Agenda — April 3, 1996
9:30 a.m.–Meeting, Assembly Room of Wilson Library
I. Call to Order
II. Welcome Guests
III. Opening Remarks
* Executive Vice Chancellor Dr. Elson Floyd
IV. Special Presentations
* Dr. Gerald Horne, Director of the Sonja Stone Black Cultural Center
* Michael Klein, Director of Parking & Transportation
V. Employee Presentations—Kay Spivey
=> Update on Community Meeting Preparations
VI. Approval of Minutes of the March 6, 1996 meeting
VII. Chair’s Report (Executive Committee): Ann Hamner
* Forum Assistant Hour Increase In Effect as of April 1; Thanks to Elson Floyd, Wayne Jones, Roger Patterson, Laurie Charest and Joan Richardson, among others
* Mona Couts Resigns from Executive Committee; Need Replacement from Division 1
* Resolution Thanking Board of Governors for Salary Increase Support Forwarded to Chancellor’s Office
* Amended Response to Susan Albright Sent to Ms. Albright, Dr. Floyd, Laurie Charest, Helen Iverson and Peter Schledorn March 7
* Request for Feedback to Orientation Committee Regarding Retreat & Orientation
* Process to Alert University Committees of Forum Issues, Presentations
* Presentation to Supervisory Resources
* Response to Introductory Letter from Governor Hunt
* SEANC/American Association of University Professors to Host Sens. Tina Little, Fred Hobbs, Reps. Anne Barnes and Joe Hackney April 2 at 3:30 p.m. in Student Union Rooms 211-212
* Invitation to Forum Chair to Speak at North Carolina Central University April 12
* Diversity Conference April 26
VIII. New Business
* Discussion of Proposed Parking Changes
* Invitation to Patti Smith to give Special Presentation in June?
* Brown Bag Lunch After May Meeting?
IX. Committee/Task Force Reports: Goals for the Year
* Nominating—Dianne Crabill 4
* Orientation—Leon Hamlett
* Personnel Policies—Peter Schledorn
=> Adverse Weather Policy Proposal Discussion
=> Health Affairs Parking Deck Proposal
* Compensation and Benefits—Tom Hocking
=> Concern Expressed Over Board of Governors’ Interim Report on Privatization (March 20 University Gazette Article)
* Public Affairs—Helen Iverson
* Recognition and Awards—Nancy Klatt/Pamela Shoaf
* University Committee Assignments—Vicki Lotz/Jennifer Pendergast
* Career Development—Sharon Cheek
=> Recommendation for Staff Development Fund: Creation of Career Counselor Position
=> Career Development Educational Opportunities List (Eddie Capel)
* Pan-University Task Force —Ned Brooks
* Employee Appreciation Fair Booth Task Force—Marshall Wade
* Faculty Council Liaisons
* Partner Benefits—Peter Schledorn
* Legislative Affairs—Laresia Farrington/Tom Hocking
* Land Use Planning—Margaret Balcom
IX. Human Resources Update
* Laurie Charest, Vice Chancellor, Human Resources
* Drake Maynard, Director of Administration, Human Resources
=> Update on RIF Policy and Standby Pay Issue
X. Announcements/Questions
* University Campaign
* Secretaries Day April 24 Workshop
XI. Adjournment
= Included in Agenda Packet
4 = Annual Report Included in Agenda Packet
MINUTES
April 3, 1996
Delegates Present
Mary Alston
Ned Brooks
Eddie Capel
Sharon Cheek
Peggy Cotton
Mona Couts
Dianne Crabill
Kathy Dutton
Laresia Farrington
Thomas Goodwin
Tommy Griffin, Jr.
Tommy Gunter
Ann Hamner
Tom Hocking
Helen Iverson
Delores Jarrell
Nancy Klatt
Bobbie Lesane
Ruth Lewter
Norman Loewenthal
Vicki Lotz
Sue Morand
Tommy Nixon
Rosa Nolen
Jennifer Pendergast
Archie Phillips, Jr.
Lynn Ray
Burke Riggsbee
Peter Schledorn
George Sharp
Pamela Shoaf
Kay Spivey
Reba Sullivan
Janet Tysinger
Marshall Wade, Jr.
Chien-Hsin Wagner
Betty Watkins
Beverly Williams
Mary Woodall
Laurie Charest”
Rachel Windham”
” = Ex-Officio
Delegates Absent
Frank Alston
Willie Mae Davis
Donna Gerringer
Leon Hamlett
Sarah Rimmer
Alice Taylor
Alternates Present
Tommy Brickhouse
Laura Grady
Cheryl Stout
Guests
Elson Floyd
Betsy Hall
Gerald Horne
Mike Hobbs
Michael Klein
Mitch Kokai
Ruby Massey
Mark Schultz
Joe Totten
Kay Wijnberg
Call to Order and Welcome to Guests
Chair Ann Hamner called the meeting to order at 9:32 a.m. Noting the beautiful weather, she welcomed the group and introduced Executive Vice Chancellor Elson Floyd to give the meeting’s opening remarks.
Dr. Floyd addressed three matters: privatization, the recommendations of the Women’s Task Force, and the forthcoming IRS audit. Regarding privatization, Dr. Floyd noted that “there is a group, of students, primarily, who are concerned with where the University is as it relates to privatization. As you will recall, based on remarks made to this Forum as well as constant comments that the Chancellor has made every opportunity that he gets, we are not engaged in any effort to privatize housekeeping on this campus. That is not our issue, we have other issues involving housekeepers. We have said that very directly, we have said that very deeply and again I emphasize that today.
“I have spoken with a number of you on this Forum about our efforts and many of you have expressed support and even enthusiasm in terms of where we are right now. If you feel that way it is also helpful to have the Chancellor be aware of what your views are, in terms of the housekeeping issue. It is crucial that he gets feedback in this regard.
“The bottom line is that we are not interested in the privatization of services as it relates to housekeepers. We have stated this and we will continue to do so.”
The Chancellor has received the report of the Women’s Task Force and asked the group to prioritize its recommendations. The Task Force has begun to cost out some of its recommendations, including the Women’s Center on campus.
Concerning the impending Internal Revenue Service audit, Dr. Floyd said that auditors will be arriving on campus in the coming months. Unfortunately, the University must absorb the cost of the audit, estimated at $1-1.5 million dollars. The audit should last between one to two years and the University must supply not only duplication, materials, and office space but direct staff time from departments, as well. The audit will result in these direct costs and, possibly, further costs upon completion. Members of the Administration will be directly engaged in meeting the requests of these auditors.
