December 6, 2023 Employee Forum Minutes
Delegates Attending: L.E. Alexander, Randall Borror, Sharron Bouquin, David Bragg, Shane Brogan, Renata Buchanan, Shavon Carey-Hicks, Denise Carter, Tiffany Carver, Matthew Chamberlin, Elizabeth DuBose, Shayla Evans-Hollingsworth, Leah Hefner, Jessi Hill, Keith Hines, James Holman, Linda Holst, Jacob Hurst, Todd Hux, Brigitte Ironside, Kira Jones, Stacy Keast Brett Kenney, Arlene Medder, Vanessa Mitchell, Katie Musgrove, Natiaya Neal, Katherine Neer, Joseph Ormond, Lisa Petersen, Charlissa Rice, Jacqueline Schwamberger, Kelly Scurlock-Cross, Lori Shamblin, Jake Stallard, Matthew Teal, Julie Theriault, Ally Wardell, Tracy Wetherby Williams, Tyrone Williams, Michael Williams, Jacob Womack
Excused Absences: Leslie Heal, Laura Pratt
The Chair called the meeting to order at 10 a.m., following an in-person social at the Pleasants Family Assembly Room in Wilson Library. She was pleased to welcome Chancellor Kevin Guskiewicz to speak with the Forum in the organization’s monthly roundtable.
Guskiewicz wished the Forum well. He said that the state legislature had recently approved its budget, and he hoped that the legislature and Governor will continue to see UNC-Chapel Hill as a great return on taxpayers’ investment. He mentioned the recent success of the university’s sports teams, most notably the national championship in field hockey and the playoff advancement of the men’s and women’s soccer teams.
Guskiewicz recalled that the university is preparing for winter commencement on Sunday, December 17th. The university will send off another 600 Tar Heels with their diplomas. He hoped that listeners will find time to unplug and recharge their batteries over the winter break, emphasizing the importance of family and health as top priorities for life, followed by the commitment to Carolina.
A delegate asked Guskiewicz what would be helpful from the Forum given the recent situation in Israel and Gaza along with accompanying protests on campus. Guskiewicz said that the university’s Jewish and Muslim populations are struggling and require support from the greater community. He emphasized the university’s commitment to free speech while still prohibiting violence in any form.
Guskiewicz received another question asking about the university’s response to the recent active shooter situation. He replied that the campus has focused on three areas: a response in the moment, including an action plan to keep the community safe in the event of a lockdown; ensuring physical spaces have all of the right mechanisms to instruct people in those spaces how to secure their physical safety; and finding the root causes of an event such as that of August 28th, and what things the university could have done to prevent this from happening. The university now has two task forces working on these areas now.
Guskiewicz recalled a recent meeting with an advisory committee which advocated some type of mandatory active shooter training for students and faculty, with prospects for extending this training to the entire campus community. The campus will receive feedback from the consultant during the after-action review, which he anticipated would be completed soon.
Guskiewicz noted in response to a delegate question the usefulness of the university’s Mental Health First Aid training for faculty, students, and staff. He said that this program enables community members to identify warning signs in which we might be able to intervene and possibly prevent something like this from coming to fruition. He said that there has been a destigmatization of mental health and depression over the last two to three years. He added that COVID seemed to exacerbate an existing challenging mental health crisis, and people on campus are discussing ways to address this question.
An employee thanked Guskiewicz for his work and leadership. She still noted that it is difficult to get word around sometimes, especially in buildings where cellular service is spotty. She noted a general enthusiasm for staff training in shooter situations. Guskiewicz recalled that the university used to conduct a training called “Shots Fired” that would work with employees about what to do in case of emergency. The program has since been renamed.
Guskiewicz said that perhaps 1,200 employees took this training last year, with another uptick since the August 28th event. It was noted that there is an online version of this training that people can augment with a divisional meeting. Employees do not have to wait for the university to mandate training in active shooter situations, as such programs are already in place and can be noted on performance reviews.
