April 5, 2024 Employee Forum meeting minutes
Delegates Attending: David Barnette, Randall Borror, David Bragg, Shane Brogan, Bonita Brown, Shavon Carey-Hicks, Denise Carter, Tiffany Carver, Elizabeth DuBose, Jay Eubank, Shayla Evans-Hollingsworth, Adrianne Gibilisco, Leah Hefner, Jessi Hill, Keith Hines, James Holman, Linda Holst, Rebecca Howell, Brigitte Ironside, Kira Jones, Sara Kelley, Haydeé Marchese, Amber Meads, Arlene Medder, Mandy Melton, Vanessa Mitchell, Stephanie Morales, Katie Musgrove, Natiaya Neal, Katherine Neer, Lisa Petersen, Sara Pettaway, Laura Pratt, Charlissa Rice, Jacqueline Schwamberger, Kelly Scurlock-Cross, Lori Shamblin, Audrey Shore, Heather Skinner, Theresa Silsby, Janice Singletary, Sarah Smith, James Stamey, Annetta Streater, Matthew Teal, Julie Theriault, Ally Wardell, June Weston, Michael Williams, Tyrone Williams, Jacob Womack
Excused Absences: Vanessa Morris
Chair Katie Musgrove called the meeting to order at 9:15 a.m., welcoming all delegates, guests, and members of the press. She was pleased to welcome all assembled for the listening session on the search for UNC-Chapel Hill’s next Chancellor. She also welcomed all who were present via the Zoom remote session which had been set up by the School of Government, which hosted the day’s meeting. She said that remote questions would be shared with the search advisory committee even if not addressed in person that morning. She added that the Forum’s notes and minutes associated with the day’s meeting would also go into search advisory committee notes.
The Chair provided a quick overview of the Chancellor search process. Afterward, she invited guest moderator Dr. Anita Brown-Graham, the Gladys Hall Coates Distinguished Professor of Public Law and Government, to begin the day’s discussion. Brown-Graham noted the 150 people present in person and on-line. She added that President Hans of the UNC System has said that stakeholder input and community engagement are important in the search proves. She found that from the previous listening sessions, people want to see more of the search advisory committee and want to speak directly with committee members.
Brown-Graham encouraged all to respond to the chancellor search survey that was now open for responses. She said that open-ended questions in the survey include 1) What do you want the leadership style to be of the next Chancellor?, 2) What do you want the priorities to be during the next two to five years?, and 3) What are some other considerations you think the community should prioritize?
Brown-Graham spoke on the order of listening sessions and the incoming search firm for the chancellor search. She said that a website will have all of this information and more about the search process. She emphasized that she was present to hear what people have to say, and to communicate this information to the search committee. She asked listeners to think about the next chapter of leadership here at UNC-Chapel Hill and what are the strengths and points of pride that one would hope are appreciated by the new chancellor.
An employee urged that academic freedom without interference from outside forces would be a point of emphasis. The employee stated that the university’s reputation as flagship university of the state had been damaged by certain events and hoped that this reputation could be restored. The employee recalled that a nationally accredited and noted historian was refused a position here at the university because of her views. He did not see this as a good look for the institution. Eventually, the historian refused a position here, a decision that the employee understood. He wanted the university to function as a flagship and he did not see these events as contributing to that goal.
The employee spoke about the university’s potential to be a place that welcomes people whose identities and experiences have been marginalized in the state. He cited the potential for the university to be a haven for people of all identities and experiences from North Carolina, including those who grew up here and felt a great deal of hostility in the course of doing so. He was proud that UNC-Chapel Hill was a place that he could attend and feel safe.
An employee commented in the chat that UNC-Chapel Hill is the oldest public university in the country. They said that the university has survived every crisis that the country has gone through and will continue to do so.
An undergraduate student present at the meeting contributed their feedback. This student thought that the entire chancellor search process was a sham, in spite of everyone who has assembled in good faith. Still, he did not think that what was said here would be taken up to the proper channels through the entire process. He noted that the search advisory committee will nominate three finalists for the Board of Trustees to decide among. He said that the Board pledges allegiance to the Republican-controlled North Carolina General Assembly, not to the people of the university. He thought that the Board will choose its preferences for a finalist, leaving the final decision to UNC System President Hans to choose in cooperation with a Board of Governors who also pledge allegiance to the Republican-controlled legislature. He thought that both Boards have already made up their minds that Interim Chancellor Lee Roberts will be the next permanent chancellor of UNC-Chapel Hill.
