April 12, 2023 Employee Forum meeting minutes
Delegates Attending: Vanessa Blake, Randall Borror, David Bragg, Shane Brogan, Tiffany Carver, Elizabeth Dubose, Jay Eubank, Shayla Evans-Hollingsworth, Stephanie Forman, Adrianne Gibilisco, Chrissie Greenberg, Lonnie Hawley, Leah Hefner, Jessi Hill, Keith Hines, James Holman, Rebecca Howell, Brigitte Ironside, Kira Jones, Stacy Keast, Anthony Lindsey, Arlene Medder, Mandy Melton, David Michaud, Manisha Mittal, Katie Musgrove, Joseph Ormond, Sara Pettaway, Laura Pratt, Charlissa Rice, Kelly Scurlock-Cross, Lori Shamblin, Theresa Silsby, Sarah Smith, Jake Stallard, James Stamey, Janet Steele, Annetta Streater, Julie Theriault, Tracy Wetherby Williams, Tracey Wiley, Michael Williams, Tyrone Williams
Excused Absences: Amber Meads, Matthew Teal, Alice Whiteside, Jacob Womack
Chair Katie Musgrove called the meeting to order at 9:15 a.m. She welcomed Chancellor Kevin Guskiewicz to present roundtable remarks. Guskiewicz wished the Forum well, hoping that all had enjoyed the holiday weekend. He thanked staff for their incredible work as the campus moves into spring. He was proud to see many senior students and their families take their pictures in front of the Old Well as graduation approaches in May. He thanked all who play a role in preparing the campus for graduation on May 14th.
Guskiewicz recalled that the Carolina campus has many challenges with maintaining its physical space. Leadership continues discussions around these issues, with staff as well as students. He noted recent attention to students who have raised concerns about others with physical disabilities and their challenges with campus facilities. Guskiewicz thanked his personal staff and Vice Chancellors who have taken time to meet with these students and continue to work towards solutions to these challenges. Guskiewicz noted a general focus on accessibility to classrooms. He asked delegates to share any information about existing challenges as the University works to accommodate members of our community.
Guskiewicz urged listeners to remember that those with disabilities include physical disabilities as well as hidden disabilities, such as those with hearing impairments. He said that faculty and staff are made aware of accommodations needed for students by Accessibility Resources Services (ARS).
Guskiewicz next wanted to address questions around the revised Board of Governors policy on compelled speech. He had heard questions at a number of previous meetings. Chair of the Faculty Mimi Chapman hosted a faculty town hall at which the policy was a topic of conversation. Guskiewicz thanked Provost Chris Clemens, who has worked closely with deans, for sending out guidance on at least two occasions. Guskiewicz said that some questions still remain regarding what wording can be used regarding interview questions to ensure compliance with the new policy.
Regarding interview questions, he emphasized that if competencies are required for a particular university position, these would warrant asking questions around candidates’ experience around diversity, equity, inclusion, or some other issue intersecting with the policy. He added that campus leadership continues to work on this matter and offered to answer questions from the Forum.
Guskiewicz added that questions have emerged asking how the university follows the policy while still keeping true to its first strategic initiative in Carolina Next, Build Our Community Together, through welcoming a diverse student body, staff, and faculty. He underscored the value of the educational benefits that come with these different lived experiences which are part of our community here. Guskiewicz noted the Arts Everywhere event to occur that Friday, and he hoped that all would take the time to enjoy the occasion. Additionally, the spring football game will take place Saturday, and graduation will occur May 14th with author Bryan Stevenson as the commencement speaker.
Arlene Medder raised a question concerning losing diverse voices with the new compelled speech policy. Guskiewicz acknowledged that this question had been raised by others. He said that the University still aspires to have a diverse community and he thought that there are ways to get to this community. He recalled Carolina’s strategic plan showing a way in which interviewers can ask candidates how they will contribute to elevating priorities within Carolina. The first of these priorities is to build our community together. A fair question is asking how candidates will elevate these priorities and contribute to them as a member of our community.
Rebecca Howell expressed concern that this process is limited to specific positions. The Chair added that managers already feel under pressure and may feel even more stretched having to figure out creative ways to ask these questions. She feared that managers would choose not to raise the question at all for fear of running afoul of the policy. She further thought that this path of least resistance will not enable interviewers to ask important questions because this policy frankly makes hiring managers’ jobs harder.