Shayna Hill emphasized that, contrary to common parlance, it is a normal response to tragedy to have a traumatic response. She had noted a state of traumatization across campus in the wake of the shooting. She recalled her experience working off campus on August 28th, when her first thought on hearing of the incident was “where are my staff?”
Hill said that the university cares about mental health but does not want to unintentionally say that everyone is mentally ill. She said that the message should be that the campus community is experiencing a normal response to something that was really traumatic. She thought that this message switch from “we care about your mental health” would be simple to accomplish. Guskiewicz agreed with Hill. Hill added that every community member should be kinder to one another. She said that all of this conflict is alienating everyone from everyone else. She said that we need to remember that we are all here for one another. Guskiewicz said that some people on campus were retraumatized by the August 28th event as this was not their first time going through such an occurrence. Hill said that some on campus are experiencing sustained trauma.
An employee asked what one should do or who they should consult to ask for help for a person experiencing mental health difficulties. Guskiewicz said that staff employees should reach out to Employee Management Relations, while students can consult Counseling and Psychological Services (CAPS), and faculty have Faculty Affairs. If one fears immediate danger, one should begin with contacting the police directly.
Guskiewicz said that consultants are putting together threat assessment teams to study how the university evaluates concerns, studying interventions with employees and their units and asking if the university helps people get the help they need. Sometimes these situations do not involve mental health concerns as they might involve medication or other issues. The issue is finding help and resources for a person who was different a couple of months ago but appears to be struggling now. The question is a matter of helping each other, not of pointing a finger or singling someone out. Elizabeth Dubose asked if the university could put some money away for research staffing to go along with the university’s considerable new initiatives.
Guskiewicz hoped that all listeners would take the opportunity to unplug with friends and family over the break, given the recent challenging semester. He said that the university community has accomplished a great deal and this effort could not have occurred without the contributions of staff employees.
Vice Chancellor for Human Resources, Equal Opportunity, and Compliance Becci Menghini presented the Forum’s customary Human Resources update. She cited Chancellor Guskiewicz’ tenure and accomplishments here at the university, and the importance of staff contributions to university work generally. She congratulated everyone for making it through another semester. She noted the upcoming holiday and the opportunity for employees to work on the closed day, provided they arrange with their supervisor in advance.
Menghini noted once again the university’s new record in open enrollment percentage, as 96% of all employees eligible underwent the tobacco attestation on schedule. She reminded employees to study their December paycheck to ensure that the deductions listed are correct. The final responsibility for these figures belongs to the individual employee while Human Resources works to ensure that these numbers are correct.
Menghini took a moment to mention redline changes to Section 300 of the University Policy Manual. She said that these changes updated resolution language dating from 1983. Concerning new EHRA employees, she said that a major change states that after a yet to be determined date, employees will be able to accrue 26 days of leave per year, but must use a certain amount of leave each year, as a lower number of hours will roll over from year to year. In addition, accrual of such leave will not be paid out upon departure from the university. Current employees would have the option to opt into the new leave program or stay in the current system. She was not surprised to see this modification as this shift represents a common employment practice.
In addition, the university will undergo a change in the timeline for notice of discontinuations of EHRA employees. While the university does not currently do many discontinuations, certain notice dates and requirements are changing. These changes will only impact those hired after a certain date, which she thought might occur in 2025.
Regarding salary ranges, Menghini said that this work continues. The System Office has finished its portion and the Office of State Human Resources (OSHR) is scheduled to review these proposed changes for consideration at its January meeting. Following this, the university should then receive authority to use these ranges shortly thereafter although they will require final approval by the Governor. She anticipated that the campus would have the ability to make some changes for ranges early in the new year.
Menghini reiterated that a change in salary ranges does not mean that all employees will receive salary increases. She said that the intent is to create a range, in which the university will likely be on the top end due to the high cost of living in Chapel Hill. Ranges are built to accommodate living in the market from which the university draws its employees.