The student cited a NC Newsline article which heard from a Board of Trustees member who said that while they expect the chancellor search to be thorough and above board with many top candidates, no one else is expected to top Roberts in this search. The student criticized Roberts as a man without any higher education administration experience and with ties to North Carolina Republicans, particularly far-right mega donor Art Pope. The student thought that members of the two Boards have an interest in defunding Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) and the humanities, including targeting the campus’ amazing cultural centers.
The student did not trust the process at all, even if everything being done is in good faith. He thought that whatever is done here or in other listening sessions would not matter in the process, as the Board of Trustees and the Board of Governors will maintain complete control over the process.
In response to a follow-up from Brown-Graham, the student added that they were most proud of the university’s cultural centers, namely the Sonja Haines Stone Center. He then mentioned that Art Pope’s non-profit organization, the James Martin Center, in 2014 called for funds to be cut to the Stone Center, amid calls for other cuts to the Institute for the Environment and the Carolina Women’s Center. There was also a call for the abolition of the American Indian Center, which this student deemed “absurd.”
The student said that Lee Roberts sat on the Board Art Pope’s company, collecting money from this endeavor. He thought that this was evidence of a bad faith actor, adding that he also saw the Boards of Trustees and Governors as similar bad faith actors who are coming for everyone in the room.
Brown-Graham drew a connection between the previous speaker and the student, noting that both seemed to feel that the university is a place at which they belong and at which they can find themselves. The student agreed with this statement.
The student then returned to the question of campus spaces as battlegrounds, with black people having to make sure their spaces are protected. He returned to the subject of Art Pope, stating that his father was one of the ardent opponents of the establishment of the Stone Center at the university. He did not think that these people care about black people or any of the people in the room.
A chat correspondent wrote that they were proud of the university’s capacity for conducting cutting edge research and its ability to secure robust external funding to support this enterprise. Another chat correspondent wrote that Carolina continues to struggle with its deeply racist past. This person was most proud of the university’s permanent removal of Silent Sam and its renaming of Saunders Hall to Carolina Hall. The person thought it important to have a leader who can recognize that calling out our painful past can be a source of pride.
Another writer said that the university is home for many people across the country, including the State of North Carolina. This person wrote that this place has been transformational for many people, including themselves as a staff member. Brown-Graham recalled her own background from Louisiana and her experience coming to UNC-Chapel Hill for law school. She recalled the saying that when people come here, from here they can go anywhere.
A speaker said that with the university’s current skeletal crews of staff, it cannot keep up the unsustainable pace of being a research powerhouse. The speaker said that a search pool for a position only has four candidates, whereas previously 60-70 applicants would have applied for that position. The speaker thought that the university needs to pay people, to staff its departments, and to focus on recruitment, retention, and resources for the work. The speaker said that people here are fried trying to keep things together. The speaker characterized staff here as the most talented, committed, beautiful souls who want to see the university succeed and thrive, and yet are drowning. The speaker said that there must be adequate funding for staff and departments.
Delegate Arlene Medder said that the university needs a chancellor who would regain eroded benefits. She said that she had been here long enough to anticipate a really nice retirement, but someone hired in the past year or five years ago would not have these same benefits. Medder said that the new chancellor should emphasize this point to the legislature, that wanting the university to be a star of the country requires students and faculty but also staff to support these efforts. She characterized staff as the skeleton of the university without whom the institution could not move.
Shayna Hill thought that these issues were not only financial but cultural as well. She shared her background as the daughter of a woman who found her identity and her community here at UNC-Chapel Hill because she could be her authentic self here. Hill said that attacks on the university’s diverse, beautiful culture worry her, given her mother’s experience of loving support.