Guskiewicz asked if the Chair had an example of a question which she would typically ask or would like to ask a candidate. The Chair noted that a question at a town council meeting hosted by Faculty Chair Mimi Chapman was rejected. The question essentially asked how a candidate would contribute to the inclusive nature of the team here. She said that the question did not seem to break any rules but still was rejected.
Vice Chancellor for Human Resources, Equal Opportunity, and Compliance Becci Menghini granted that all have struggled some because of the language of the compelled speech guidance, as it is a little bit broad. Internal conversations at the university have sought to tie interview questions to competencies, as every job is required to meet these requirements. All jobs at the university really do require that candidates must work in some fashion with a diverse set of people or audiences. Menghini observed that some of this work is tied to teaching and some to outreach. She said that the requirement of interviewers is only to ask the competency required for work, and how the competency ties to these concerns.
Menghini summed up to ask what the job is and what does the relevant competency require. She said that a teacher in a classroom must fulfill the competency of teaching effectively to a broad array of students. The question then becomes, how can the candidate talk to interviewers about some of the tools they would use to effectively teach to a broad array of students. The competency is then being able to teach to a diverse audience. She did not know exactly whether the question itself is a violation, but given current guidance, administrators have returned to the question: what is the competency, and how can an interviewer frame the question around the competency? One could ask, how might a candidate effectively teach given the elements of the competency requiring interaction with a broad and diverse audience.
Thus, the key is that the policy does not eliminate the ability to raise these questions, Menghini said. Instead, administrators are encouraging interviewers to ask candidates about duties that should be tied to the job, rather than to request a blanket diversity statement. Menghini hoped that interviewers are fulfilling this expectation in all job questions already. She said that OHR (Office of Human Resources) has communicated these expectations to departmental Human Resources officers who should be speaking with hiring managers. Those with questions should submit them directly to central Human Resources, as they are being reviewed and analyzed.
Guskiewicz thanked Menghini for this explanation framing how to ask this question in a way that is permissible. The Chair also praised OHR for its work on this difficult policy change. She said that the OHR team is trying its hardest to make this situation work and to allow hiring managers to do what is needed to build the Carolina community. Menghini thanked the Chair for this acknowledgement and noted that OHR is working to build out more questions and to add questions to the drop-down menu for those who are hiring. She believed that these questions worded this way would comply with the new policy.
Rebecca Howell reiterated a point in the chat about hiring managers being stretched thin with creating and reviewing questions in concert with OHR. She worried about a chilling effect on hiring managers’ willingness to propose these questions, given the extra time and effort to create a question that will fit. She thought that managers would eventually grow to skip this concern entirely, leading to a diminution in the quality of candidates hired.
The Chair read a chat question from Julie Theriault asking where these sample questions live and whether managers would be able to access these directly, or must they go through their unit. Menghini thought that some of these were present on the OHR website concurrent with an email. She posted the relevant link in chat: https://hr.unc.edu/compelled-speech-prohibition/.
Guskiewicz noted that the campus has had a rough two or three weeks, with facilities going down, flooded buildings, and trees falling down near the School of Government on Monday. He said that the university’s grounds, maintenance, and housekeeping workers are just incredible, and he sought ways to thank them. He urged others to thank them for their work when the chance presents itself.
Michael Williams said that the compelled speech policy combined with commentaries that have appeared in public from parts of state leadership concerning DEI have led to a chilling effect on those with marginalized identities. Public education has been a safe space to build a career and feel welcome for these people. Williams observed that the issue extends beyond questions one can ask of a potential employee. He said that the current environment leads him to wonder: am I still as safe of an employee here as I have felt the last 14 years?
Williams hoped that the answer to this question is yes. He realized that one cannot personally change the hearts and minds of people in the UNC System Office or the State Legislature. Still, he wanted to acknowledge the effect upon those targeted by this new campaign and how it affects people who already work here.