Menghini noted that the university draws differently than peer institutions based on the type of work done and the higher cost of living in this market. The goal is to provide more meaningful ranges so people can progress through them and receive increases as they move forward in their careers.
New salary ranges will not mean new money for salaries and does not mean that people will automatically be given raises. Discussion of these revisions now concerns where these ranges will be combined with where our employees stand now and where they should be.
Menghini thought that the institutional priority would be to figure out how to get lower-paid or newly hired people up to the lower end of the new ranges. Placing other employees within these ranges will be a longer-term more complex project. Many campus units are talking about these changes as they pursue budget conversations. The UNC System will go back in the next budget for a labor market adjustment reserve similar to the recent initiative which allowed the campus to bring employees up to market rates.
Menghini noted that many employees above current market rates during this last initiative were unable to use this money as preferred because salary ranges then could not support the rate adjustments. So, this is good news for future labor market adjustment reserve initiatives. Still, the process will not yield an automatic raise for everyone.
SHRA ranges will go to OSHR in January. The university has already begun range work on EHRA ranges. Menghini recalled that the classification of Tier II and EHRA IRIT employees will soon be removed and replaced with a new merged classification, Exempt Professional Service (EPS). She said that no structural difference exists with regard to these two types of employees. EPS ranges will be structured in a family concept that mirrors the way that SHRA ranges are set up. Early versions of these EPS ranges will be reviewed to understand which ones need further market study from the outside consultant, probably in late January.
Menghini praised Buck’s consulting work as nothing short of outstanding in keeping the process moving quickly and ensuring everything is done to get the ranges more complementary to employees while providing an opportunity for upward growth and mobility and some career pathing not present historically. Tier I positions will soon receive a similar revision. She praised the UNC System Office for its work on this once-in-a-lifetime opportunity, as SHRA ranges have not been updated for a very long time. EHRA ranges were last updated in 2018 here at UNC-Chapel Hill. She said that the ability to rethink how personnel are hired and compensated in a way that maximizes the potential of our people, and to compensate them appropriately in support of the university’s mission is an outstanding opportunity. She praised the partnership between the UNC System Office and OSHR as something the entire state should feel proud of.
Menghini noted an email had gone out to employees regarding tax deferred or tax-free savings for health care expenditures related to health savings accounts. She urged listeners to check their benefit allowance to see if money has been set aside for planned future purchases of doctors’ visits and prescriptions. Only those who failed to update their health savings accounts would have received this email.
Several different discussions were lost during this portion of the meeting due to audio issues.
Menghini offered to send out Jessica Pyjas’ work/life updates following the meeting.
The Chair welcomed Kurt Montgomery, the new President of the State Employees’ Association of North Carolina (SEANC), SEANC Executive Director Ardis Watkins, and Chair of the SEANC Public Education Committee Mark Dearmon. Montgomery noted that he had begun his work on behalf of employees here with the Employee Forum at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in 1996. He praised James Holman for involving him in different initiatives, including work with the local SEANC district 25. He also praised Forum Chair Emeritus Charles Streeter as a good mentor who helped him advance to the position he holds now. He asked members of SEANC District 25 to come forward and be recognized.
Ardis Watkins noted her status as a “Double Tar Heel,” meaning she felt at home. She noted the many fires that SEANC is dealing with now, including the issues of legislative language addressing employees of UNC Health and ECU Health Care. She said that this language states that as of January, new employees of these organizations would no longer have as an option the traditional defined benefit of the State Employee Retirement System.
Watkins said that this change in the law was a big deal on a number of levels. She said that no one has acknowledged authoring this portion of legislation, which came from the state senate. These new employees would have to go to some optional retirement plan as opposed to the State Retirement System plan. She asked assembled Human Resources personnel for help answering questions concerning this legislation.
