Chapel Hill’s budget is submitted for consideration by the Board of Governors alongside other UNC System institutions, against a backdrop of large enrollment challenges for the UNC System as a whole. UNC-Chapel Hill must be sensitive to these considerations when thinking through its discussions of budgetary matters.
Knuffman said that governing bodies are demanding more financial and operational transparency, both nationally and within the UNC System. He thought that this development had been very positive for the university. He said that the return-on-investment study for different academic programs is part of that development.
UNC-Chapel Hill does now have some limited revenue available for investment, which is a much stronger position than it has held historically. Limited tuition increases have driven this revenue availability. Knuffman cautioned that the university does have constraints on some of its major fiscal drivers but does enjoy this little bit of flexibility with non-resident tuition and graduate student tuition. F&O continues to work through estimates on tuition and research dollars, with modest levels of strategic reserves accumulated.
The big considerations facing the university involve solidifying its investments and finding resources to fund the hiring and other support necessary given the advent of the School for Data Sciences and Society and School for Civic Life and Leadership. In addition, the university has discussed campus safety and accessibility, making sure that dollars are set aside for the August after-action report and the recommendations that will likely follow through use of startup funds. Knuffman said that this effort to utilize startup endeavors helps us remain competitive in the research space, as this is probably the most requested area of support centrally from all of the different academic schools.
The university is thus building a model of support that bridges initial startup costs when launching an academic program to ensure that initial dollars are available before tuition and appropriation materialize. This flexibility enables the university to launch entrepreneurial activities in the university’s best interest that are aligned with its mission.
Knuffman also noted the importance of graduate student support and said that F&O officials are still working through the mechanics of providing this support. However, there will be dollars prioritized for research, equipment, and support extending beyond the capability of one individual school or unit. The university wants to make some central dollars available to enable larger investments that can really benefit the institution.
Knuffman noted the need to think about these questions in tandem with university requests of the UNC System Office and the state legislature. The university’s own budget process and the opportunity to make requests of the state legislature via the UNC System Office need to complement each other and work strategically together. Finally, the university continues to work on the UNC System Office’s priority about efficiency, working to find these opportunities.
Michael Williams asked if there are any plans or mechanisms in place to protect university programs from what occurred at West Virginia University a few months ago. In this instance, programs seen as unpopular by whomever controlled the purse strings were deemed insufficient and returns on investment were used an excuse for getting rid of these programs.
Knuffman appreciated the question and said that this conversation is taking place nationally. He noted a large conversation at UNC-Greensboro regarding academic programs and the question or whether or not to prioritize certain programs, perhaps through the return on investment (ROI) data. He said that ROI data is a tool that informs decision-making and is only a starting point for discussion. He also observed that this methodology can identify returns through multiple lenses, as the way a study is set up can reflect institutional and student perspectives.
ROI data thus can reflect the dollars a student is really expending versus a return on their salary over a certain period of time. Knuffman thought that this work is a starting point for analysis, and also thought that the UNC System Office’s work is a complement to UNC-Chapel Hill’s work on its all-funds budget to some extent. Increasing transparency around how dollars are spent is necessary to get at the return piece of the ROI data model.
Knuffman said that each UNC System campus has the opportunity to look at some poor performing academic programs and to provide additional information on these areas to the UNC System Office. All UNC System institutions, including UNC-Chapel Hill, are undergoing this process.
Williams added that he hoped that anyone making decisions regarding these programs remembers that UNC institutions are a public service, not just a public enterprise. He said that it is not necessarily the university’s job to turn a profit. Knuffman thanked Williams for his remarks.
Annetta Streater asked if some connection exists between efficiencies and campus efforts around operational excellence. She asked if the university is telling these stories as certain units have been on the path of improving operations for a couple of years now. She asked if the university is telling its stories well enough regarding efficiency and operational excellence efforts.
Knuffman thanked Streater for her comments. He clarified that efficiency may not simply mean saving money but could also mean operating more efficiently. He thought that Operational Excellence has helped decision-makers evaluate a variety of different campus processes. He agreed with the need to lift these stories about how the university has improved its internal operations to maximize the work done for the same amount of dollars over time. Knuffman observed that a form of efficiency also exists when dollars are reallocated towards higher priorities.
Knuffman noted a big opportunity now exists in how the university manages its space and leasing, with opportunities to generate some significant savings in the next fiscal year through reduction of its lease footprint. The university may in turn be able to reinvest this money toward top priorities mentioned earlier. Knuffman thought that these decisions form part of the university’s story, and the university needs to take the time to capture this work in order to tell it properly. Thus, he asked delegates to share stories that they saw as compelling in this fashion.
