November 1, 2024 Employee Forum Meeting Minutes
Delegates Attending: L. E. Alexander, Caley Allen, David Barnette, Randall Borror, Sharron Bouquin, David Bragg, Bonita Brown, Renata Buchanan, Shavon Carey-Hicks, Gabriela De la Cruz, Kelsey Dillon, Chassidy Dixon, Elizabeth DuBose, Alicea Easthope-Frazer, Paloma Eddowes, Adrianne Gibilisco, Sarah Green, Shayna Hill (ex officio), Keith Hines, James Holman, Rebecca Howell, Samara Howell, Brigitte Ironside, Sara Kelley, Paige Krier, Jennifer Larson, Haydée Marchese, Daysia Mardré, Arlene Medder, Mandy Melton, Vanessa Mitchell, Vanessa Morris, Katie Musgrove, Natiaya Neal, Katherine Neer, Joseph Ormond, Lisa Petersen, Allana Smith Potts, Charlissa Rice, Kelly Scurlock-Cross, Audrey Shore, Paige Simpson, Greg Smith, Sarah Smith, Jake Stallard, James Stamey, Mathew Steadman, Annetta Streater, Matthew Teal, Marianna Tilley, Susse Toro, Ally Wardell, Tiesha Williams, Jacob Womack, Natasha Young
Excused Absences: Tiffany Carver, Meagan Harvell, Ken Nesbett, Theresa Silsby
Chair Katie Musgrove called the meeting to order at 9:02 a.m. She welcomed all to the November Employee Forum meeting, noting that this meeting was held entirely via Zoom but the December meeting would be a hybrid meeting, a combination of in-person and remote. She then welcomed Provost Chris Clemens to provide the Forum’s opening roundtable remarks and updates.
Clemens said that there have been working groups over the summer. He said that the Artificial Intelligence (A.I.) group has welcomed an A.I. accelerator program. He added that one of the key projects associated with this group from deans and librarians is a studio in which one could go to build an A.I. chatbot or any other A.I. tool from a set of knowledge. The chatbot will answer questions and search, but also will be able to digest and investigate information. The studio will also teach use of more advanced ChatGPT tools as well.
Clemens said that the university is working to expand its presence in applied science and engineering. He recalled the university’s environmental science and applied physical sciences department. He discussed how the university would produce a visible career or degree program for students beyond the ones currently present.
Clemens said that the university is modelling this work with a financial and space model. All will be dependent on the university having the space in which to carry through with expansion in these areas. Clemens would soon give a report to the Chancellor on the resultant financial model next week.
Clemens observed that this year was the first of his tenure during which he felt things were proceeding at a normal cadence. He noted discussions on faculty affairs, programs for term faculty, a new faculty cluster hiring program, and a new leadership program. These programs should soon be folded into the annual schedule of announcements.
Otherwise, Clemens said that things coming from his office resemble a normal year. This year the Provost’s Office will solicit nominations for distinguished professors. His office has announced the academic research group and distinguished provost faculty leaders. In addition, his office has made announcements regarding its cluster hire programs to the people who have applied. The university has also created a faculty hiring program that funds new faculty positions in research areas that are receiving strong proposals for cluster hiring in important areas.
Clemens felt that if the Provost’s Office can accomplish these tasks, it will have a template for how all new programs would roll out in subsequent years. He hoped these new rollouts would become routine. Clemens also spoke on graduate students and their stipends, recalling that there had been some adjustment to minimum stipends. Unfortunately, Carolina still ranks near the bottom in these measures. A graduate student in Carrboro will likely have half their check gone after paying rent. Clemens said that more work must be done for these people, as well as on the issue of staff and faculty parity.
Giselle Corbie has been at the meeting of Chief Academic Officers for the UNC System this week as part of the discussion to find how to help UNC Asheville and other UNC System and community college campuses in the western part of the state. He said that there are immediate things that need doing but altogether this will be a long process. Clemens said that Carolina had made itself available to the UNC System in this effort on an ongoing basis. Part of that work will be through the Chief Academic Officer supporting Provosts in the affected area.
Clemens said that after many years of constrained tuition, the state is starting to consider allowing tuition increases as the surpluses that previously existed due to enrollment dollar increases start to disappear. Clemens said that tuition has been held flat for so long with so much inflation. These increases will be justified by measures showing that the university is being as efficient as possible.