Guskiewicz thanked Williams for this comment. He said that the Chancellor’s Cabinet meeting had discussed this concern at its most recent meeting given the university’s commitment to diversity in all of its forms. This commitment is unchanged, Guskiewicz said. He had often inquired of those who are questioning the university’s focus on diversity, asking if the critic’s values are aligned with the values of this campus and the important work done every day to be a leading global public research university.
Guskiewicz said he would continue to amplify this commitment. He said that anyone on campus who feels unsafe should report their concerns. Leaders will do everything to ensure that these individuals’ voices remain important on campus. He said that leadership will continue to amplify the importance of diversity, equity, and inclusion.
On another subject, Arlene Medder asked the reason for changing the date of next year’s commencement from Sunday to Saturday. Guskiewicz said that the university has held its commencement on Mother’s Day for over 30 years now. He said that mothers are certainly proud to attend their children’s graduation in Kenan Stadium that day. However, many mothers who work at the university are forced to come into work that day as well to ensure the ceremony runs smoothly.
Thus, campus leadership has been looking at ways to work in a Saturday commencement that would free up Mother’s Day for everyone. He said that if this works well, the cycle will allow a Saturday commencement once every 4 or 5 years. Rebecca Howell was glad to hear that this change would not occur every year. She noted that this change will shift professional schools’ ceremonies from Saturday to Sunday. Guskiewicz said that leadership is encouraging professional schools to hold these events on the Friday before, again to free up Mother’s Day Sunday. Howell noted that Friday ceremonies will present problems for students starting jobs who cannot get off work for this purpose. Guskiewicz said that this concern will be added to the logistical questions facing the weekend.
Julie Theriault was pleased that leadership is working on classroom accessibility. However, she said that many staff do not work in the classroom. She asked if a plan exists to deal with buildings where staff work as well. Guskiewicz said that the university is replacing several elevators in older buildings where the elevators tend to break down. He said that funding from the General Assembly will provide for repairs for another 6 or 7 elevators this coming year.
A number of buildings present real challenges from an accessibility viewpoint, as they do not have either an elevator or even a ramp for those with disabilities to get into the building. Guskiewicz said that the university continues to address these challenges while continuing work on curb cuts, for example. The university has asked those who are wheelchair bound to identify where these cuts are still needed. Once again, he praised the work of the campus Facilities team in addressing these concerns. The University has also put together an updated list of concerns for submission to the UNC System Office to obtain additional funding for deferred maintenance issues.
Theriault asked what the process would be for submitting a concern from a location other than their main work location. Guskiewicz said that this report should go to one’s building facilities manager, who will then forward the report to Evan Yassky, who works with Nate Knuffman and the university’s facilities team. Interim Associate Vice Chancellor for Facilities Services Carly Perin posted contact information in the chat: Facilities Services Customer Service: 919-962-3456, to submit an online work order: https://portal.facilities.unc.edu/masterpg/reqMain.aspx.
The Chair highlighted the list for 2022 state service recognitions. She noted that one employee, Alvis Page, had over 60 years of service at the university. She praised the OHR team for their efforts to recognize these years of service and for soon re-instituting the university’s customary banquet celebration for these people.
The Chair thanked Chancellor Guskiewicz for his remarks and for his support of delegates who would be officially sworn in at the May general meeting. The Chair welcomed Kim Strom, Director of the University’s Office of Ethics and Policy Management, who was calling in from Italy that morning. Strom said that she would give a little appetizer-sized (in Italian: cichetti) description of the Ethics office.
Strom noted that the Ethics office was created in 2016, and she is the office’s initial director. She anchors the ethics and integrity side of the office, working in ethics, education, and consultation. The office sponsors global ethics month with a variety of speakers and presentations. The office partners with the Parr Center on some of their activities. Strom does consultation on ethics issues and conducts training across campus and online.
Strom asked what the common obligations are to help create a culture of integrity, regardless of the position within which an individual serves at the university. She noted that her research interest is in moral courage, and so tries to understand what in us and our organizations keeps us from doing the right thing. How can we help make a culture of integrity in which it is expected and honored that people do the right thing?
The second major part of her role as director is as one of two point people for the Carolina Ethics line. The ethics line is a monitored third-party online or phone hotline for reports that may have to do with integrity concerns or other issues that need to be brought to the university’s attention. Strom recalled that the service is anonymous, as it goes through a third party. She said that there is no way for university personnel to identify those making reports, although around 30% of people making reports choose to self-identify. Last year the line received 82 reports, covering a variety of concerns about faculty statements in the classroom, to hostility and workplace challenges, to questions about safety and retaliation.