As a final note, Dr. Floyd stated that the Chancellor’s reorganization was virtually complete and reporting relationships changed April 1. The reorganization is based on two premises: one, identification of the Provost as the Chief Academic Officer for the University; and two, enhanced accountability for the University’s administrative activities. The Chancellor believes that the reorganization achieves both goals and looks forward to working with the Forum to make it successful. Dr. Floyd hoped that all the pieces would be in place as of July 1, if not in actual individuals at least in identification of those individuals.
Dr. Floyd offered to answer any questions that the assembly may have. Sue Morand asked if the audit would impact only specific University departments. Dr. Floyd replied that the audit will have University-wide implications, not only for individual departments but everything the University does will be subject to the auditors’ scrutiny. The Administration will do its best to coordinate the audit in ways least disruptive to everyone but it will be a burden on individual departments.
Regarding the reorganization, Janet Tysinger asked if there were anything to report about the appointment of the Chief Information Officer. Dr. Floyd answered that the Administration will name an interim Chief Information Officer responsible for the University’s technology efforts. The Administration is close to making this appointment and will then engage in an active, imminent, search for the permanent Chief Information Officer, with a position description and a search committee ready in the next 30 days.
Peter Schledorn noted that it is fairly well-known that the impetus for privatization comes mainly from the Legislature. He asked what can be done and what has been done to forestall a mandate from Raleigh saying: you will privatize the housekeepers, even if you think it wrong. Dr. Floyd responded that this was a good question, and he hoped that that all on campus knew that the privatization issue did not originate from Chapel Hill. He asked that members inform students that this is not an Administration initiative. What the Administration has done, Dr. Floyd said, is be as helpful as possible to all of General Administration’s twelve studies with an immediate report time for the upcoming short legislative session. Dr. Floyd said that the Administration has worked with General Administration in this context. What General Administration has done with the privatization issue is to look at several universities within the University System in several categories: a research university (N.C. State), a comprehensive university, etc., in order to pursue a type of case study approach. Thus, UNC-CH was not primarily involved in these studies.
The Administration has seen the preliminary report but not the final report on these studies. In response to Peter Schledorn’s question, Dr. Floyd replied that the final report would be scheduled for the Board of Governors’ consideration at its April 12 meeting. The Administration will not receive the report until it is approved, but a copy of the preliminary report would be available to the Forum Office.
Dr. Floyd stated that the Administration has operated in good faith on this issue. He did not know if this message had been clearly communicated but he said that he could not emphasize this enough. Peter replied that he thought that the Chapel Hill campus was not the source of this initiative. Dr. Floyd agreed, stating that it was a legislative issue, and proposing that perhaps more energy and effort be directed in this direction. Right now, he said, he felt that much energy and effort was being unfairly directed at the Administration.
Marshall Wade asked what other services, beyond housekeeping, may be affected by the possibility of privatization. Dr. Floyd responded that the study will examine `outsourcing,’ to determine if any other services may be performed in a more cost-effective way, through private means as opposed to public means. Dr. Floyd repeated that the study was a broader outsourcing study, looking at a number of areas, not just housekeeping.
Peter Schledorn took this opportunity to announce that there will be a rally against privatization led by the student coalition at 1 p.m. April 10 on the steps of the Legislative Building.
As Dr. Floyd concluded his remarks, he introduced Barbara DeLon, the new Director of University Housekeeping and he asked her to make a few remarks. Barbara acknowledged that most members knew her. She said that the expectations for her have been generally positive, with a few “sympathy cards.” She said that people feel deeply about the housekeeping situation, as deeply as she, Laurie and the Administration does and that people know housekeepers are working hard. She looked forward to working hard towards success.
Dr. Floyd said that Chancellor Hooker has come in with an aggressive agenda and that he believes the Administration has been true to this agenda. He appreciated the Forum’s full partnership in moving forward.
Special Presentations—Dr. Gerald Horne, Director of Sonja Stone Black Cultural Center and Michael Klein, Director of Transportation and Parking
The Chair introduced Dr. Gerald Horne, Director of the Sonja Stone Black Cultural Center. Dr. Horne came to the University from the University of California at Santa Barbara, where he was a professor of history and black studies and Director of the school’s Center for Black Studies. He has served as an attorney representing hospital workers in New York City. The Chair congratulated Dr. Horne on securing a $1 million pledge towards the construction of the Black Cultural Center in his first three months as Chair.
Dr. Horne thanked the Chair and the Forum for the opportunity to speak. He said that the aims and goals of the Forum are his own aims and goals.
To provide some background about the Black Cultural Center, Dr. Horne noted the Center is a part of the Division of Academic Affairs. He believed that the Administration had chosen to hire an academic to head the Center in order to underscore its academic focus and mission. There have been film and lecture series at the Center this semester, with scholars from across the country brought in to address students and faculty. Also, the Center has a strong service component, pairing, among other things, UNC undergraduates with area youth for instruction and mentoring.
In terms of the future, the Center plans a number of conferences for the 1996-97 academic year. These include a conference on Jazz Studies, tentatively to take place in February 1997 in conjunction with the UNC Jazz Festival’s 20th Anniversary. Academics will present papers on jazz performers, with an emphasis on North Carolina roots performers such as John Coltrane and Thelonious Monk.
Dr. Horne has begun to gather funding to organize a conference to focus on the work of Asian scholars (Japan, China, Korea, Singapore, etc.), whose work concentrates on African-Americans. It will be exciting to get these scholars together with the subjects of their research in addition to allowing these scholars to establish a dialogue and discourse with those on this side of the Pacific with a similar research mission.
Yet, his primary focus during his first three months in Chapel Hill has been fundraising, and he asked members to contact him with any ideas to further this pursuit. Fundraising in these economic times is quite a chore and in many ways is an uphill climb, though Dr. Horne was confident that “we would reach the mountain top.”
Dr. Horne repeated that he was pleased to speak to the Forum and hoped that it would not be the last time he had the opportunity to do so. Parenthetically, the Center is in the process of hiring an administrative manager. The ad will be circulated soon but Dr. Horne shared this fact with the Forum in hopes that someone could mention a good candidate or perhaps apply personally. Dr. Horne offered to respond to any questions or criticisms from the group.