Part of the campus’ work for the year will consider whether spaces such as classrooms are being efficiently used and scheduled. These measures will likely lead to permission for the campus to move on tuition and fees so that it can fund better salaries and operations. These increases will also respond to the Chancellor’s call for the university to grow.
Clemens noted the national elections soon to take place. He said that the university is preparing campus events for students in response. He was pleased about the creation of a new serenity space that Student Affairs is putting on.
Elizabeth Dubose raised a question concerning whether the university will work to educate and protect students from predatory loan systems while tuition increases. Clemens said that except for out-of-state students, these tuition increases would be modest. He said that the university has education opportunities for students related to financial well-being, including a Financial Well-Being curricular program which recently opened in SASB. Clemens noted the challenge arising from the Department of Education rolling out this year’s FAFSA and Pell Grants late, which led to a lot of uncertainty in student financial aid. The university will partner with the Department of Education in attempting to avoid similar delays in the future.
The Chair noted a chat comment that the serenity space will be hosted in the Carolina Union Class of 2000 lounge in the month of November. It was thought that this is a student-facing space. Rebecca Howell noted that staff have been asked to do more with less over the past few years, with many staff positions being eliminated. She wanted to ensure that the endeavors of staff are considered in efficiency measures of university operations, and that the university would not continue to ask staff to do more with less. Staff are already facing extreme burnout and have already made a huge contribution to efficiency. She did not want staff to face more burnout and shortages as the university moves forward with tuition increases.
Clemens said he had discussed this subject just this morning, noting that the university has had so many vacancies because of the inability to hire as quickly as needed as other staff were lost. He granted that there are examples of extreme efficiency throughout the university that is not really efficiency, but rather is the result of overwork due to understaffing. This phenomenon is a different thing from efficiency, Clemens said. Howell thanked Clemens for this comment, noting the very definite difference between efficiency and overwork. She recalled a personal conversation with a health care provider who insisted that she needed to stop and take FMLA time in order to protect her mental health. She added that many staff in similar situations do not or cannot follow this advice.
Howell added that staff employees care about what they do. They do not work in higher education for the money or because it is easy. Instead, staff do this work because they love their students and the people with whom they work. They really believe in this effort and may not know how to turn this reflex off because they wish to serve and serve well. So, many staff are perhaps prone to being willing to do more than they should. Clemens agreed, noting that this is a problem of jobs of passion. One must limit one’s own passion to protect oneself, but there are things that the institution simply should not be asking. Clemens said that the university should be adequately staffed. He was encouraged that his year’s budget is not asking for a cut in staffing or on new programs.
Clemens said that the state has asked the university to document efficiencies already put in place. He seconded the message that inefficiency is not the same as understaffing, which is an abuse if it goes on. He did not think that was the intent but said that it is up to the university to frame this question and respond as negotiations continue. Clemens said that the university has the freedom to describe what has occurred and what things are being done to become more efficient. He said that decision makers must be sensitive to the realities of cutting percentages of budgets without consideration for these staffing shortages. That course is not a practical way to be efficient.
Efficiency is instead more about ensuring that efforts are not duplicated, Clemens said. He had found a great deal of duplication of programs when he came to his current position. Clemens has slowly been trying to push things together to get them right. He appreciated Howell’s comments.
Forum Chair Emerita Shayna Hill thanked Clemens for his appearance. She wished to add something to Howell’s comments, noting that staff are passionate but are also finding that when they take time off for mental health, their return leaves them absolutely underwater due to skeletal crews remaining. She said that many staff have hit critical mass in which they cannot have any form of work-life balance.
Hill recalled that when she takes vacation, she is on her computer at least two hours a day even while on vacation. She also said that the university has not really been whole since people started leaving the university with the advent of COVID-19 in 2020. A lot of people eligible to retire went ahead with this option instead of staying on in uncertain times. She did not think that the university has yet found a balance in these factors. Clemens thanked Hill for her comments and said that he had observed this aspect prior to the pandemic growing even sharper as more areas became understaffed.
The Chair shared a question from the chat asking if there were any anticipated changes in guidance from South Building to individual units on campus about hybrid work. Additionally, the questioner asked Clemens’ favorite Halloween candy.