Another resource offered is Speak Up Carolina, a web platform in which scenarios are contributed by community members that may occur in the classroom or the workplace. Platform advisors offer resources to help someone be an upstander, not solely a bystander during disturbing events. Issues explored include how to speak up about a particular uncomfortable situation, and how to find different ways to address these conversations or microaggressions. She noted that the platform constantly seeks examples of moral dilemmas and examples of moral responses.
Finally, Strom noted the Ethics office website, which contains training videos and past presentations. She offered to take questions from the group. The Chair thanked Strom for her remarks, noting that she had made a presentation to the Staff Advisory Committee to the Chancellor (STACC) about a potential statement of ethics that the university could adopt. She asked if there was any update on this proposal. Strom said that she had met with students, faculty, and staff regarding this proposed statement, with various directions proposed for follow-up. The proposal has not fallen off the radar, she said.
The Chair expressed her admiration for both former and current Ethics employees, Jen DeNeal and Matthew Teal respectively, who were both delegates of the Employee Forum. Strom was proud of the small but mighty team in her office, along with the fabulous undergraduate interns who assist with policy review. The Chair praised this work as well as that of the Policy Review Committee. Strom thanked the Forum for the opportunity to speak.
The Chair then welcomed Associate Vice Chancellor Gordon Merklein to speak about the office of Real Estate and Campus Enterprises. She particularly hoped that he could speak about the university’s work in the affordable housing area.
Merklein noted that his office is a division of Finance and Operations under Vice Chancellor Nate Knuffman. The office oversees campus real estate operations and manages properties on behalf of the university, among them the various foundation endowments on Franklin Street. The office also oversees Auxiliary Services, including Dining, Student Stores, and Energy Services. Trademarks and Licensing, also under their umbrella, serves to protect the brand and image of the university. Finally, the office oversees Transportation and Parking, which coordinates efforts to manage traffic and transportation around campus.
One of the big tasks facing the office is the upcoming 5-year plan for Transportation and Parking, which coordinates input from the Advisory Committee on Transportation and Parking (ACT). The plan has executive sponsorship from the Chancellor’s Cabinet and has commissioned consultant Kimley Horn through a competitive bidding process. The planning process engages university populations through outreach efforts, as Transportation and Parking similarly goes through a deep dive regarding existing operations.
Changing times demand different approaches, as the pandemic has led to different needs for campus parking. Transportation and Parking also supports the fare-free bus and over half of the operations of Chapel Hill Transit. Merklein reminded the Forum that the transit system must pay for itself, as must all auxiliaries, given they are an entirely receipt-supported program.
Merklein noted the diverse composition of the Advisory Committee for Transportation and Parking (ACT). He underscored the importance of having representation from staff, faculty, and students on this committee to bring together these different voices. He said that ACT is now working with Kimley Horn to look at data collection of all the information needed to move forward. The committee will then move to engage with different constituencies across campus regarding how people use transit and parking. The group will make recommendations short and long term, capping this effort off with a financial plan to ensure revenue is available to fulfill these plans. Finally, ACT will recommend changes their changes to the relevant ordinance to the Board of Trustees for approval.
Merklein noted the request to discuss housing and affordability. He said that the university has joined with UNC Health to work on defining affordability for different employment sectors. The two organizations are pulling together data to assess these affordability challenges. Merklein noted the recent survey to employees asking about place of residence and challenges involved in living and working in Chapel Hill.
Merklein said that the university has also taken blind data regarding where people live to identify clusters and categories of different jobs. The university has also conducted key interviews with stakeholders. Leaders are now in the process of analyzing and assessing this information to arrive at a series of recommendations regarding affordability and gaps in this knowledge. This study will consider locations within a 10–15-mile radius of Chapel Hill, finding the median price for a home in these locations and the salary one would need to rent or own a home in these submarkets.