George Sharp noted that his department had received a number of fundraising fliers which were addressed only to black members of the department. A number of department members wondered exactly why this had occurred. He asked if Dr. Horne knew the reason why. Dr. Horne replied that he did not know, since fundraising for the Center was coordinated by the Development Office. His understanding was that the Development Office took an equal opportunity approach to making money as long as it was green.
Dr. Horne speculated that this could have been an independent initiative. He knew that the Black Faculty and Staff Caucus has an initiative to raise money for the Center, as did other student organizations. With regard to the Black Cultural Center itself, he had no direct knowledge of the flier but would be happy to respond if George could pass the flier on.
George felt that from a practical standpoint it would be foolish to exclude potential donors, or imply an exclusion of people in creation of this institution on campus. Dr. Horne offered to provide visual evidence that the Center would take money from all comers by accepting a check from members on the spot!
Helen Iverson asked what was the goal for the fundraising, in dollars. Dr. Horne said it is about $7.5 million, though with inflation added in the figure may be closer to $8 million or perhaps more. The campaign has raised $3 million now; a considerable sum, but as time passes the imperative to raise money becomes more pressing. Employees should not feel shy about contributing, since the Center takes money from “anybody, or almost anybody.” Certainly the Center will not discriminate about taking money on the basis of race or ethnicity.
Peggy Cotton asked what activities will take place in Center and what types of groups and people will use its facilities. Dr. Horne responded that the centerpiece of the Black Cultural Center will be its Library. One of the reasons that the Center received such a substantial amount of support is that the building would need to be built in any case in spite of the push for the Center, because of the general space crunch on campus which extends to classroom, auditorium, seminar and library space. For example, the auditorium in the Center will be used not only for Center purposes but will be available to any individual or group wishing to use the space, scheduled appropriately. The library will contain not only the Africana collection but also will have study and carrel space open for members of the University community. Performance space will be in the Black Cultural Center as well.
The building will house an Institute for African-American Research, which hopes to attract scholars from all over the globe to discuss this subject matter of Africans and African-Americans. The Black Cultural Center will host conferences, symposia, lectures and film and video series, a particular interest of Dr. Horne’s. It will be the venue for theatrical performances, student performances, student publications, academic publications, etc. If the Employee Forum would like to meet in the Black Cultural Center, that would be totally acceptable. In other words, the building will be a part of the University community but will have a particular intellectual and academic focus. As an example, the Institute for Arts and Humanities will have as its focus arts and humanities, but will not rule out biology meeting in that particular space. Similarly, the Center’s focus will be on blacks but will not rule out the Forum or other entities from meeting in that space.
In the absence of further questions, Dr. Horne thanked the group for the opportunity to speak.
The Forum invited Michael Klein, Director of Transportation and Parking, to speak regarding proposed changes regarding transportation and parking. The Chair asked members to hold their questions for the New Business section of the agenda, and asked if Michael could stay to respond to questions at that time. Michael indicated that he would be happy to stay on after his presentation.
Michael Klein said his presentation would include changes in the parking ordinance, initiatives in the parking deck, the process that the department goes through with ordinance changes, a discussion of the ordinance, and the comprehensive access plan that the department is pursuing.
Regarding the parking deck, Michael noted the amount of media attention paid to parking facilities, and thanked Chancellor Hooker for this focus. The department believes these facilities are very much needed by Employees, faculty and students. As a clarification on department priorities, the number one seems to be a Health Affairs 2 parking deck adjacent to the deck across from the Hospitals. This deck would have approximately 1,800 spaces including some contiguous surface spaces alongside the deck.
The site for the Heath Affairs 2 will be a twin to the existing deck, including overhead sky bridges so that pedestrians need not interact with cars on Manning Drive. This will be a significant project, costing in the neighborhood of $19 million, at the “pretty typical” cost of $10,000/space. It is hoped that construction will start in the fall of 1996, possibly even August.
Michael sought to clarify information in news reports concerning parking deck sites. A study was done a number of years ago on possible choices for sites. One possibility is the Bell Tower area; another are the intramural fields cited by the Chancellor; also the existing W lot near the School of Social Work is being studied. Interestingly, the parking deck near the Business School was not identified in this study but should come on-line this summer, probably June or July, in time for the new permit cycle. The Business School deck was supported by Institutional Funding and so placed no upward pressure on University parking fees.
Regarding the cost of parking, Michael pointed out that some fairly substantial institutional subsidies are being provided. These subsidies have been in place since the Craig deck has opened. Primarily, the University, UNC Hospitals and the Educational Foundation have been the source of this funding. From these entities the department receives $850,000 per year to partially pay the bond obligation on Craig deck. (The full yearly obligation on the deck is over $1 million a year, with operations of the facility such as parking permits in that location making up the difference.) Michael said that this was a very successful project and that the department is looking for ways to do similar things with support from various areas. As parking facilities are brought on-line, the department wishes to minimize impact on employee and student parking fees, as well as visitor fees. Return to Summary
Regarding process, a full copy of the ordinance was discussed in careful detail with the advisory board to the department. Michael noted that individuals in the room were participants in that process and each received copies of every word and every change proposed. Then, followed discussions with the Administration.
Michael recalled the controversy over the night parking aspects of the plan. The department will move forward with some aspects of the plan but will not enact provisions that charged for a permit.
For example, a step proposed in previous years is an upgrade of the Point-to-Point (P2P) service at night and creation of an express shuttle. New developments for the fall will include bringing the express shuttle into the Bell Tower lot along with an improvement in lighting and night security there. By the combination of staffing, park and ride and (“intermodalism”) a lighting corridor from the lot to desirable North Campus locations, the lot will significantly help with the issue of overcrowded parking on North Campus.
So while the department will not go forward with a night permit, it will work with the Forum and other constituent campus groups to develop a program that matches the needs of user groups. He noted some people have a permit during the day and feel they are closed out by those parking at night without permits. Others are concerned they may have to pay for something they have not had to pay for previously. Michael hoped the situation would balance out and safety concerns would improve.
Concurrently, Employees are concerned about what parking fees will be under the new ordinance. The zone permit changes represent basically a 3% across-the-board increase to the nearest dollar.
There are exceptions to the general 3% increase. The final step of a three year phase-in for R lots will make fees for these lots three quarters of main campus rates. The MR2 lots increase is the result of a five-year phase-in of higher rates. These greater increases reflect a previous agreement with the Board of Trustees. While these increases have been approved by the University Transportation and Parking Committee, which represents faculty, students and Employees from Academic Affairs, Health Affairs and the Hospitals, this year’s hikes must still be approved by the Board. Thus, these rate increases are at this point only prospective.