A speaker thought that staff members are expected to ignore teaching goals for the sake of research goals, because the culture has led to support for researchers who bring in money more than faculty who teach students. The speaker found this fact very frustrating. He thought that this cultural shift became especially focused starting with the COVID-19 pandemic. At that point, he said, anything that did not support research and medical research got shoved aside. He said that there have been plenty of times he had been told to prioritize research goals over current work.
The speaker also thought another challenge to the university is the hostile state government and arguably hostile Board members who have said that they plan to emulate other states in the banning of DEI initiatives on UNC System campuses. These people seem to have decided that the university will be a battleground in the cultural war in which it did not ask to participate.
A speaker thought that staff employees have been overlooked for such a long time in higher education. Staff need to be compensated for skills and expertise and not required to scrape by financially. The speaker said that the state needs to realize that the UNC System cannot function without staff. The speaker further said that universities like Carolina are being used as political pawns, a practice harmful to the campus mission but also a bad business decision. The speaker wants the next chancellor to advocate for equity and protect DEI initiatives, as a vocal leader in creating opportunities for groups that have historically been excluded from higher education.
The speaker was worried about people leaving the university, for pay reasons or other cultural concerns or issues. The employees who have stayed here have been doing two and three times their so-called normal workload and have become exhausted, past the point of doing the right thing and helping until the new person can be hired.
However, things have moved past that stage, years past that stage. The speaker thought that pay is the source of this problem. The speaker had heard similar things from Facilities and Housekeeping personnel, that salaries are not enough for people to get by on. She worried that people who have stayed and done two and three times their normal workload will eventually also leave if they do not see a light at the end of the tunnel. She thought that those departures would represent a true tipping point. She did not know how to fix this issue outside of the state legislature.
Audrey Shore recalled that last month Interim Chancellor Lee Roberts came to the Employee Forum. Shore thought that Roberts’ experience was a difficult one, as there were a lot of grievances aired and “trauma dumping” at that meeting. Still, within a week, Roberts released his four campus priorities and not a single one had anything to do with what staff had been lamenting about for years. Shore thought that the university needs leadership that creates and fulfills actionable items from communication and feedback. She asked the point of telling leadership that staff are underpaid, under resourced and cannot recruit or retain if institutional priorities are Artificial Intelligence and research funding.
Trish Harris, as chief of staff in the DEI office and chair of the Carolina Black Caucus, feared the consequences of silence more than she feared the truth. She thought that the university needs a leader who is bold, courageous, and will lead with authenticity, integrity, and transparency. She said that faculty and students are completely unaware of what is happening, and this lack of transparency leads to paranoia, anxiety, angst, and fear. She said that the university needs someone who is fearless and willing to oppose the status quo even if it means opposing friends in the room. She thought that the university’s leaders should be trailblazers, doing what is right to alleviate fear to show people that they matter and care. She voiced a fatigue in working constantly to save Carolina and protesting for justice because no one will stand in the gap for us.
Brown-Graham pointed out that leaders of the university have their own bosses. She asked if Harris wanted a chancellor who is willing to go down fighting for these measures? Harris replied that someone in power can call upon their network to support their position.
A chat correspondent thought that the next chancellor must show up with cultural humility and a commitment to inclusivity. Another speaker thought that the next chancellor needs independence and experience, namely the independence from the Boards that oversee the university so that they can be good faith actors. Going further, this person thought that the next chancellor needs to be someone who is not already friends and business partners with Board members, who is preferably from outside the state entirely so others know they are not already burdened with ties and back-room handshake deals.
Secondly, the speaker thought that the next chancellor should bring experience, as the university is not the sort of place where someone should be a chancellor for the first time, in this current political climate, over a campus as complex, sprawling and multi-faceted as Carolina has become. They need to have done something comparable in the past.
Another speaker recalled former Chancellor Thorpe who took the time to participate in four-hour zone training. Thorpe responded to a question around why he did so that “I made the time so no one else can say ‘I don’t have the time.’” The speaker thought that if the chancellor is doing something, everyone else should be doing that. The next chancellor should lead by example.