Possible effects of the legislation could include a minimum of a one-billion-dollar liability on the State Retirement System plan. She asked who would pay for this liability at the end of the day. She said that employees enrolled in the State plan (TSERS) would likely be affected by this change. Many of these employees do not have a lot of money and thus selected the TSERS defined benefit plan.
Watkins noted the move of corporate America away from defined benefit plans to defined contribution plans such as 401(k) plans, which do not provide the certainty of a defined benefit plan to enrollees. She said that 91% of university employees earning less than $41,000/year opted to stay in the defined benefit plan and forego the defined contribution plan.
Someone decided to remove this option from newly hired UNC and ECU Health Care employees. Watkins worried that no one has been educating employees about what is at risk for them in the defined contribution plan.
Watkins said that SEANC will likely challenge the legality of this language, harkening back to Governor Easley’s escrowing of state retirement funds which was stopped by a SEANC lawsuit from 2001. The court found that the movement of funds statutorily designated from one place to another place was unconstitutional and barred the practice. She added that SEANC’s lawyers believe there is potentially even a violation of the emoluments clause in how this legislation will work.
Still, presenting these legal arguments will take time. In the meantime, Watkins said, damage will occur to the TSERS system as less money will come into the system with all of the people who have retired already drawing out on their pensions. She recalled that the 6% of salary from those working goes to fund the pension for retirees in TSERS. With this legislative change, Watkins predicted that there would be no cost-of-living adjustments and could lead to questions about the soundness of the TSERS system.
Watkins noted that the TSERS system in North Carolina has perennially ranked in the top three in the country in terms of asset to liability ratio. With this legislation, Watkins worried the TSERS system will join some of the less steady retirement systems in the country.
Watkins noted other questions regarding the legislation, namely 1) if an employee has 20+ years of State service, could that employee retire from TSERS then return as a new employee under the new retirement plan. If this practice is allowed, would it not place an immediate strain on the TSERS program? And 2) if an employee on the new system leaves short-term disability and must resign to go onto long-term disability, do they have their health insurance provided? She said that there are perhaps 17 questions of this nature that she described as “pretty vital.”
Watkins noted other questions that have been asked by lawyers with the Treasurer’s Office to Wesley Burks, CEO of UNC Health, and Philips Rogers of the ECU Health Care System. Specifically, how and from where will the $1 billion liability be made up in TSERS? She said that the legislation risks the tax status of both retirement systems, with the possibility that the IRS could terminate the TSERS program altogether. Watkins asked why legislators would risk people’s retirement for a reason that no one will even own up to?
Additionally, the legislature also passed a new public records statute that prohibits release of public records from that body for this purpose. She assumed that UNC and ECU would be happy to comply with Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests.
Becci Menghini said that her office would need to confer with its colleagues at the UNC System Office and the university’s legislative liaisons to get a better sense of this situation. She refused to pretend she had answers when she did not have them. She said that it is in everyone’s best interest to ensure that all employees are best positioned to want to stay here and be able to stay here through retirement.
Menghini felt cautious about any language pitting university officials against the legislature. She wanted to be certain to obtain the facts about what came out of this legislation and how it impacts our ability to ensure employees get the benefits they entirely deserve.
Menghini pledged to do all possible to answer these questions raised by employees who report to the university so that they can make decisions that make sense for their families. However, she could not promise anything at this point and she really did not want to be pitted in opposition to the legislature or any of the parties to this action. She saw her job as looking after the well-being of the community here and she pledged to do that for the remainder of her time in this position.
Watkins appreciated Menghini’s remarks. She said that she did not wish to pit Menghini against the legislature or against SEANC. She observed that SEANC exists so that members can have a voice that they cannot necessarily otherwise feel comfortable using. She granted that this makes SEANC “have to be a little bit of a pain sometimes.” Watkins observed that the mutual problem that SEANC and the university have is that neither have answers to these questions she had raised earlier.
Watkins was uncertain as to who is pushing this legislation and doubted that the impetus came from the UNC Human Resources department. However, she said that the legislation will potentially affect everyone listening to the meeting that morning.