Clemens responded that hybrid work can contribute to efficiency, depending on the metrics studied. How is the university using its space? Clemens felt that the university was able to avoid some capital costs by allowing more hybrid work in some areas. He said that the university still does online teaching in ways learned during the pandemic. Space considerations may lead to different office arrangements for employees who are more offsite than onsite. Clemens added that the university can do more things with parking to become more efficient as well. Finance and Operations will look at how to measure these considerations before claiming to be efficient. Clemens said that his favorite Halloween candy was a popcorn ball made with karo syrup and food coloring distributed by a neighbor only during the holiday.
Elizabeth Dubose asked about Forum representation on the university’s sustainability initiatives. She did not think that the Forum had this representation and she was uncertain as to why. She added that A.I. affects these measures in the effort and energy involved in sustaining these platforms.
Dubose also asked about the climate crisis, noting a huge disconnect between the amount of energy needed to run and maintain all of the university’s electronic systems. She noted the lack of popular consideration for the fact that these systems require great amounts of power to run, to store, and to keep cool. She said that it does matter how this energy is made and who owns it. She said that it is important to note this energy is not an infinite resource. She asked if the university would seek sustainability in this area because the impact of the increased energy needs is becoming more apparent.
Clemens thought that this concept extends beyond campus to the national and international conversation around sustainability and climate change. He recalled reports of Microsoft opening Three Mile Island and the issue of modular nuclear resumption in this light. These efforts have been hurried along due to the need for data centers. He anticipated that electricity costs would increase. He said that the local power grid is 50% nuclear, which has not been a cheap option. North Carolina’s electricity costs12 cents/kw versus California’s 50 cents/kw meaning that these data centers would likely be constructed here. He said that this construction will become a state issue as these centers attach to a power grid that must provide capacity. How will the state accomplish this task?
As a physicist, Clemens thought that nuclear power is a carbon-free source that would run the state for around 7,000 years with the fuel currently available. He said that this course is a great idea if the state can manage the safety requirements. He noted that the United States has operated modular nuclear reactors on ships for 60 or 70 years, mostly safely.
An attendee asked what the university’s sustainability plan is right now. They recalled the webpage devoted to the Three Zeroes commitment and the work of the University’s Chief Sustainability Officer. It was uncertain how much this effort has been refreshed. Clemens pledged to take this question back to leadership and ask, as the university enters the A.I. era, what are its goals regarding sustainability. The Chair added part of this effort would be determining how much the Sustainability Office is interfacing strategically with the Chancellor’s A.I. Initiative.
Clemens said that this effort is probably valuable, but the university will do A.I. in a way that monitors costs. He said that the effort would be efficient and sustainable, as the university simply cannot afford to blow out some big visible A.I. purchase that does not get used properly. He said that one of the goals of the accelerator project focused on ensuring that people do not waste these tools by doing things inefficiently or frivolously. Clemens thought that as the university is trying to channel its efforts to be highly efficient, this effort would automatically make the university a contributor to sustainability. He said that Vice Chancellor for IT Mike Barker along with Professor of Organizational Behavior Mark McNeilly have been great at ensuring programs are designed to be sustainable.
The Chair was pleased to hear of this effort, recalling prior student suggestions to apply solar energy to power the campus. Clemens said that students apply their fees to populate buildings with solar power, with most of the campus’ solar power effort brought about in this way. He observed that at nighttime the university needs its cogeneration plant as backup. The university does meet a small percentage of its power generation needs with the coal plant through co-generation, a very efficient but coal-burning option. The university instead buys most of its electricity, spending around $70 million/year while using its coal plant to produce steam for heating and hospital uses. The Chair suggested that the Forum continue this conversation with the Chief Sustainability Officer in a future meeting.
Arlene Medder asked a question regarding the financial well-being of the university’s students. She asked how incoming students could start out with necessary financial knowledge enabling them to avoid predatory lenders. Clemens thought that the idea was to introduce this concept during student orientation as a resource, to provide some basic financial information as a component of the course and curriculum of “Thriving at Carolina,” a new required course. Every first-year student will receive knowledge about this course in at least two places in the curriculum.
Medder asked if the university could take more of a leadership role in the national dialogue about predatory lending situations. Clemens said that he would ask this question of the Vice Provost for Enrollment, Rachelle Feldman, who is known and prominent nationally. He said that UNC-Chapel Hill was called to testify about delays in the rollout of the Pell grants. Feldman may have a role in these conversations, as she is passionate and persistent about financial well-being and the university’s new financial well-being center.
