August 15, 2023 Executive Committee Meeting Minutes
Attending: L.E. Alexander, Sharron Bouquin, David Bragg, Shane Brogan, Renata Buchanan, Shavon Carey-Hicks, Tiffany Carver, Leslie Heal Ray, Leah Hefner, Jonah Hodge, James Holman, Rebecca Howell, Arlene Medder, Stephanie Morales, Katie Musgrove, Joe Ormond, Charlissa Rice, Lori Shamblin, Theresa Silsby, Ally Wardell, June Weston, Tracy Wetherby Williams
Excused Absences: Laura Pratt, Julie Theriault
Chair Katie Musgrove called the meeting to order at 11:32 a.m. First on the agenda was the approval of the June minutes. The Chair noted that certain committee members may not have been in service in June. Still, she asked the group to consider the minutes. Tiffany Carver moved that the minutes be approved, seconded by David Bragg. The motion passed and the minutes were approved.
Regarding the State budget, the Chair reported that the State had not yet approved its budget, leading to a bottleneck as to whether the Forum’s requests were approved. She hoped that a budget would be approved soon.
She noted that the annual report, Bylaws revisions, and Employee Forum timeline were all discussed at the July retreat. She said that these items would remain on the committee’s agenda until completion. Similarly, planning for the community meeting will take place here as well.
Members of the Bylaws review group were not yet not present on the day’s call. The Chair asked delegates interested in helping to reach out to Rebecca Howell, Matthew Teal, or Jacob Womack to assist. [Howell later joined the meeting, noting that the group had not yet met.]
The Chair asked if the timeline project representatives could speak on their work since the retreat. Charlissa Rice said that Haydée Marchese had created a SharePoint calendar in hopes to place that on the Forum website. She hoped that this calendar could sync its entries and notifications with the website in a way that the current calendar does not. The Chair requested that Matt Banks ask Paul Cardillo to attend a meeting of this group to discuss synchronizing those two calendars. Rice agreed to schedule another meeting including Banks, Cardillo, and the Chair.
The Chair moved to consideration of the Forum’s 2022-23 Annual Report. She had done the majority of the work on this document but asked the committee’s guidance on completing the project. She went through the different sections of the report, giving reasons for the order and layout. She encouraged the committee to study the document further in Teams, hoping that individuals could offer edits and content to the report.
Responding to Arlene Medder’s question, the Chair hoped to complete this work by the end of August. She noted that the re-establishment of annual reports by the Forum is a massive improvement from prior practice.
Members made suggestions as to particular wording of items. Rebecca Howell noted the real erosion of the university’s position as an employer of choice. June Weston said that she was astonished about the out of pocket cost of health insurance here. Howell said that she was considering leaving the university for the first time in 30 years due to the potential inability to access care for her non-binary child. She said that the state as a whole had become less appealing to her for this reason. The Chair commented that overall, employees may come to see State Health Plan coverage as inadequate.
L.E. Alexander suggested adding an entry for cases in which an employee is given a temporary new role lacking an interim title and appropriate pay increase for these additional duties. Tiffany Carver observed that Human Resources tends to hold up approval on job descriptions or appropriate pay increases, leading affected employees to move on from the university. Shavon Carey-Hicks added that inadequate onboarding training support is another item for potential improvement.
Members made other suggestions to improve the document, differentiating between newly created “Causes” and “Effects” sections of the report. The Chair highlighted areas of the document that will need additional consideration. She hoped that members would take a moment to provide their own edits on grammar and content. Theresa Silsby urged the Chair to advocate for funding prioritization in the wake of the work done on salary ranges this past year.
The Chair mentioned that she will likely advocate for an additional support person for the Forum, given that the Faculty Council now has three full-time FTEs of staff helping their organization. She hoped that this person could help Banks and also work on the Forum’s website communications and graphics to strengthen its reach digitally. She hoped this new position could increase the visibility of Forum resolutions and proclamations while assisting on communication strategies for delegates with constituents.