This study should be presented to the Chancellor in May, with a general rollout to hopefully follow. The university would next need to consider what to do with this data, which will lead to Phase 2 of this process. In that second phase, researchers will identify what other universities have done across the spectrum of housing needs. Finding the different tools used by other institutions might help address this issue, Merklein said.
Merklein offered to answer questions about his remarks. Rebecca Howell asked if the subject of safe neighborhoods composes part of this affordable housing analysis. She said that some affordable locations in Chapel Hill are not located in the safest of locations. Merklein said that this factor has not been addressed specifically but will be considered on the outcome side. He recalled that questions spanned demographic data in this first level of questions. Still, he thanked Howell for her question and he noted the correlation between cost and safety.
The Chair read a question from Chrissie Greenberg in the chat stating that many clusters are the result of not being able to afford housing in Chapel Hill. Further, many of these clusters may be driven by the timing of university employment and affordability of the area at that time. Home ownership may also be predicated on spousal income versus UNC employee income. Merklein said that this is a factor under consideration, but the current study will consider data based only on a single salary. He said that this is a great point as a fair number of UNC employees are the sole provider for their families, but others are not and this fact has been a source of struggle in assessing this data. Greenberg added that studying employees with tenure raised in Chapel Hill might be a helpful perspective over time.
Arlene Medder recalled her experience living in one of the two cheapest apartment complexes in the area because she could not afford housing in Chapel Hill post-graduation. She lived with a roommate in order to afford the area at all. The Chair said that housing is a complex, long-standing issue that will not go away immediately. She recalled her own experience as a student. She appreciated Merklein and his team for their efforts to study this question, as UNC’s status as an employer of choice is at stake.
The Chair moved to a new feature of the Forum’s agenda, as Vice Chancellor Nate Knuffman has agreed to discuss budgetary items related to the university on a quarterly basis. She was pleased to welcome Knuffman to the Forum. Knuffman said that he was thrilled to meet with everyone and to give an update on these questions.
Knuffman began by acknowledging the 24-hour service that Carolina employees carry out to make the campus work for all. He thanked everyone who contributes to this continual effort. With regard to the budget process, Knuffman recalled that Finance and Operations sent out an invitation for budget requests at the department level last October, with the bulk of evaluation occurring between December and February. Finance holds meetings with units making requests to study how these opportunities align with the strategic plan of the university. This effort culminates in the budget recommendations put before the Board of Trustees in March of this year.
At that Board meeting, several questions were raised. Finance has continued to address these questions in anticipation of a special meeting on April 27th to hopefully finalize approval of the budget from the Board. After that, the budget will presumably go to the Board of Governors for their consideration in May.
Knuffman noted that this budget does not contain state-level resources and so it is not the source of most staff salaries. He said that a separate state-appropriations budgetary process runs in parallel with the university budget. This budget, composed in cooperation with the UNC System Office, is considered by the Board of Governors in December and then becomes subject to the legislative process. Staff salaries are mainly subject to these legislative decisions.
Knuffman said that these budgets merge as the university begins its next fiscal year. He said that a budget is a roadmap, a prospective look at the university’s priorities and a guide to allocation of funds to match these priorities. Knuffman said that the university put forward an overall budget for the first-time last year in an overall publication. In this, the second year, there have been some format changes driven by the UNC System Office.
The process begins as units are given a base budget, with certain adjustments. Last year there were over $100 million in supplemental requests, leading to a very sizable amount of work to evaluate these requests. Knuffman noted the accompanying meetings, which are very important to gain a better appreciation of work done in every unit on campus and how resources are prioritized. As a result, units rearrange the alignment of their resources, which are then aligned with the university’s top priorities in very productive conversations.
Knuffman said that the budget reinvested a lot of money back into the university this year, leaving less than usual for unit requests. The budget process did elevate three strategic plan priorities. Decisions on these matters are made according to alignment with the strategic plan. Priorities must reflect these priorities while ensuring that all is balanced and sustainable financially.
The numbers involved in this process are overwhelming, Knuffman said. He emphasized the total revenue of the University is $4.2 billion, which is broken out by general fund, auxiliary overhead, and restricted trust. He cited slides showing the details of the university budget, with one-third of expenses being from the state fund and the rest funded by other places.