Natasha Young asked about safety precautions during the week of October 7th. She recalled the statement from the student-led diversity advocate committee around the challenges that a lot of students with varying disabilities had in accessing classroom buildings around Polk Place. Given the grounding concept of accessibility in the academic buildings, students should be able to adequately access classes regardless of circumstances on campus. Young asked the kinds of conversations occurring in the Provost’s Office around ensuring that buildings were fully accessible to all students attending Carolina.
Clemens said that accessibility presents a challenge to the university, particularly in its older buildings. He noted one building that has no elevator making it accessible, meaning that no classes could be held there. He said that efforts to alleviate this problem have come from the building chair, the dean, and himself to the Office of Finance and Budget. He said that decision makers are doing as much as they can to direct funds available to renovation to take care of disability projects with a high priority. This does not mean that the university is necessarily solving all of the problems now. Instead, the university has a schedule on which it will try to address these questions as a priority.
Regarding October 7th, Clemens said that the security plan for the day was written around a specific threat to operations, not safety. Specific buildings were designated as limited access that day because the university had knowledge something was planned that would have been disruptive in those buildings. Clemens acknowledged that the execution of this plan left much to be desired in several areas.
The university did not want to announce its plans writ large, as this announcement would have led to a change in the operational plan for the disruption. Instead, the university notified students and instructors the night before that a OneCard would be required to enter certain buildings. The university did not notify administrators or staff that building doors would be locked. In addition, the university was supposed to have people there to direct others to an entrance with access for disabled students or others who needed accommodations. This plan worked but not in every case. When decision makers learned about this situation, they adjusted the plan and tried to do better.
Clemens apologized for this, saying that he thought that it was a sound plan, but the execution was not perfect. He said that the university’s decision makers would learn from this experience, and should the a similar response be required in the future, hopefully it would be carried out in a better way. He said that the university will answer the student letter, noting that university administration are aware that the plan did not succeed in every aspect. He apologized for that. Young thanked Clemens for this apology.
The Chair thanked Clemens for his remarks. Provost Clemens ended by expressing his thanks to the Chair, the Forum, and all of the staff who make this university run. He appreciated this work and urged the Forum not to hesitate to raise issues of importance. Decision makers will always listen and try to address matters whenever possible, he said. Furthermore, he said that administrators will do better when failing to do as well as they might.
The Chair noted that the quarterly finance update from Vice Chancellor of Finance and Operations Nate Knuffman would come via pre-recorded video, rather than in person. She shared her screen with the video. She also urged delegates with questions for Knuffman to save them for the scheduled Vice Chancellors’ representatives’ meeting on November 14th.
The Chair shared her screen with the video. Knuffman thanked the Chair for the invitation to do an update and said that he was sorry he could not be live at the meeting. He had a few updates, mainly about the budget process as the university begins planning for fiscal year ’25 – 26. Knuffman said that the university has published a new budget book which is available on the Finance website at https://budget.unc.edu/budget-book/. Knuffman praised the good content in the book and encouraged listeners to read it.
On another topic, Knuffman mentioned the recent restructuring in Finance and Operations, with a split of the Finance and Budget teams into two separate departments. This is a common model within higher education. Knuffman noted the increasingly difficult task of finding one person holding North Carolina-specific budget knowledge and traditional finance treasury accounting expertise.
Lindsey Farling, now Associate Vice Chancellor for Data Analysis, leads the budget team. There is a search underway for the Finance AVC with a good search committee and a strong pool of candidates. On one other note related to personnel within Finance and Operations, Chris Dobek is the new Executive Director of Transportation and Parking. Knuffman said that Dobek would be a great member of the team and he looked forward to his leadership moving forward.
Shifting gears to the budget process, Knuffman noted that Farling will lead that process for the university. The process will began earlier this year, at the beginning of October, in an effort to formalize the university’s base budget, after which a separate conversation on expansion items or new items of funding will be held. In addition, this year the university will add metrics to add context for what is occurring with the budget and telling the university’s story. These metrics will include scope and overall performance, which are difficult metrics to measure. Finding the right balance of taking the breadth of units and distilling out a couple of measures will be hard but important to do. This will be the first time through the process for the campus, but the work will help the overall process.
A larger goal for context is continuing to make progress on the maturity curve regarding how the university handles its budget process. Knuffman wants to get away from the university simply doing accounting without transparency as to the resources available. Instead, the university should keep evolving and entering discussions about what it receives for its investments. These metrics should help decision makers hold those conversations.