These increases will allow the department to alleviate upward pressure on expenses, primarily salary increases. They do not address the construction of parking decks or the expansion of services; rather, they support the status quo, Michael said. The department was able to avoid these rate hikes through a positive cycle (“the nature of our business”) and good staff work. However, Transportation and Parking needs these increases to cover increasing costs of salaries, [maintenance, mass transit subsidies and bond obligations].
Michael commented favorably on Deborah Hawkins’ presentation about the Health Affairs parking deck the previous Forum meeting. She had addressed many concerns and the department has taken further steps since that meeting to resolve these concerns. They are working with the Hospital, the Dental School, and groups in the Ambulatory Care Center to have a simple credential to ease the access concern. Of course, the long-term solution would be to complete the Health Affairs 2 lot to ease the overall parking problem near the clinics.
The department will pursue issuing, at no additional charge to Employees, an affiliation sticker shaped like the University seal, which will allow the department to better identify University-affiliated cars. Transportation and Parking would like to provide a multi-year permit to all Employees for registering all cars, plus an affiliation sticker for each vehicle which will be placed on the front windshield, lower right corner.
This free, four-year sticker will identify a car as University-affiliated and thus will permit tracing affiliated cars to make a better judgment on when to ticket in the field. Also, the sticker will allow the department to divert visitors to the front of the Health Affairs deck, to the general benefit of the medical service community. The department hopes to institute a similar, one-year sticker for students.
Michael mentioned problems created by counterfeit parking permits, and problems from unauthorized overnight parking in visitor lots. Transportation and Parking does not wish to tow cars out of these lots, but needs to control overnight parking in the visitor lots. Accordingly, new infraction charges (fines) are being proposed as well as increases to existing fines.
There had not been a significant increase in primary parking ticket rates in 6-7 years. During that time parking rates have risen and the cost of a ticket has been a less effective deterrent. When parking costs $6-7/day (a standard, daily rate) and a fine is $20, people are more inclined to risk getting caught, or using the appeal process to reduce a fine.
Transportation and Parking is creating two new visitor lots, one for each North and South campus, which should be ready for the fall. The department hopes they will be ready for the current permit cycle. One lot is the expanded Swain lot area, while the other is the recently appropriated Mickie property on South Columbia Street. The latter site will be added to the existing lot and the region will be a larger gated area to incorporate the N3, the NG and the Mickie area. Changes in the lot on South campus will create 100 more visitor spaces.
Michael pointed out that the University provides, in addition to the $850,000 yearly subsidy for Craig deck, support for Point-to-Point through Pan-University funding, which was $420,000 this year, a 20% reduction from prior years. All told, $1.072 million of institutional funding helps reduce Employees’ cost of parking.
Also, the department is facing cuts in the federal reimbursement for mass transit expenditures. State and local support remains strong, but a continuing decline in federal funds will exert upward pressure on Transportation and Parking costs.
Michael offered to stay until after the meeting to answer Employees’ questions. He thanked the Forum and the Chair for the chance to speak.More Parking
Vice-Chair Kay Spivey announced that through e-mail, the Forum had agreed to invite Michael Williamson, Director of the Office of Quality Improvement of the Governor’s Office and former professor at the Institute of Government to present at its biannual Community Meeting. The tentative date for this presentation is May 30, in 121 Hanes Art Center. This is a multi-media classroom that seats about 300 people. Kay will meet with Dr. Williamson in the next week to finalize plans the program. Dr. Williamson promises the program will be interesting as well as interactive.
In addition, Janet Tysinger, Delegate and Computing Consultant in the Office of Information Technology, will demonstrate the Forum Web site and other web sites relevant to University Employees. Her presentation will take 15-20 minutes of the Community Meeting.
Kay reported that all the feedback she received about Dr. Williamson’s presentation was positive. Margaret Balcom expressed interest in having an open Employee question and discussion session, along the lines of an open mike. It was the consensus of the Employee Presentations Committee, Kay reported, that there will not be enough time at this particular meeting to accommodate this interest. The Committee has discussed the option of having another Community Meeting, perhaps a third this year, which would be devoted to an open mike. At this Meeting, Employees could share what is on their mind and have time for open discussion.
In the absence of further discussion, the Chair asked for a motion to approve the minutes of the March 6, 1996 meeting. Tom Hocking made this motion, with Marshall Wade seconding. It was asked that the heading date of the minutes be changed from March 3 to March 6. Kay Spivey asked that on page 3, in the last paragraph, the phrase “grounds division,” be changed to “Buildings and Grounds Committee.” Peggy Cotton asked that she be counted present, instead of absent. There were no further additions or corrections, and the minutes were approved, as amended.
Because of time constraints and the desire of Forum Committees to present and discuss proposals, the Chair said she would move quickly through her report. She noted that the Forum Assistant’s increase in hours had taken place as of April 1. She thanked Elson Floyd, Wayne Jones, Roger Patterson, Laurie Charest and Joan Richardson, among others, for approving the change and seeing the paperwork safely through.
Due to pressing commitments, Mona Couts has resigned from Executive Committee; the Chair asked if members from Division 1 would elect a replacement after the meeting.
The Chair indicated that the resolution thanking Board of Governors for its support of SPA salary increases had been forwarded to the Chancellor’s Office.
The Forum’s amended response regarding the Adverse Weather policy had been sent to Susan Albright, with copies sent to Dr. Floyd, Laurie Charest, Helen Iverson and Peter Schledorn. This response was available in the Routing Folder or from the Forum Office.
The Executive Committee has requested that the Orientation Committee seek feedback regarding the Forum’s January Retreat and October Orientation. The Chair personally thought that the Orientation and Retreat were “great” but conceded that since she was on that Committee last year her opinion may be biased, somewhat. Members should contact Leon Hamlett or other Orientation Committee members with their feedback.
In response to a concern from Ned Brooks, the Executive Committee has decided not to initiate a formal protocol to refer issues to University Committees that otherwise would come to the Forum. The Executive Committee felt that many times, Employees with issues will wish for the Forum to address them. Accordingly, the Executive Committee recommends that University Committees be invited to attend Forum meetings when issues within their purview come before the Forum.
The Chair reported that she, Jennifer Pendergast and Matt Banks had given a presentation on behalf of the Forum to the March 14 Supervisory Resources Training Session. She felt grateful to have the chance to present, felt it had been a good presentation and looked forward to presenting again in May.