Knuffman was proud of the work done in recent years to balance the university budget, which represents a big step forward in our commitment to transparency goals. The process now shows revenue and expenses at every unit on campus in a way that has not been done previously. The process also has provoked questions to consider. He said that this work just makes Carolina better and helps us align resources towards top priorities like investing in North Carolina workforce needs like faculty and staff retention. The process also enables the university to be more deliberate about stabilizing unit operations while having more contingency funds available. Part of this process reviews spending and benchmarks for administrative performance.
Knuffman noted the state budget process that runs in parallel with the university budget. He thought an important consideration is how the state budget looks in terms of current economic conditions and revenue conditions. As of now, state revenue continues to exceed the revenue forecast, with subsequent upward revisions. Knuffman said that the state looks well positioned to be able to fund salary increases this year. He added that the House budget was also encouraging. He did not wish to prognosticate further, however.
Knuffman noted the deferred maintenance load at the university and its different categories. He said that the university has around $68 million of accessibility needs, around 10% of the overall amount of deferred maintenance backlog. The university has submitted requests for increased maintenance funding during each of the last two budget cycles, with 20% of requests related to the accessibility bucket.
He emphasized that the university is prioritizing requests for funding in the accessibility area. The university is also seeking alternative funding to help with this priority, perhaps by balancing program needs with the cost of elevator replacement, for example. The university has compiled a list of the buildings in which these accessibility concerns have arisen and has held meetings with stakeholders towards finding solutions. He added that the notification system for accessibility concerns has been sorely lacking, and Finance has worked to improve the communication system when unexpected events like elevator outages occur and impact class scheduling, among other things.
Knuffman noted that the university continues its search for the Associate Vice Chancellor for Facilities Services position. He praised the interim Vice Chancellor, Carly Perin, for agreeing to assist the university in this time of need. This search has begun, with consultants and associates leading the search of a broad group. Finalists will appear before multiple campus groups, like the Employee Forum. He was encouraged by the early quality of the candidate pool.
Arlene Medder asked if there is an actual number of elevators known to require repair. Knuffman said that this number was listed on the sheet distributed. He said that elevators gained the highest priority based on either their condition or the number of people served.
Keith Hines noted that the state budget process often lags behind the university’s process, leaving the university to revert its numbers to conform with the state’s. Knuffman appreciated the clarification.
The Chair asked if the university could allocate donor money for this purpose, granting that the prospect may not be as exciting as other gifts. Still, the accessibility problem represents a longstanding need that could attract funding. Knuffman said that his main focus has been the budget, but he granted that Carolina has to attract more dollars for this purpose to address this large backlog of work. The backlog is so large that it may feel as if the university has not made much of a dent in the problem. Knuffman said that efforts are helping the situation slowly but surely. He anticipated that the university’s advancement team might find interest in raising funds for this purpose. Knuffman added that comprehensive building renovations require accompanying accessibility upgrades when they total over a certain threshold.
Knuffman said that the university must improve the ability of community members to notify the necessary parties to address these needs. The Chair agreed that the campus community needs more training as to when to raise these concerns. She thanked Knuffman for his remarks.
The Chair welcomed Vice Chancellor Becci Menghini to provide the Forum’s customary Human Resources updates. Menghini started by thanking the employees of the university and the Employee Forum. She encouraged all to step outdoors to enjoy the spring weather if at all possible.
Menghini noted that the Governor and the House have made budget proposals, which are favorable to university employees in many ways. We wait in anticipation of the Senate budget, then the conference committee between the Senate and the House will convene to present a final budget for consideration by the Governor. Hopes are that the process will be completed by the Fourth of July holiday. She noted that the university will need to rely on the previous year’s budget should the current budget be delayed beyond July 1st.
Menghini also noted a bill that would allow the university to convert SHRA non-exempt positions to EHRA roles. She admitted that she did not know about this proposed bill before it went forward and so was a bit surprised. The bill would provide an opt-out option to SHRA employees who do not wish to undergo this change. She said that those who choose to make this change would likely not be locked into their current roles absent a college degree. This is the intention, in any event.
Menghini understood that this bill has pretty broad bipartisan support and will likely see approval. Approval would likely mean that UNC-Chapel Hill would have more flexibility to adjust roles moving forward to be more suitable for higher education. She would have more information as the bill progresses.