The Chair thanked Knuffman for his updates. Knuffman introduced Wendy Halsey, the newly hired Associate Vice Chancellor for Facilities Services. He thanked Carly Perrin for her work serving in this capacity over the past year on an interim basis. Knuffman was thrilled to welcome Halsey to the F&O team from Virginia Tech University. Halsey thanked Knuffman for his kind words, noting that she is still in her first week of meeting people across the campus. She was excited to be in Chapel Hill and to participate in these discussions. She also welcomed feedback concerning facilities matters. The Chair said that she looked forward to working with Halsey as well.
The Chair welcomed Vice Chancellor for Human Resources, Equal Opportunity, and Compliance Becci Menghini to provide the Forum’s monthly HR report. Menghini updated the Forum on meetings regarding SHRA ranges under review, with the SHRA range project going to the State Human Resources Commission a couple of weeks ago. Approved unanimously at this meeting, the range structure now goes to the Governor. Following the Governor’s signature, the Office of State Human Resources (OSHR) will issue guidance to state agencies, including UNC-Chapel Hill, with the university due to implement these changes before the end of the fiscal year.
Menghini reiterated that new SHRA ranges do not mean new raises for all automatically. She was pleased that the UNC System Office has added these increases as part of their legislative priorities, as has UNC-Chapel Hill. The university will work to bring its employees who no longer meet their range minimum up to that minimum, and farther than that if money is available. These ranges have a minimum of 7.5% adjustment, up to as high as 25% depending on the job, range, and family.
Menghini summed up these discussions as “a once in a lifetime opportunity,” as the chance to look at every job family and go out to market for data does not happen very often. She clarified that these changes will not cause the university to hire new employees at higher pay levels than current staff. She hoped that as the university receives guidance in this area it can help units identify where in the ranges they want their targets to be, and then help develop a plan to do that.
While granting that this is a large concern on campus, Menghini said that the number of people below range is actually quite small for the university. Thus, the impact of these changes will be decidedly low because so many employees earn 100-115% of their current market rate. When OHR (University Office of Human Resources) makes these adjustments, these employees will certainly fall lower in the new, higher salary range.
Menghini said that equity needs to be part of this range adjustment process, and noted factors that throw off equity efforts, such as EHRA employees receiving a retention bonus, which can often throw off equity because one person does their job at a different salary rate. The good news is that the state has now enacted a bonus system for SHRA and EHRA employees that will not require so many base adjustments. Instead, OHR will do bonuses to manage retention so that units managing these changes can use a limited amount of funds and while providing more equitable resources across job families. She granted that this is not a foolproof system, however.
The university will see EHRA ranges come through the Governor’s Office following the SHRA ranges, with work already started on this task. A new structure is being put together with new job families and categories. Accordingly, OHR would be able to better manage SHRA-EHRA conversions because individuals who have the opportunity to convert will better understand what they are converting to, as well as their promotional opportunities. Menghini praised the UNC System Office for its work in keeping this project moving, also praising Buck, the consultant in this process.
Menghini said that EHRA Tier 1 and Tier 2 positions are now merging into a new classification called Exempt Professional Service (EPS) which will fall under the larger EHRA umbrella which includes faculty employees.
Regarding SHRA pay bands, OHR hopes to implement these before the end of the fiscal year in June, 2024. Again, Menghini said that these adjustments will be in the system, but not necessarily enacted. Timing depends on guidance from OSHR.
Menghini said that the UNC System Office will distribute the next engagement survey in March. These are typically done every two years. OHR will translate this survey for English as a Second Language (ESL) employees, with a target date of mid-March for distribution.
Elizabeth Dubose asked about hiring employees based on their accumulated experience rather than educational achievement. Menghini said that as a result of the Governor’s proclamation, the university could be able to use some version of a certain number of years as equal qualifications to a degree. However, the university has not received official guidance in this area, meaning that this change is still yet to be enacted. Menghini also noted that apprenticeships are occurring, although the process to accomplish this is a rather complicated endeavor.
Menghini did not know the timeline for eventual guidance or apprenticeship approval but added that several questions remain regarding the translation to educational experience. In what areas will it apply, and for how many bands? Are all positions covered, and can departments still issue a preference for a degree? Menghini observed that UNC-Chapel Hill has plenty of jobs in which experience is totally sufficient, but other positions, namely faculty, will always require educational achievement. There will be certain areas In which OHR must ensure that language in described positions lines up with job duties. She would provide more information on this timeline when available.