Governor Jim Hunt had responded positively to the introductory letter sent out by the Forum Chair earlier this year.
SEANC/American Association of University Professors hosted a question and answer session with Senators Teena Little, Fred Hobbs, and Representatives. Anne Barnes and Joe Hackney April 2. The Chair noted many Forum members were in attendance and thanked SEANC and the AAUP for hosting this informative event.
The Chair reported that she had been invited to speak to the Professional Office Workers’ Association of North Carolina Central University April 12. This invitation had come out of Chancellor Julius Chambers’ presentation to the Forum in January. The group had asked for an overview of the Forum’s guidelines and work.
The Campus Diversity Conference, scheduled for April 26, will include five staff members who had expressed an interest in participating. Others interested in attending should contact Pat Fischer to discuss the possibility of filling the last few remaining slots. The Chair offered to forward the names of those interested.
Rachel Windham noted the proper spelling of Teena Little’s first name. The Chair thanked Rachel for catching this error.
New Business
Discussion of Proposed Parking Changes
The Chair asked if there were any questions for Michael Klein to begin the discussion of the proposed parking changes. Concerning construction of the Health Affairs Parking Deck 2, particularly the S7 and SG spaces, one guest asked if Transportation and Parking were not ready to begin construction on August 15, would these spaces be assigned? Michael responded that this was an excellent and difficult question to answer. He said there would be roughly 600 spaces affected by construction of the Health Affairs 2 deck. He understood that the construction would happen soon enough in the cycle so that it would probably not make sense to issue permits and then rescind them when construction begins. He thought that Employees preferred to have permits that they could count on.
Michael granted that there would be problems but that the gain of 400-450 spaces from the Business School lot should help the situation. Transportation and Parking is examining Park and Ride option in coordination with Chapel Hill Transit and Point to Point to maintain access during construction.
Regarding phasing of the construction, Transportation and Parking hopes to have the front part of the lot, containing around 900 spaces, ready in around a year. Plans for a preliminary staging area would follow the pace of construction.
Tom Hocking noted the perception that a parking permit was more of a “hunting license” than an actual permit for space. He asked if there is a policy of overissuing permits for a number of spaces. Michael replied that the department does not believe in a “hunting license” for spaces, while other universities do. However, Transportation and Parking does utilize oversell ratios which differ from lot to lot. Quite a few lots have a 1:1 ratio between permits issued and spaces available because that is what those users’ schedules require. Other lots have a higher oversell ratio. The goal of Transportation and Parking is to have spaces available, virtually every time.
One problem the department faces is when Employees go out to lunch, return, and cannot find a space. Michael thought this problem could be the root of the perception that Tom described. One cause of this difficulty is the `E’ permit, which becomes valid at noon. Employees may leave for lunch and return to find a dozen `E’ permit vehicles occupying spaces in their lot. Michael felt that Transportation and Parking must do a better job of regulating access by `E’ permit users not assigned to specific lots.
Secondly, the department must do a better of job of regulating access only to legitimate users. This improvement will come over time as the department modifies gate locations, and becomes more sophisticated in its ability to track and control unauthorized users.
Finally, “wild cards,” or transient vehicles with State permits or service stickers, may overload a section. Michael encouraged Employees to contact Transportation and Parking if they feel their lot is overloaded unnecessarily at a certain time of day or year. The department conducts regular audits to monitor the use of different lots. Return to Summary
Rachel Windham asked what considerations for safety will be included in the Health Affairs 2 lot. She said that the Health Affairs deck always has poor lighting and suspicious individuals on the elevators often. Michael stated that Transportation and Parking has worked with Facilities Management and Campus Police to develop a lighting schedule that better incorporates the effects of illumination on crime. The department is examining use of high-pressure sodium lights in the current deck and use of open spaces and natural light in design of new decks. Also, new decks should include call boxes, guard stations and staffing to increase safety. The department is looking possibly to modify schedules to increase safety in the deck, even to the point of scheduling cleaning in the evening as another presence.
Rachel praised the new deck at UNC-Greensboro as an example of safety in design. Michael agreed, stating that the designer of the deck was employed here at UNC-Chapel Hill.
Sue Morand noted that with only one line to Point to Point the service for many Employees was basically useless. Michael agreed that it was difficult to get through, but said that there is more than one operator receiving calls for the service. He conceded that it had been “terrible” to get through since demand was so high for the P2P service. In the past month, Transportation and Parking had increased the number of phone lines, queuing slots, and staffing during peak times. Sue felt the problem had gotten worse, rather than better. The Chair asked if Forum members could ask around their departments for feedback on improvements in the service, providing this feedback to Michael.
George Sharp asked if new stickers would be issued as a matter of course with one’s parking permits. Michael answered that the issue would be one for coordination with parking coordinators.
Janet Tysinger asked if Employees or others would be required to remove the stickers once they had left the University. She thought that this would become an issue requiring judgment calls by field officers. Michael agreed, but thought that the continuing permit requirement would assist officers in their judgment.
Burke Riggsbee noted that Michael had mentioned salaries as one destination for increased parking permit funds. He asked where else these monies would go. Transportation and Parking must cover all of its own expenses in balance. One of the biggest expense items, as with most departments, is salaries; also, the department must cover debt on service bond obligations, maintain facilities (lot restoration and restriping), and subsidize mass transit ($2.2 million, or 45% of Chapel Hill Transit’s annual budget).
The Chair thanked Michael for responding to the Forum’s questions and asked if the Personnel Policies Committee could undertake consideration of Transportation and Parking issues as they arise. Employees with continuing concerns should forward these to Committee Chair Peter Schledorn to form an appropriate response.
Invitation to Patti Smith to give Special Presentation in June
The Chair noted that the Executive Committee had moved to invite to Patti Smith to give a special presentation to the Forum in June. She noted that Patti had given a presentation on the University’s new recognition policy last May and had promised to update the Forum a year later. The Executive Committee wished for Patti to incorporate data from the May 17 Employee Appreciation Fair Booth regarding feelings about the policy into her report, and so moved to invite her for June. There was no opposition to this recommendation.
Brown Bag Lunch After May Meeting
As a continuation of the Relax & Chat sessions initiated by the previous year’s Chair, and at the suggestion of members at the January Retreat, the Chair invited members to a Brown Bag Lunch after the May 1 meeting. Anyone interested in participating is invited. If the weather is nice there will be a sit-down on the lawn; if not, the lunch will be in Room 210, Carolina Union. She invited the assembly to bring their lunch or to pick up something at the Union and to relax, & chat.