To answer one question, Menghini said that EHRA converts would become at-will employees, who are not necessarily easy to fire. She said that the university does not regularly practice at will discontinuations unless there is a change of business or a change of leadership. So, in some ways this observation is true, but Menghini did not believe that this practice is good for morale, institutional culture, or recruiting and retaining employees. She did not anticipate mass layoffs accompanying this legislation, should it be approved. She added that the university has done targeted conversions in several areas, including Finance, IT, and Law Enforcement.
In response to questions, Menghini said that she understood that the UNC System Office proposed this legislation. She said that the Staff Assembly has discussed limited flexibility with a number of SHRA roles to allow modifications to line up with higher education work. She noted that the System Office has worked for a long time to obtain additional flexibility for this purpose. Changing these positions’ designation is an attempt to provide this flexibility, Menghini said. She understood the general skepticism about the General Assembly now though.
The Chair was uncertain that the Staff Assembly would advocate a wholesale conversion to EHRA and at-will status, with the loss of grievance rights and other things that come with being an SHRA employee. She thought that the Staff Assembly’s goal was to improve the career banding system to make it more flexible and suitable for what is needed to be done, not to shift fully to the EHRA model. Menghini granted this point and noted that the change might appeal to more junior staff who no longer receive some of the protections provided by the SHRA structure and chafe under the limitations on the ability to grow. Jobs are changing and the optional retirement system, among other things, may make this conversion attractive. She reiterated that this change would represent a tool in OHR’s toolbox to address these problems and would not be required of all staff.
On another subject, Menghini said that the Legislative Commission has requested information on the university’s diversity, equity, and inclusion training offerings across campus. The request was rather broad and included both mandatory and voluntary training. Menghini said that her office did its best to collect this information then pare it down to note the difference between speakers and training. She understood that there is some concern about people losing their jobs as a result of this legislative request. She had not heard this concern directly, however. She admitted her own uncertainty about the portents of this situation. She would let the Forum know as soon as it was certain what adjustments might be made as a result of this request.
Menghini noted that the System Office has received authorization to revise salary ranges for SHRA and EHRA employees, with the SHRA ranges receiving priority. She anticipated that additional data on these might be ready by summer, allowing provision of feedback about more market areas in which information is needed. By the end of the year, Menghini hoped that this process would be complete. The EHRA process will follow.
Menghini reported that OHR will re-institute recognition events for 20-year employees and other milestone years of service (multiples of five starting at 20). These events will occur in late May and early June and impacted employees will receive contacts directly.
Arlene Medder asked whether people who had their twentieth or twenty-fifth anniversary during the pandemic might receive their banquet this spring as well. Menghini was uncertain as the organizing group is still working on details. She said that the numbers do create some challenges for capacity, as does the Human Resources budget. She would follow up on this question.
Rebecca Howell said that with the compelled speech policy and other legislative things impacting the university, she felt conflicted about continuing her work for UNC. She has worked in North Carolina for over 20 years and has made this work her life’s passion. However, this is the first year that she has actually considered moving out of the state and leaving North Carolina. She was uncertain given her wish to raise her non-binary child in peace. She said that people now feel exhausted, emotionally, and physically. She said it is difficult to commit one’s future to the state given these challenges.
Menghini thanked Howell for her remarks and for her candor. She said that this is not an easy time at the university. She inverted the question somewhat by noting the policy on diversity does not shut down employees’ ability to talk about diversity, but rather can work to ensure that this discussion occurs in meaningful ways. She saw this latter form of questioning more meaningful than a simple diversity statement. In addition, she thought that this distinction would attract better candidates to campus.
Thus, speaking for herself only, Menghini ventured that if the university can take these changes and pull them apart a bit, we can live with these changes. She noted the inherent fear in asking how the university does its training and asking what these changes might mean in light of other pieces of legislation. She said that Howell and others have stayed in Chapel Hill because of the community around the campus. She asked that we rely on one another as a community to get up and over these difficulties, and then, should legislation or language become more difficult, the community can figure out what to do about it.
Menghini asked how the Chair might leverage her role on the UNC System Staff Assembly as an advocate, outside of work hours and not using business hour work email. How might employees talk with legislators on these questions? She said that employees can rely on the community around us to figure out how to get through it. She appreciated Howell’s concern and said that she was not discounting it.