The conversation turned to staff mentoring efforts. David Bragg recalled his experience mentoring a new employee which turned out to be very useful for the both of them. L.E. Alexander proposed perhaps a database of employees to access for mentoring or staff support advice. The Chair noted logistical difficulties with this idea in pairing positions or assigning buddies. Still, she appreciated the suggestion. Members advanced other suggestions for improving mentoring. The Chair asked for additional input through the Teams page.
At this point, the Chair was glad to welcome University Ombuds Officer Dawn Osbourne-Adams to work with the committee on community meeting planning. The Chair said that the Forum had discussed the Students for Fair Admission case and compelled speech legislation as possible topics for a fall meeting. She hoped this meeting would present a chance for staff to address the fallout from these decisions, to come together, and to hear from administration on the university’s response in these areas.
Osbourne-Adams suggested adding something from the Provost’s email that morning on generative AI. She thought that this is an area that will touch everyone on campus and that everyone is trying to figure it out at the same time. The Chair added that the staff generative AI subcommittee could provide an update to the community meeting on upcoming guidance and new trainings in this area.
Osbourne-Adams observed that there seems to be so much uncertainty on campus in many different facets. She cautioned that the community meeting should not be something that creates more uncertainty. She hoped that the conversation would be well-timed and avoid this uncertainty and the rumor mills that can follow in a vacuum of information.
The Chair suggested that this meeting could give the administration a chance to state the university’s stance on these various questions. She thought that the current approach is happening in a very siloed manner as issues affect different parts of the campus. She thought that creating an opportunity for unified comment from the administration would be useful.
The Chair reiterated that the Forum had chosen the Students for Fair Admission case and the compelled speech legislation as creating the most uncertainty among staff. She thought that the university would likely be ready to provide this feedback in November. She proposed that the meeting feature 20 minutes for a presentation from the administration. Then, allow time to discuss these matters along with a question-and-answer session for staff to voice questions or raise issues from their areas.
The Chair thought that providing an opportunity for staff to engage with one another is the ultimate purpose of these community meetings, to have the opportunity to feel heard and understood and provide meaningful information. Arlene Medder asked what we actually have to tell people about these two cases and how they impact them. The Chair found that decision-makers leave staff members out of certain communications that they likely could need, even if the information is not directly related to job responsibilities.
The Chair asked if this choice of topic will be well received by the administration. She hoped that the Forum could be good campus partners and strategic in addressing these questions. Dawn Osbourne-Adams thought that if the Forum intends to create a conflict with the administration, the resulting conflict should be generative of something productive. She recalled the Forum’s COVID town hall that created a lot of conflict, but also did a lot of good.
L.E. Alexander thought that perhaps the administration would not have an appetite for repeating this part of the conversation about broadening communications. She could imagine a negative response from the administration although she personally thought that the topic is important.
Dawn Osbourne-Adams asked how many people attend the Forum’s community meetings. The Chair said that perhaps 550 people attended the health care meeting online and in person. She said that the COVID meeting had a pretty high level of participation, perhaps 300-400 people, all accessing the meeting via Zoom. Osbourne-Adams suggested another way to consider this issue is that because of these high numbers, no conversation and engagement could likely occur as any request for input would be overwhelming. Most staff attending will be almost like observers rather than those permitted to ask questions.
Osbourne-Adams instead asked what the Forum’s role is and what would be helpful to staff employees to see and take in. The Chair envisioned prevailing upon administration leaders to make a presentation providing knowledge for staff that they would otherwise learn only piecemeal through various communications. She hoped that staff would feel the impact of this communication and would learn how these issues will play out and their eventual impact on everyone, personally.
The Chair thought that hearing the administration’s response to these large changes in higher education regarding the future would realize these benefits for attending staff employees. She thought that perhaps the meeting would not need a question-and-answer session, but instead would accent community coming together to hear the same message at the same time.