Committee Reports
The Chair lauded the hard work of Forum Committees, noting the busy activity of most members.
Dianne Crabill, Chair of the Nominating Committee, reported that she had left a letter with Committee’s members to set its first meeting and eventually, its meeting schedule. Also, speaking for Leon Hamlett of the Orientation Committee, Dianne noted that a letter had gone out assembling that Committee for a meeting April 24 from 12-1 p.m. She did not know where the meeting would take place, but said that Committee members should receive mail soon.
Chair Peter Schledorn of Personnel Policies distributed two proposals for the Forum to consider at the meeting.
Regarding the Adverse Weather policy, Peter noted that there had been a lingering sense of unfairness about the differential treatment of Employees and faculty in making up time missed. Some Employees can make up the time missed while others may not be able to. Faculty in some cases have to make up class time and in other cases do not.
Examining the existing policies, the Committee found that there are provisions for paying Employees for time missed when the workplace is unavailable, for example, asbestos removal, pest extermination or in special provisions under the Administrative code, such as life-threatening situations, such as a hurricane or tornado.
In its proposal, the Personnel Policies Committee had taken these special provisions, already written into the Administrative code governing the University, and rewrote the code to cover severe adverse weather. The rewrite does not cover every situation, only that of severe hazard or when an agency head opts to close all or part of an operation under their authority.
Basically, the proposal expands the time in which Employees are not required to make up work missed due to severe adverse weather. The proposal makes those Employees who do have to come in for work in these severe situations eligible (where applicable) for compensatory time and/or overtime. Finally, the proposal recommends that when the Governor applies for federal disaster relief or declares an area an official disaster area the provisions would apply to the period and area covered, retroactively if necessary.
Peter thought that this idea would apply mainly to the western part of the State, since it would deal only with the most severe weather. It would not generally apply when schools were closed for regular snowstorms.
Peter thus moved that the Forum adopt the Committee’s proposal on adverse weather and forward the recommendations to the Chancellor, General Administration, the Legislature and SEANC districts for their action. Tom Hocking seconded this motion.
George Sharp asked in the special provision “or when an agency head judges that weather conditions make it advisable to close all or part of an agency’s operations…” who decides, in the first clause, when serious and life-threatening conditions have occurred. Peter answered that in the case of an evacuation, the agency head would decide. Peter did not think that this situation would happen very often.
George asked who would make the call in the first clause that there was a serious, life-threatening situation. Peter thought it would be the Governor, but the Governor is noted specifically in the third clause as well. George thought that these clauses were too ambiguous and thought that it should be made more clear who would make the designations of severe weather.
Norm Loewenthal asked if Title 25 were a lengthy document, noting the statement that “editorial changes [be made] to make the rest of the policy consistent with this provision.” Peter said that there is a one-page section of the policy which concerns adverse weather. Rather than list changes to the entire policy, the proposal notes instead these are “cosmetic changes.”
Norm asked if the existing policy did not address already these extreme situations. Peter responded that it did not address the snow and ice situation, though it addressed instances of hurricane, flood, tornado, etc. The proposal adds extreme snow and ice provisions to those listed already in the Special Provision. Peter emphasized that the Special Provision had already been written and was already in place in the Administrative Code.
Norm ascertained that the rest of the proposal was in accordance with the University’s existing Adverse Weather policy. Peter said that this was the case, and that the University’s current Adverse Weather policy follows the Administrative Code very closely.
George Sharp summed up that, in effect, the proposal would make a broader criteria for conditions which could be declared an emergency under the Special Provision. Peter said that this was the case.
Laurie Charest asked whether the second provision intended to compensate critical Employees working in these extreme conditions preferentially at the overtime rate. Peter replied that this provision came unedited from the Administrative Code. Peter said that to his knowledge those who come in must be paid regular time for regular hours and overtime pay for hours worked in excess of 40 a week. Laurie wished to make sure the Forum knew that Employees who come to work in severe situations will be paid the same as those who stay home under the new proposal. In effect, critical Employees will work for their normal salary (unless they accumulate over 40 hours for the week) while other Employees will receive their normal salary for staying home.
For example, if the University closed tomorrow, Laurie said, a large number of Employees who would have to come in for critical duties would receive their normal pay. Peter said that the intent of the Committee was to compensate those who are required to come in with comp time or some other means. Laurie Charest stated that to accomplish this goal the proposal would require a rewrite.
Laurie noted that the Governor declared a disaster area typically on a county-by-county basis. She asked what would be the relevant county in the University’s case: would it be the Employee’s county of residence or Orange County? If the county of residence, there could easily be a situation in which some Employees were handled differently than other Employees.
Peter replied that when a disaster area is declared for one’s home county, the University’s standard Adverse Weather policy would apply. Only when the University is closed for such severe, extreme weather would the Committee’s proposal be relevant. Peter confirmed that the proposal was not intended to make the University’s current Adverse Weather policy less flexible, just as a supplement.
Laurie Charest commented that the proposal did not have to be a legislative matter, since the Administrative Code arises from the State Personnel Commission. She offered this route as an option for the Forum, since this body deals generally with changes to the Code. While the General Assembly could certainly pass legislation overriding the Code, these provisions originate from the State Personnel Commission.
The Chair asked, given the suggestions of the assembly, if Peter would be willing to bring back the amended proposal for consideration next month. Tom Hocking clarified that the Forum could entertain a motion to table the current motion. Marshall Wade moved that the proposal be represented to the Forum incorporating the proposed changes at its next meeting. Tommy Gunter seconded this motion. There was no discussion, and the motion carried without opposition.
As a second motion, Peter brought forth the Personnel Policies Committee’s proposal regarding the handling of parking in the Health Affairs deck discussed at the Forum’s March meeting. Along with that discussion, Peter noted that an Employee had attended a Personnel Policies Committee meeting to share their concerns. The Committee discussed possible substitute policies, and came to the conclusion that it was unwise for a government agency to hand out citations to citizens in the absence of positive evidence that they had broken any law or regulation.
The proposal recommends that the revised policy be discontinued and that Transportation and Parking department representatives meet with the Transportation and Parking Committee to formulate an alternative policy that would address illegal parking in the deck while not hitting Employees with unnecessary tickets. Also, the proposal recommends that future changes be forwarded to the Transportation and Parking Committee for further consideration. Peter did not feel that this is an unexpected reaction to policy changes given the outcry that has greeted the department’s proposals this year. Peter thus moved that this proposal be accepted, and Burke Riggsbee seconded.