The Chair asked if OHR has any concerns or questions about the SHRA pay bands and what they would mean for a department that has been struggling with compression issues and other related problems, like Housekeeping. Menghini did not recall the numbers for Housekeeping in the SHRA re-banding process. Overall, however, she was satisfied with the structure of the new SHRA ranges. She thought that some people on campus would be dissatisfied with this structure because they think they should be making more money. Unfortunately, market data did not bear extra increases for these employees, either through state or regional market data. She said that the study also examined national data and found that regional market data was as good as or better than the national data.
The steering committee’s goal was to make the numbers as employee friendly as possible, because of the intense competition for employees the university faces. The committee sought to make the salary ranges as high as possible, with most classifications using regional data for comparisons.
Menghini said that a couple of times, the committee received pushback from OSHR regarding these ranges. She noted the comparison with dental hygienists was difficult to do given their job duties and those of the private market are not exactly the same. Still, these ranges came back much better than where they started with OSHR. She praised the UNC System Office as an outstanding advocate during of this effort. Still, in other cases the committee was constrained by the realities of market data from awarding higher ranges. The university, as a public service organization, can never expect to hold a place at the front of market data for most positions, Menghini said.
The Chair thanked Menghini for her remarks and advocacy on behalf of employees in discussions with state bureaucracy. She welcomed Director of Payroll Services Walter Miller to speak on plans for a new TIM system.
Miller said that the university’s timekeeping system is one of the very few that actually touch every campus employee. He said that the TIM system is undergoing a significant update, and he wished to share a sneak preview of these changes with the Forum. Work has gone on for nearly 19 months, with the final implementation stage imminent.
Miller recalled that TIM has used Workforce Central since 2005. This platform is now approaching the end of its life. The vendor UKG Chronos approached the university with a cost-neutral option to move to their latest cloud-based time system model. Miller said that the licensing prices will change as more managers receive access to see their employees’ TIM records. Managers who oversee only EHRA employees will receive this access in a more modern tile-based format.
Miller noted the issue of students in disparate positions and departments across campus will now change for the better under the new system. Future updates will include new features with regard to mobile applications and enhanced reporting. The current update will use a new modern tile-based system similar to ConnectCarolina. Miller said that the timecard will be very familiar to most hourly staff employees. Many current activities now will be engaged in quick access off the landing page.
Miller said that underlying policies regarding clocking in and out will remain the same. Employee interactions with the TIM system will not change, as these are based off existing biweekly and monthly pay schedules.
Miller encouraged employees to prepare for this update to keep track of their existing leave balances, namely vacation and sick leave rollover. He said that balances will transfer over to the new system soon, so employees should be vigilant regarding their recorded leave totals. He added that it may be advisable to print off the last few months of leave as launch comes closer. Payroll Services will issue many rounds of communication regarding this changeover, Miller said. Around seven weeks out, Payroll will begin communicating with managers, with further communications regarding how to engage the new system arriving four weeks prior to launch.
Trainings and webinars will be offered, but Miller thought that these changes would not become overly onerous. Still, he noted the 20,000 users of the current system and the potential for confusion. Theresa Silsby recalled an issue in which secondary and tertiary appointments do not always show up in TIM for employees. She asked if this issue will be addressed in the multiple assignment, as functionality changes will likely not address this process. Kristen Dunivant outlined the process through which an employee will log in, with positions already listed without a separate login required. She said that the Payroll team was excited to alleviate this concern and many other issues with the new updates.
Miller said that those with problems with their leave in the new system should contact their TIM administrators to gain an understanding of their difficulty. Technical issues will receive a referral to Payroll Services. The Chair said that the introduction of new systems has left many employees a bit nervous. She hoped that the implementation of these changes goes smoothly. Miller thanked the Forum for the opportunity to speak.
Senior Work/Life Manager Jessica Pyjas presented the Forum’s monthly wellness updates. She noted that February is National Heart Month, with heart disease being the number one cause of death for Americans. She said that resources for this month were included in the January WorkWell newsletter.
Pyjas noted the Wellness Expo that will take place March 13th. Updates on this event and other wellness events are featured on the OHR website at https://hr.unc.edu/benefits/work-life/. Pyjas provided further links to the information from her report in a separate communication to delegates following the meeting.