Haydeé Marchese felt disappointed that whenever a search committee is selected, it is composed only by positional leaders who often cannot speak for the struggle of SHRA employees and often are not connected to their situations. She said that there are many parts of campus that should be represented in this search, and that the next chancellor should work to move the needle in their favor. Marchese was disappointed that the Interim Chancellor seemed to deflect questions that were raised at last month’s Forum meeting. She wanted line employees on these search committees, not just higher-level managers. She commented that positional leaders are often wrong but never in doubt. The Chair took a moment to note her participation on the search committee, and to state her intention to represent SHRA voices respectfully as an SHRA employee herself. She asked employees to hold her accountable to this commitment.
Brown-Graham followed up by asking again what speakers meant by cultural humility. A speaker responded by saying that cultural humility is different than cultural competence. One should not walk into a space or interaction with those who are different and think that they have reached a point where they will “know how to deal with those folks.” The speaker added that a person’s mastery of knowledge should not preclude continued learning, self-reflection, and recognition of one’s own biases. The speaker said that the term is used in social movement work.
Another speaker summed up that there has been a significant erosion of trust that accelerated aggressively with the pandemic and led to formerly reliable things to become quicksand. The speaker thought that the points about staffing, retention, and pay raises were not new concerns. The speaker thought that the current lack of trust on numerous levels is the largest challenge the university and its new chancellor will face, and that the institution will not hold through a complete break of trust. She was disappointed that working here or going to school here had degraded as a point of pride.
The Chair thanked Anita Brown-Graham for her work moderating the morning’s discussion. The student who spoke previously invited listeners to a teach-in about the Board of Trustees scheduled for Thursday, April 4 at 5 p.m. The student asked that listeners share this meeting date with their friends to encourage everyone to attend.
The Chair then welcomed Provost Clemens to the call, noting that others were invited to stay on to observe Forum proceedings. Clemens said that he had spent time recently on fixed-term faculty questions, saying that his office has made an action plan regarding these concerns. This week in the deans’ meeting he would reiterate this action plan regarding fixed-term faculty. He noted that some of these practices are leading the UNC System’s treatment of these concerns, as the UNC System is now looking to codify these protections granted whenever possible. These protections include longer contracts and more notice when contracts are going to have to terminate.
Clemens said that he would that evening attend a Phi Beta Kappa session followed by a meeting of the Muslim Student Association. He anticipated seeing many delegates over the next three weeks leading up to graduation. Arlene Medder asked what feedback Clemens’ office has received regarding the change in date for graduation. Clemens said that this feedback had begun immediately. The date change has had several unintended consequences, including bumping classes near the first ceremonies and reorganization of departmental ceremonies that have stood unchanged for years. He noted that people have been unhappy with these changes.
Clemens added that there have been upsides to the announced changes as well. He anticipated more positive effects of graduation not occurring on Mothers’ Day and families having the chance to enjoy this time. He thought that the shift in dates was an experiment that would require adjustments.
The Chair relayed a question asking when a decision would be made for the 25-26 graduation ceremonies. Clemens did not yet know. He asked that the campus get through the current graduation and a post-graduation assessment before making a definitive decision.
The Chair thanked Clemens for sharing updates from the leadership team. Clemens thanked the Chair, stating his appreciation for what she and the Forum do. His goal is to be there when needed and to take care of people. He asked all to send emails or to call his office to ensure concerns receive attention.
The Chair shared a pre-recorded remarks from Cathy Brennan, Executive Director of Environment, Health, and Safety. Brennan mentioned that the Chair had asked her to talk about PCBs given the questions related to the news that we have seen at North Carolina State at Poe Hall about cancer-causing chemicals in an academic building. Brennan then went on to discuss the PCB management program here at UNC Chapel Hill, outlining how we manage PCBs on campus. Brennan also explained the science behind PCBs and their harmful effects, as well as the university’s processes and procedures around handling these harmful chemicals. She closed her remarks by sharing the EHS website (ehs.unc.edu), their main phone line (919-962-3507), as well as the email for the Industrial Hygiene group that manages the PCB program within EHS (industrialhygiene@ehs.unc.edu). The Chair thanked Brennan for her remarks and said that Brennan would be available to answer questions at a future Forum meeting. She also thanked the School of Government I.T. team that had helped put on the day’s meeting.