Eddie Capel noted that Transportation and Parking, through its creation of a new sticker policy and other changes, has already softened its policy on the Health Affairs deck, and asked if this proposal was still necessary. Peter concurred, but said that he was not sure how this change would help someone who had been ticketed unnecessarily for parking in the deck. He noted that the department had made moves to stop ticketing of Employee visitors and patients in the deck.
Michael Klein repeated that Transportation and Parking had created ways for Employees to receive parking credentials at UNC Hospitals, the Dental School and the Ambulatory Care Center, as well as a method to secure a “get out of jail free” card for eligible Employees leaving the Health Affairs deck. The department had worked through a number of problems in the last few weeks. Transportation and Parking is trying to do everything it can but works with many populations on campus. Michael thought that much in the proposal had already been handled in the last few weeks. He granted that there had been some significant, unexpected problems, but that most have been resolved.
As the Chair of the Transportation and Parking Committee, Ned Brooks felt that, regardless of whether the Health Affairs deck problem may have been resolved, the proposal was a great idea and should be supported by the Forum.
Rachel Windham asked if it were necessary for the Chair of the Forum to write the letter to the Director of Transportation and Parking. She offered that the Chair of the Personnel Policies Committee may be a better person to write this letter. Peter said that he would be happy to write this letter, in consultation with the Committee.
With this friendly amendment, the Chair asked a vote on the proposal. There was no opposition to the proposal as amended, and it was approved.
At this point, since time was short, the Chair asked leave to change the agenda and hear from Laurie Charest with the Human Resources Update. The Forum agreed to this change in the agenda.
Laurie made two quick announcements. First, it is time to nominate individuals for the Chancellor’s Award. The call for nominations will go out April 15 and are due back May 3. She asked members to consider who they think worthy of the Award and to nominate them.
Secondly, the Heels for Health Spring Fling is Friday, April 26. There will be a 3 mile run and 1.5 mile walk. Participants will assemble around noon in the courtyard between Fetzer and Woolen gym.
Archie Phillips noted that a fellow Employee went to the Physical Plant to check his personnel file and had been told that he could look at the file, but not before it had been checked for anything that he could not see. This Employee was taken aback to find out there were things in his file that he could not see. Laurie replied that there are, by law, only a few things that he could not see. One is medical information which a competent physician would not disclose to the Employee and the other is pre-employment references. She ventured that for most Employees these items are not in their files but if these were removed the Human Resources personnel absolutely were following law and University policy. Anything else should be available to the Employee. Laurie then turned the floor over to Drake Maynard.
Drake Maynard reported that regarding the second item under the Human Resources Update, the stand-by pay issue, he was working through the Personnel Directors’ Policy Task Force with his counterparts at N.C. State University to develop a significantly expanded policy.
Work has not begun since Drake has been involved in some other policy issues including proposed changes in State law dealing with reduction in force. The last session of the General Assembly changed the priorities of State Employees who are separated due to reduction in force, or layoff. Part of this effort is to reinstate that priority which had dropped down to a lower level and once again give people who lose their job due to a layoff significant priority to get back into the system.
Under consideration since the Legislature will convene next month is another change to modify the mandatory salary level for persons reinstated from layoff. Currently the law says these candidates must be hired at the State salary they were making plus any legislative increases effective at the time of layoff. This resulted in problems around the State where people who were laid off were not extended job offers because the State agency or university did not have the funds in hand to match what that person was making when they left. Consequently, the Task Force will attempt to put some “give” into that requirement, potentially allowing agencies to hire reduction in force Employees at plus or minus 10% that previous figure. This change will give agencies and universities a little more flexibility and hopefully will encourage reemployment of individuals separated due to layoff.
Committee Reports (resumed)
Tom Hocking, Chair of Compensation and Benefits, continued his Committee’s report. That Committee had discussed Salary Task Force issues at its last meeting and discovered a number of questions to raise with members of that Task Force. The Committee will invite members of the Salary Task Force to its next meeting, Thursday, April 11. Among these questions will be why issues like salary compression had not been considered in its report.
Tom reported that Laurie Charest had been a guest of the Committee at its last meeting, offering information on upcoming in-range salary adjustment policies and the privatization issue. Tom had been able to obtain a copy of the Interim Report on Privatization. There have been concerns about the bias or perceived bias of those who authored the report. Upon reading the report, Employee concerns are listed and the report seems more balanced than initial reports suggested. There is a loaner copy of the report available in the Forum Office.
At the next Forum meeting Tom planned to make a presentation on current concerns such as salary compression and the status of related issues.
Chair Helen Iverson of Public Affairs waived her time to the next Committee, noting that her Committee had included a copy of its minutes in the recent agenda packet.
From the Recognition and Awards Committee, Chair Pamela Shoaf reported that Committee had met and discussed plans for the Employee Fair Appreciation Booth. She said the committee had under consideration a booklet of recognition ideas for departments.
Sharon Cheek, Chair of the Career Development Committee, referred to the group’s recommendation included in the recent agenda packet regarding creation of a Career Counselor position. That Committee met on March 14 and 21 to finalize its recommendation. She noted that when the Committee met it did not know that the Chancellor’s Task Force on Women at Carolina had developed a similar recommendation.
Sharon made a motion that the Forum adopt the recommendation of the Career Development Committee to use the Staff Development Fund’s carryover balance of 1995 in addition to the 1996 and `97 monies to fund a time-limited part-time Career Counselor position for 20 hours a week for a one year pilot program. In the event that Chancellor Hooker’s position is to establish a permanent, full-time Career Counselor position at UNC-Chapel Hill, Sharon moved that the Forum adopt the recommendation of the Career Development Committee to use the Staff Development Fund’s carryover balance of 1995 in addition to 1996 earnings to support the position for one year, subject to final approval by Chancellor Hooker. Helen Iverson seconded this motion.
Rachel Windham asked if the proposal recommends a July 1 effective date for September 1997 funds. Sharon replied that the 1997 funds from the Development Office are an estimated figure, approximately $7,500 based on earnings. Rachel expressed concern that these funds are not in hand. Sharon indicated that funding of the pilot program would extend from September of 1996 through September 1997, if funded from the Staff Development Fund. If the Chancellor decides to fund a full-time position, the Forum would utilize its 1995 carryover balance and its 1996 monies to support the position.