Laura Pratt asked if the Wellness Expo will feature only blood pressure checks, not blood draws, this year. Pyjas said that the State Health Plan will not cover these draws any further, with other arrangements costing too much. Pyjas also confirmed that the Wellness Expo will feature Domino’s Pizza along with salad for attendees.
Pyjas said that the Helping Heals list of part-time caregivers will be updated only twice a year now, with the current list active until August. She recalled the different healthy recipes described in WorkWell.
Pyjas also noted the upcoming transition related to retirement opportunities, with TIAA becoming the only vendor for these investments. She announced that seminars on this change will occur through February. She also described discount programs available to employees.
Keith Hines thanked Pyjas for all of her work, most notably for her battles on behalf of staff employees with local vendors who offer discounts. Pyjas thanked Hines for this compliment. Arlene Medder asked about Amtrak’s elimination of the discount for State of North Carolina government employees. Pyjas said she would follow up on this question. She noted that UNC does not control any discount platform other than the UNC HR page.
The Chair then moved to the consent agenda and approval of the minutes of the January meeting. Shayna Hill asked that the UNC System Staff Assembly report be removed from this overall approval of committee reports. Arlene Medder moved that the consent agenda be approved, seconded by L. E. Alexander. The motion was approved with no votes opposing or in abstention.
Hill was pleased to announce that this year’s edition of the Chancellors’ Cup golf tournament will take place at Finley golf course here in Chapel Hill this September. She encouraged delegates to participate in this event which raises money for the Janet B. Royster staff scholarship. She was proud to note that Forum delegates Keith Hines, Charlissa Rice, and Arlene Medder serve on the tournament administration team, with Hines leading this effort. Any and all volunteers will be welcomed and appreciated.
Hill added that the dates of the March Staff Assembly meetings have been announced, March 18th and 19th at the UNC System Office building in Raleigh.
The Chair moved to old business, namely the discussion of the bylaws revisions led by Parliamentarian Jacob Womack. Womack shared a general summary of the proposed bylaws changes for the Forum to consider. He planned to submit these changes to a group within the Law School, which will help implement those changes into a final version of the bylaws for Forum consideration at a later meeting.
These proposed changes include creation of a Chair Elect position, revision of bylaws connected to creation of this new role, revision of the UNC System Staff Assembly delegate selection process, revisions to the Forum election process, a change in the mandatory roll-off period for delegates, and a general rewording of the bylaws to improve readability.
Members discussed the proposed revisions. Randall Borror asked in the chat whether the current Chair would be able to rerun at the end of their proposed two-year term. The Chair did not think that the revisions would prohibit this from happening but said that the demands of the role made this unlikely. Shayna Hill agreed that two years would be a perfect length of time for this service. The Chair noted that the Faculty Council have a similar process for their chair position.
The Chair called for a motion to approve the summary document of the Forum’s bylaws revisions. Rebecca Howell made this motion, seconded by Arlene Medder. Leslie Heal wondered if the Forum could request that the Chancellor’s Office assist the Forum in recruiting staff for delegate seats. The Chair replied that these efforts are mostly already in place. She noted existing letters from the Chancellor as well as the election video which featured Chancellor Guskiewicz and Forum officers.
The Chair thanked Womack for his work as Parliamentarian on these revisions. She noted that a copy of the proposed revisions will go to administration officials prior to the Forum’s final consideration. Womack reminded the Forum that the document under discussion is only a summary. Delegates will have the opportunity to discuss the revisions in more detail once they are formally introduced. Rebecca Howell asked that the revised bylaws come back from the Law School group in a red-lined format for easier identification of changes. The Forum voted to approve this summary document of bylaws revisions by acclamation.
The Chair had one more item of business, noting that Tracy Wetherby Williams, the Forum Treasurer, left the university as of this month. As part of her duties as Chair, she appointed Brigitte Ironside to replace Williams for the remainder of Wetherby Williams’ term, through June 30, 2024. The Chair noted Ironside’s experience with budgeting matters at the university level, along with the fact that Ironside was the runner-up in the last Treasurer election. The Chair welcomed her to the fold of officers.
The Chair noted that the Vice Chancellors’ representatives’ meeting will take place March 14th. Matt Banks will send out requests for attendees soon via a Qualtrics survey. She called for kudos recognizing university community members. Arlene Medder praised the speed and professionalism of the Print Shop.
In the absence of further discussion, the meeting adjourned by acclamation at 11:31 a.m.
Respectfully submitted, Matt Banks, Recording Secretary