An employee noted a frustration while housekeepers were coming together to petition for better salaries. This employee felt frustrated at not knowing the best avenue to raise direct concerns, because raising certain issues with the university doesn’t do a lot of good when these decisions are made elsewhere. This employee hoped to see flowcharts or the like to direct employees the best way to direct their questions to ensure their concerns are getting to their legislative representatives.
Shayna Hill recalled her recent assumption of the UNC System Staff Assembly Chair position. She noted that she tends to cry at injustice in the world and had decided to spend her last years at the university in this role as Staff Assembly Chair. Hill said that she is the person to talk with about bringing these things forward to the Board of Governors, which is very close to the legislature. She promised that in this role, she would do her best to keep employees informed. She would provide the Board’s meeting schedule and livestream information to delegates to hear when these conversations will occur.
Hill recalled that her first Board meeting on the Committee on University Personnel (CUP) in November saw that group vote on the rule 300 changes to university policy, which in effect is the end of the process of discussion. These changes will be voted on via the consent agenda in January and thus solidified. Hill thought that she should have received information on these proposed changes prior to the November meeting, however she did not receive this information.
In response, she called a special session with the Executive Committee of the Staff Assembly asking UNC System Human Resources officers to clarify these changes. She then asked for a special meeting of the entire body to spread this information further. Hill said that she wanted employees to participate in these conversations as these meetings are public.
These meetings are where employees get a voice and start to write resolutions sharing concerns and the reasons for these concerns. Hill asked for help creating these resolutions and thus noted the Special Session of the Staff Assembly will take place December 15th at 10 a.m. She asked that attendees find the time to be present to hear firsthand these changes from the UNC System Office. From that point, the Staff Assembly will then decide what it will do from there because these changes will receive a final vote via consent agenda before the Board of Governors in January. Hill clarified that she does not have official standing as a member of the Board of Governors, so another member of that body would need to pull these changes from the consent agenda for further discussion.
Hill said that this is a starting point for delegates to have a voice in conjunction with SEANC and with people like Menghini who may have some of the same questions raised that morning regarding the TSERS system. Hill said that this meeting represents the chance for employees to have a voice. She promised to call these special sessions of the Assembly every month if necessary.
Watkins said that employees have asked for more transparency on this topic and would like to see the question raised in local news organizations. She did not understand why the question has not received more attention and said that people cannot be motivated regarding a concern if they do not know what is occurring.
Watkins said that SEANC would work quickly on a virtual town hall to find answers to employee questions on the TSERS changes. She asked that university officials take back this request for immediate consideration. She noted the potential devastation from these changes not just for state employees but for the entire State of North Carolina. She also noted that other states have attempted similar changes but were forced to back out of these changes because they would be such a disaster.
Watkins asked if all assembled could work to pull this effort for a town hall together. She said that the university is not powerless in this situation and could have asked for a fuller set of explanations on November 29th when the legislature returned for special session. She said that answers would likely emerge from this town hall.
The Chair thanked Montgomery, Watkins, and Dearmon for their remarks and for their work lobbying on behalf of state employees. She said that oftentimes employee comments to SEANC are critical in making sure the little guy on campus is protected. She looked forward to continuing these conversations in the new year along with other discussion of the change in the State Health Plan administrator in 2025.
The Chair noted that the January general meeting will occur Wednesday, January 10th, and the Vice Chancellors’ representatives’ meeting will occur Thursday, January 11th. She asked committee chairs to submit updates for their groups to her via email for distribution with this meeting.
At this point, the Forum and SEANC presented door prizes to in-person and to Zoom attendees. The Chair praised the Forum Executive Committee for its work planning the day’s in-person meeting. In the meeting’s “It Takes a Village” section, she recognized the presence of the Rebecca Clark Award winner for 2024, Robin Lee.
In the absence of further discussion, the meeting adjourned at 11:30 a.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Matt Banks, Recording Secretary