Barbara DeLon asked what level or title the position would have. Eddie Capel said that it would be comparable to the position in University Career Services Office that serves students. Eddie was not sure of the level of the position but had checked with Marcia Harris on the subject. Marcia had said the funding available would make the position comparable to that in University Career Service Office. Sharon did not know what the exact level of the position would be.
The Chair asked for a vote on Sharon’s motion. Members approved the motion unanimously. The Chair thanked the Career Development Committee for their good work in seeing its recommendation through to conclusion.
Eddie Capel referred to the handout created by the Career Development Committee detailing development opportunities available to University Employees. Ideally, the Committee would like to post the handout on every department bulletin board on campus and distribute it at the Employee Appreciation Fair. He noted that many Employees are unaware of these opportunities available through Training and Development. Eddie felt it is the mission of the Committee to make sure every Employee is aware of these opportunities.
Also, the Committee felt that this document could be valuable as a part of the Forum’s Delegate manual, with a backup document that would give additional details about specifics of the programs.
Eddie thanked the Training and Development Division for its help to the Committee this year. He said that representatives from that department would be welcome to make a presentation at a Forum meeting or at the Orientation Retreat to inform Delegates about specific programs, so that Delegates may better respond to Employee questions. Members would have information at their fingertips about the content of various programs and who to contact for further details.
Janet Tysinger suggested that the Committee could post information onto the Forum web page. The Chair asked members to look over the materials and return their feedback to the Committee so that a finished product could be ready for the May meeting.
From the Pan-University Allocation Task Force, Ned Brooks noted that the Task Force’s original goal was for the Forum, and by extension Employees, to have more input into decisions about the use of these funds. The Task Force was appointed last fall and met March 25 to produce the document before the Forum, the “Employee Forum Statement on Pan-University Allocation Requests FY 1996-97.”
Ned moved that this document be accepted by the Forum for transmission to Wayne Jones, Vice Chancellor for Business & Finance and Chair of the Budget Group. Helen Iverson seconded this motion. Ned pointed out that members may not know from the Statement what the group decided not to support. The group found most of the projects proposed worthwhile but singled out in its Statement those most important to Employees. Other items in the report are, under Academic Support: the Office of Information Technology, the Libraries, the Office of Scholarship and Financial Aid, the Center for Teaching and Learning, the Writing Center, Learning for Disabled Students, Institute for Research in Social Sciences, the Center for International Studies, the Division of Environmental Programs, among others. Under Health and Safety, Workplace: the Environmental Safety Division, Employee Occupational Health Services. General: computer insurance, support for Student Information System, and the registrar’s degree audit system.
These are the other areas that the Task Force examined. The Task Force felt that the items mentioned in its report were particularly applicable to Employees. Ned said that the group would be willing to amend the report to suit the interests of the Forum.
Peter Schledorn suggested that the report reflect the interests of Employees who rely on the handicapped access appropriation, and so support specifically this part of the report. Ned agreed to accept this as a friendly amendment to his motion. The motion was called and members voted unanimously to approve the report for forwarding to Wayne Jones.
The Chair requested five minutes extra to complete the Forum’s business for the day. This request was granted by general agreement.
Jennifer Pendergast of the University Committee Assignments Committee noted there were three volunteers for the Orange County Health Policy Discussion Group which have been forwarded.
Marshall Wade of the Employee Appreciation Fair Booth Task Force reported that the group has met twice recently to finalize its plans for the Fair May 17. They plan to award door prizes, including a water color scene of the campus, a pencil drawing by Ned Brooks, a t-shirt donated by Student Stores, horseback riding lessons by former Chair Rachel Windham and other surprise items.
The Forum booth will have a flyer listing Committee Chairs and contact persons and will display balloons and banners. Members will be expected to sign up at the May 1 meeting and dress will be Fair t-shirts which may be purchased at Student Stores. The group will produce nametags for Delegate and Alternates to wear at the Fair. Finally, the Booth will have a brief survey form attached to one’s ticket for the door prizes. Forum Delegates are not eligible for these prizes. One of the questions on the survey will be from Recognition and Awards Committee seeking opinions on the University’s new recognition policy.
No Faculty Council Liaisons had anything to report.
Rachel said that there had been good evidence that the contributions to the University enhance the welfare of its Employees; the Career Counselor, funded through the Staff Development Fund, is an excellent example of what Employees can do. She lauded the work of the Development Office in putting together the Campaign’s excellent brochure. Rachel pointed out also that Employees may designate a particular organization to receive their gift, noting that Dr. Horne and the Black Cultural Center will be happy to take contributions in this form. She encouraged every Employee to make a contribution to the Campaign, pointing that if every SPA Employee made only a $1/week contribution the Campaign would raise over $200,000 from SPA staff alone.
Peggy Cotton asked if Tommy Brickhouse would follow up on the mail situation for housekeepers. The Chair said that she would check up with him before the next meeting.
Sharon Cheek re-emphasized that the Career Development Committee and the Forum did not intend for its recommendation that a Career Counselor be created with Staff Development monies to supplant any move by the Chancellor to fund such a position permanently and/or full-time.
Tom Hocking reported the night of April 3 would see a total lunar eclipse, and would afford observers a last chance to see the comet Hyakutake. The Morehead Planetarium will have an observing session from 6:30-9 p.m.
Rosa Nolen related the sad news of the death of former Vice-Chair Scott Blackwood’s mother.
Ruth Lewter announced that SEANC District 19 will hold a legislative event and pancake breakfast the morning of May 4. It has invited all candidates and incumbents from Durham, Orange, Alamance and Chatham counties. Only State Employees can make a difference in what legislators do with respect to salaries and the University budget. The event will be at the White Cross Recreation Center on Highway 54 in Carrboro. Peggy Cotton, Helen Iverson, Barbara DeLon and Ruth Lewter are available to sell tickets to the accompanying pancake breakfast: $5 adults, $4 senior citizens and students and $2 for children.
The Forum was reminded that April 24 is Secretaries’ Day and that secretaries may sign up for a special program on self-esteem held by the University. This form was included in the Routing Folder.
There will be a Stand for Children convened by the Children’s Defense Fund on June 1, 1996. This event is sponsored locally by the Campus Y and Ms. Giselle Lancaster; brochures were available on the back table.
As a concluding note, the Chair recalled the aphorism: “Truth is as important as competency, and more important than affinity.” In the absence of further discussion, the Chair asked for a motion to adjourn. Laresia Farrington made this motion, with Burke Riggsbee seconding. There was no discussion, and the meeting adjourned at 11:41 a.m.