The Chair then welcomed Becci Menghini, Vice Chancellor for Human Resources, Equal Opportunity, and Compliance, to present the Forum’s customary Human Resources update. Menghini said that she had worked with several chancellors over a long period of time and thus found earlier criticisms hard to hear, as she and others were working hard on these questions. She said that she would try to be transparent about things that she has the authority to do on behalf of staff. She had such a role as an administrator, and she believes in the community of Carolina.
Menghini thought that the university has a ways to go, but said that this community is dependent on all present in their roles as staff. She would continue to advocate and would do so as long as others trust her to do so. She would continue to be as honest and transparent as she could be, recognizing that not all of the university’s problems will be solved. She would do her best, and she asked others for their help standing with her as she continues to work on these issues. She would look forward to continuing this work as employees and others choose the next chancellor.
Menghini noted that student sessions are winding down, although for staff it may seem like just another Wednesday. She hoped that delegates could take time to participate in commencement events that fall on different dates, to celebrate with students and faculty who are winding up the academic year. She said that staff should recognize that they contribute greatly and deeply to the success of graduating students and those transitioning to the next year.
Menghini recalled that SHRA ranges have been put into the Connect Carolina system. She cautioned once again that new ranges do not come with new money, although OHR is speaking with the Service Center of Excellence and with the UNC System Office about ways to identify additional sources money to leverage ranges in the way desired.
Regarding EHRA ranges, Menghini said that OHR is halfway through identifying the family and branch structure. These will differ somewhat now that the designation has changed to EPS. Buck Consultants is studying a handful of ranges and should have numbers for study shortly. The timeline on EHRA/EPS ranges is easier because of approval differences, with the Board of Governors requiring only an internal approval. SHRA ranges require Office of State Human Resources (OSHR) external approval.
Menghini hoped that the university could roll out these improvements by the summer, allowing us to move forward with the proposed SHRA to EHRA conversion process that had been previously delayed. Those eligible for conversion would then know what the pay ranges and the educational requirements are in order to make an informed decision. She asserted that no one with UNC OHR or the UNC System Office wants employees to feel as if they have been forced to decide without full information.
Menghini noted differences between faculty and staff hiring times. She said that an area for improvement would be by identifying pieces that can be done concurrently working with Operational Excellence. She thanked all who will be involved in this project.
Menghini said that OHR has worked to pare back the number of new things rolled out to campus, for example the rainbow form and leave form processes. As the university is a bureaucratic system, OHR aims to do a better job of ensuring that interactions with OHR systems do not add to the list of frustrations. She said that things will never be entirely easy, but that OHR will do its best to make things easier where possible.
Finally, Menghini noted the UNC System’s engagement survey, which is sent out every two years. She said that OHR has already sent out messages advising employees that the survey is open. She noted that the survey should take about 20 minutes to complete.
The Chair welcomed Payroll Director Walter Miller to speak on upcoming revisions to the university TIM payroll time management system. Miller asked all who can do so to approve their timecards by close of business Friday, April 7th, and to take a snapshot of their accrual balances to verify that these will come over in the new system. Next Tuesday into Friday, employees will lose access to the TIM system as it changes over. Miller encouraged employees to write down their times in and out to ensure that time can be added after the new system becomes available. He added that the new TIM system will feature updates with a different look and feel.
Arlene Medder facetiously asked why TIM administration training was scheduled at the same time as this meeting. Miller noted that training scheduling was out of his hands. He gave technical assistance to a supervisor wondering about manual adjustment of shift time entries.
The Chair shared a chat question with Menghini. The questioner asked how departments will be informed of opportunities and options for new pay band increases if they become available. The questioner further noted that their department had not historically followed pay band updates. This person found this attitude frustrating as staff in the department are not being paid the rate at which they are marketable. What options do employees there have beyond leaving their positions and moving to other departments?
Menghini replied that every unit has a Human Resources representative, who employees can identify and inquire how they are interacting with OHR day-to-day. She said that there have not been many adjustments in salary ranges to make recently. OHR will work hard to ensure all employees know about what options are before them. Budget officers should accordingly plan for these changes in advance.