Keith Hines recalled comments from the 16 other representative campuses of the UNC System Staff Assembly how their Human Resources offices didn’t give their staff senates regular updates. He said that our situation is very different here at UNC-Chapel Hill, in large part because of the candor of Menghini and other leaders at the university. Hines thanked Menghini for showing up every month, sometimes twice a month, to offer her informed, candid updates on university matters. He said that this practice is definitely not duplicated through the UNC System.
Associate Vice Chancellor Linc Butler noted his commitment to Menghini’s example of sharing what is known with the Forum, good, bad, and indifferent. Hines added that people on other campuses have reported nothing but marvelous things about Butler’s time on their campuses.
The Chair asked if Menghini could speak to the secondary timeline for the SHRA to EHRA Auditing, Business, and Finance conversion process. She noted the salary band issue for the new EHRA groups in the top of salary options is somewhat lower than some current SHRA counterparts, and we also do not know what the new pay bands for either SHRA or EHRA will look like at this stage. She reported that several other campuses are advocating for the ability to have a second conversion. She asked if Menghini could speak about that timeline for the second conversion given the timeline outlined for SHRA and EHRA.
Menghini asked if Butler could respond to this question. Butler noted that the university had a Friday deadline for affected folks to make an election, as did other System campuses. This change meant that a lot of work would happen over the next 6-12 months on salary ranges, among other things. Butler said that Human Resources officials felt that a second option would be needed, because if those ranges look very different that could impact the person’s desire to convert by reference to the new range information available to them.
As a result, UNC-Chapel Hill and other System campuses petitioned for this second conversion option. During the IT conversion process, employees had three opportunities to convert, a number too large to manage, said Butler. Individuals in other classifications will have another opportunity to consider the relevant information and make their choice on whether to convert.
The Chair took a moment to thank Menghini and her team for their work with the compelled speech changes. Menghini said that OHR does not want to police these changes and should not have to do so. OHR will work to ensure that interviewers have appropriate information to run effective processes and search committees.
Senior Work/Life Manager Jessica Pyjas presented the monthly wellness updates for April. She took a moment to thank the over 700 employees who went through the exhibit hall at the Wellness Expo last month. She shared a link to the April updates in the WorkWell newsletter: https://go.unc.edu/workwell-april-wellness. The Chair pledged to share Pyjas’ updates through the Forum listservs.
The Chair called for a motion to approve the consent agenda, excepting reports from the Membership & Assignments, Recognition & Awards, and Education and Career Development committees. Rebecca Howell made this motion, seconded by David Bragg. The motion was approved.
The Chair thanked Tiffany Carver, Keith Hines, and Arlene Medder for all of the work that they have done to help with the Forum’s elections process, which is now very much underway. She encouraged delegates to urge their coworkers to vote once they have received their ballots.
The Chair also praised the work of Tiffany Carver and Jessi Hill on the Forum’s Peer Recognition Awards. She encouraged delegates interested in helping to contact the duo to participate in the selection process in May. The Chair also noted that the Kay Wijnberg Hovious Outstanding Delegate awards will be elected in April. Delegates would receive emailed ballots outlining the process this month.
On old business, the Chair moved to consideration on second reading of Resolution 23-01 concerning sexual assault and sexual harassment. She said that there have been no changes since last month’s reading. Leah Hefner thanked the Personnel Issues committee and others who contributed feedback to this process. The Chair asked for a motion on this resolution as written. Arlene Medder made this motion, seconded by David Bragg. Lacking discussion, the motion was approved without opposition or abstention.
Moving on to new business, the Chair noted that proclamation 23-01 has come up for discussion. She noted that proclamations only require one reading under the Forum’s rules. She asked for a motion to consider Proclamation 23-01 regarding accessibility. David Bragg made this motion, seconded by Arlene Medder. The Chair asked Elizabeth Dubose to read this proclamation.
After discussion, the Forum agreed to table the proclamation for further edits before the May general meeting. Lacking further discussion, the meeting adjourned by acclamation at 11:32 a.m.
Respectfully submitted, Matt Banks, Recording Secretary