L.E. Alexander proposed soliciting questions beforehand as had been done in Staff Assembly meetings. She thought that posing these questions to the administration before the actual meeting could involve them in the planning process. She thought that this method might be better received than perhaps the COVID town hall was. She recalled a response from an administration leader who appreciated Forum delegates’ positivity and thinking of what can be done to make the situation better. She thought this approach would generate goodwill and buy-in among listening staff as well.
The Chair proposed that a committee of delegates could come up with questions or solicit questions from employees. James Holman asked if the Forum could do a survey of staff to assess perhaps ten relevant questions for the meeting. The Chair recalled that Jen DeNeal, who had expertly created well thought out and formatted surveys, is no longer available to the Forum. She wondered who could effectively replicate her efforts with respect to the survey. She thought that the administration will not likely have meaningful information for this meeting until November.
L.E. Alexander suggested using the Forum’s database of employees to distribute a survey presenting a possible list of questions for the administration. The Chair liked this idea as it would create a starting point for administrators preparing for the community meeting. She suggested providing this list to the administration perhaps in September to allow work through October to formulate a presentation.
Dawn Osbourne-Adams thought that this timeline and process sounds good from her point of view. She wondered however, given the technical and complicated nature of the Students for Fair Admission case, whether staff in general even have an initial understanding of these questions within the historical context of the country. She asked whether something should be done about this knowledge first, perhaps inviting University Counsel to fit in 15 minutes at the meeting’s start to provide the history of affirmative action, to ensure a common level of understanding. She thought that the educational component of this effort is very important.
The Chair thought that obtaining this history for Forum delegates would be a good starting point for this effort. She proposed perhaps inviting University Counsel to present at the Forum’s September general meeting, with a generation of questions following at the September Executive committee meeting.
Osbourne-Adams also asked how the Forum will frame the design of the meeting. She thought that questions could be part of the presentation but not the entire make-up of the meeting. She thought that the Forum should emphasize how engagement will take place, without putting questions at the center of the discussions beforehand. Rebecca Howell asked about framing the community meeting as addressing staff as ambassadors of Carolina who receive and respond to questions from the local community. The community meeting would provide information as to how these cases impact the institution in a way that employees can share with others. She suggested framing the question as an empowerment of employees through perspective as ambassadors.
The Chair loved Howell’s idea. She noted, however, that Media Relations will not sanction line employees speaking on behalf of the university. Still, the reality is that staff are asked these questions in their private capacities, external to their roles at the university. Having staff able to speak on these questions and understand the university’s stance will be important, as empowering and educating staff and in turn the general public.
Howell added that part of this effort’s benefits would go to rebuilding trust that has been lost among staff. Should the university respond that these communications are not most staff employees’ jobs, this denial would continue to disregard employees’ feelings of connection to the community. She said that the university needs to trust employees to speak intelligently as members of the community.
Osbourne-Adams observed that these points have a small-d democratic emphasis in that everyone on campus should be well informed about these events that impact the university. The Chair was enthused about this discussion as a good first step. Next, she would seek commitment from University Counsel to come to the next Forum meeting and present a general presentation about the case, as well as the university’s initial response. Forum delegates would use this presentation as the source of a list of questions to be presented to the administration, asking leaders to meet with employees in an early November timeframe. Then, these presentations will form a source of guidance for staff when faced with similar questions.
Dawn Osbourne-Adams suggested that the Chair write directly to Charles Marshall at the Office of University Counsel to seek his support. She also suggested that the Forum commission viewing parties for the community meeting to increase the common aspect of the event, even though people may be a bit passive with the actual activity.
Arlene Medder said that the university has a number of conference rooms on campus that are literally connected and could host a Zoom session community meeting. The Chair asked who would set up these meetings, and Osbourne-Adams thought perhaps the Forum could encourage people to do it themselves, to create their own community.