Tyrone Williams asked if there were a reason that zone managers in Housekeeping were not included in the retention bonus and the sign-on incentive that was initiated for housekeepers. He asked if there are any future plans for a type of bonus to be initiated for zone managers, who serve a dual role. Menghini said that this was a fair question that she could not answer at this point. She recalled that the Finance and Operations team has put together a long-range plan about how they wish to do additional adjustments.
Menghini thought that Williams’ question should be directed first to leadership in Facilities and Housekeeping, probably to the new Associate Vice Chancellor, then elevated if an answer is not supplied. She did not know the answer and did not want to suggest that there is a bigger plan.
Walter Miller said in response to a chat question, that vacation leave requests will likely function the same way in the new TIM system as before. Responding to another question, he asked employes to sign out at 5 p.m. this Friday whenever possible.
Menghini noted that the Performance Management cycle has kicked off in Carolina Talent for supervisors and managers. Voluntary self-assessments were due at the end of March. OHR’s Professional Development division also now has a new leader. It was noted that there was an intent to have a meaningful performance review for employees, in how to prepare, write goals, respond to goals, and engage in discussions leading to growth and better communication. Menghini praised the team involved for doing phenomenal work in this area. She hoped that employees will respond positively to these changes and will have more meaningful conversations this year. She noted the resources available to employees and managers regarding the performance management process, particularly in-person trainings.
Senior Work/Life Manager Jessica Pyjas presented the Forum’s customary wellness updates. These updates were captured in an email sent to delegates following the meeting. Pyjas noted the success of the Well-Being Expo, which hosted its highest attendance to date, over 1,400 attendees this year. She thanked the eighty or so volunteers who assisted with the event and encouraged attendees to provide feedback if possible.
Pyjas noted that the Governor’s Awards for Excellence nominations were open through April 12th. She recalled that Dr. Ralph House from the Department of Chemistry won the award last year. The statewide recognition awards go to people who accomplish things outside their regular job responsibilities.
The Chair asked that committee updates be emailed to her to distribute via email to the delegates. She said that March minutes were delayed to May for consideration. Regarding old business, the Chair announced that the proposal for the University Managers’ Association merger has been approved by the UMA. She was glad to have the UMA’s work folded into the Forum.
Regarding Resolution 24-02 concerning sexual assault and sexual harassment, the Chair noted that the Forum had been unable to consider the document at the March meeting. She called for a motion to suspend the rules to enable the Forum to consider this resolution on first reading. Tiffany Carver made this motion, with James Stamey seconding. Parliamentarian Jacob Womack ruled that the Forum had a two-thirds majority sufficient to vote to suspend its rules.
Rebecca Howell read Resolution 24-02. Members suggested correction of typos in the document. Arlene Medder moved that the resolution be approved on first reading with the correction of these typos, seconded by Laura Pratt. The motion was deemed to have been approved in the estimation of the Chair.
Regarding New Business, the Chair updated the Forum on the progress of delegate and officer elections, declaring that both were well underway. She thanked the Membership and Assignments committee for their work in moving the elections along. New delegate orientation will take place Wednesday, April 24th. In response to a question, the Chair said that anyone elected in one division who moves into another division after being elected would represent their first division until their current election term is complete.
The Chair said that officer nominations will occur in May in advance of the June election. Also, the Staff Advisory Committee to the Chancellor (STACC) will meet Friday, April 12th in its first meeting with Interim Chancellor Roberts. The Forum’s Vice Chancellors’ representatives’ meeting will take place Thursday May 9th, with a call for questions to go out to delegates later in April.
Laura Pratt shared kudos with Keith Hines and his team in Development for creating a fabulous new logo for the upcoming graduate student trip to London. The Chair seconded this praise of Hines, noting his work producing an amazing video during GiveUNC earlier in the semester.
Arlene Medder praised the Print Shop employees for their work as the semester draws to a close. The Chair praised the School of Government team for their work preparing for the day’s on-line and in-person meeting.
In the absence of further discussion, Tiffany Carver moved that the meeting adjourn, seconded by James Stamey. The motion was carried by acclamation and the meeting adjourned at 11:34 a.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Matt Banks, Recording Secretary