The Chair wondered about the administration’s appetite for discussing the compelled speech issue at the same time as the Students for Fair Admission case. She hoped there would be a common desire to educate staff on these issues. Osbourne-Adams thought that the overall emphasis on timing and appetite in discussions with administrators would go well. She did ask how much could be shared at the meeting that would actually be helpful to staff. She suggested conducting a conversation beforehand on these shifts and changes held in a meaningful way that administrators will feel is impactful.
Osbourne-Adams asked if administrators would be motivated to think creatively about what and how to express these ideas, when they know so much is now on the minds of staff employees. She imagined that a bit of negotiation would likely occur. The Chair summarized the next steps for the Forum to accomplish this task, noting that her personal schedule is very challenging over the next couple of weeks. She asked if the Personnel Issues committee could work with L.E. Alexander on putting together a list of questions.
The Chair thanked Osbourne-Adams for her care, wise thinking, and good counsel. She then moved to committee updates, asking delegates representing committees who were still on the call to speak. Arlene Medder said that Claire Lorch was happy with the results of the recent survey of employees about the Carolina Community Garden. The survey had a 10% response rate and almost 300 people signed up to receive information about the Garden on a weekly basis. Prize winners from the survey received a t-shirt and a jar of honey.
Rebecca Howell said that the Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion committee would meet with Assistant Director Jamillae Stockett [transcript: “Bethany”] of the LGBTQ Center on August 28th to discuss services that organization offers to campus. The Chair asked if Howell could contact the Center to ask for contact information for Terry Phoenix, as the Forum may potentially recognize Phoenix in some way.
Renata Buchanan said that the Blood Drive committee had begun the process for the Holiday Blood Drive. The committee hopes to secure 380 appointments for this drive. Buchanan said that the committee had many new members join this year. The Chair thanked Buchanan for stepping up to co-chair this effort, noting that Laura Pratt’s pregnancy will come due in early October.
Joe Ormond reported that the Communications and Public Relations committee would meet the following Monday at 3 p.m. to discuss podcasts and other means to improve communications.
Shavon Carey-Hicks said that she will co-chair the Education and Career Development committee with L.E. Alexander. The committee had already met in August to discuss pain points brought up at the July retreat.
Charlissa Rice said that the Recognition and Awards committee had updated the word limit for the peer recognition nominations to 500 words.
The Chair asked for help planning the December social along with Tiffany Carver and Keith Hines on the Membership & Assignments committee. That group will meet soon to begin this effort.
The UNC System Staff Assembly had its first Bylaws subcommittee meet recently, looking at revisions proposed in July. The Chancellors’ Cup Golf Tournament will happen September 26th and the Chair will again seek volunteers to help with that effort.
David Bragg said that Justin Miller of Emergency Preparedness is still seeking volunteers to help with the coming festival. Costumes will be provided for pirate actors if needed.
The Chair said that the Advisory Committee on Transportation and Parking will continue with its 5-year planning process. Theresa Silsby said that the Community Service committee is working to coordinate a visit with the Community Garden.
The Chair will continue connecting new university committee representatives with those groups. Planning for the September general meeting will feature Provost Chris Clemens, Vice Chancellor Nate Knuffman, Vice Chancellor Kamrhan Farwell, with an invitation to Charles Marshall at the Office of University Counsel to speak on the Students for Fair Admission decision.
Leah Hefner asked if Knuffman could address the affordable housing survey in his September update. The Chair proposed that Hefner reach out to Knuffman herself requesting this update, following up on the August meeting discussion.
Theresa Silsby confirmed that the Forum will hear a presentation on annual enrollment for the State Health Plan which will occur in mid-October. She mentioned that the Employee Appreciation event will also occur October 20th.
The Chair said that Matt Banks will send out a Qualtrics survey soon asking questions for the upcoming Vice Chancellors’ representatives’ meeting on September 14th. These meetings will now move to 2 p.m. on the second Thursday of every other month.
Rebecca Howell moved that the meeting adjourn, seconded by David Bragg. The meeting adjourned by acclamation without opposition at 1:28 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Matt Banks, Recording Secretary