Regarding this particular year, the budget team believes that there will be limited funding available. The team is working through these signs to refine what dollars the university can expect to have available. In terms of budget priorities, the team is stressing fiscal responsibility, campus renewal and expansion, return on investment to the state, and empowering research excellence. These are the big priorities. Resource requests are due November 2nd and final budget submissions are due December 20th.
Knuffman said that the budget team will work with different units on campus in budget meetings through the month of December. The team will finalize all of these recommendations during January and February, ultimately bringing those to the Board of Trustees for review and approval in March. Then, final submission to the Board of Governors will occur in May.
The budget team has tighter expectations for the state budget process. State reserves will likely be depleted due to Hurricane Helene. Knuffman remarked that it is fortunate for North Carolina to have sizable reserves at the state level just to be able to help address this situation. The team does not expect as much recurring funding as previously available, with a bit more difficult environment for an LSI.
The UNC System is beginning its process to identify legislative priorities. Knuffman expects continued discussions around performance funding, NC Promise, and how institutions are funded. These will be topics talked about at the legislature from the UNC System side.
Switching away from the budget to look ahead to the Board of Trustees meeting next week, Knuffman said that the meeting will be big for tuition and fees, which are brought to the Board every November. The big items this year include a sizable, 10% increase proposal for nonresident students. Knuffman said that looking at the demand for places at UNC-Chapel Hill, the demand in the overall number of applications, plus the gap at where the university is priced relative to peers, all point to room for a sizable increase in tuition.
In addition, the budget team will propose a fee increase over the next four years to help fund a new campus recreation and wellness facility. Knuffman had spent time this summer with a working group looking at the physical master plan of campus. The building that rose to the top in terms of urgency was the campus recreation facility. The current facility is increasingly not competitive, even before the university enters a phase of potential enrollment growth.
Knuffman thanked the many people who serve on these various committees for their work in a robust process that takes time. He said that space utilization will also likely come up at the November Board of Trustees meeting, with some interest in the strategic initiatives committee meeting on that topic. Knuffman will discuss what Finance has been doing to better manage space, improving data, governance, and discussing next steps on how the university might motivate optimization on campus.
Knuffman gave a huge thank you to the Grounds and Building Services teams for the hard work to make the campus look so great for the October Chancellor Installation event and University Day, featuring new native plantings at the Old Well. These improvements took an incredible amount of work and looked great.
The campus is undergoing a lot of visible construction, with work done on the Kenan-Flagler expansion, Bingham Hall, the Memorial Hall roof, and the Carrington demolition project. Knuffman said that the campus is entering a phase of more capital projects and construction to address campus growth resultant from increased enrollment. More of this work will occur around campus. Knuffman praised the work of Carolina’s facilities team, noting how proud administrators are of the work there and how exceptional it has been.
With that, Knuffman thanked the Forum again for the opportunity to provide updates. The Chair once again invited delegates to submit questions following Knuffman’s presentation via the Qualtrics poll sent yesterday for the November 14th Vice Chancellors’ representatives’ meeting.
Next, the Chair was pleased to welcome the university’s new Executive Director of Transportation and Parking Chris Dobek for a meet and greet session with the Forum. Dobek thanked the Chair for the invitation. He recalled his previous experience at NC State University, working eight years with its Transportation department.
Dobek was thrilled to be present at the meeting this morning. He recognized his Associate Director, Chassem Anderson, and he asked for a pass for his first meeting as he had been in the position for only a few weeks. Dobek said that he did not know everything yet, but he would certainly follow up on topics raised in the near future. The Chair noted her previous relationship with Cheryl Stout, Dobek’s predecessor, and her participation with the advisory committee on transportation (ACT) this past year. She said ACT has been a great tool and resource to provide the prospective of different constituencies and she encouraged Dobek to make use of it moving forward. The Chair also noted that the parking appeals committee is housed in the Employee Forum. Any parking appeal to the initial decision made in Transportation and Parking comes to the appeals committee that is put together by the Forum, which includes staff, faculty, and student representatives.
Dobek mentioned that the advisory committee will reconvene in January in light of the holidays and exam schedules given student involvement. Information should be forthcoming about a meeting date and time in January.
Natasha Young asked a question related to parking pass allotment, granting that these issues can be very complicated. She asked what advice Dobek would have for staff hired in mid-year after allocation of parking permits or a new staff member having a hard time accessing a parking pass who might need one. She asked if there is a process or anything that they can do with central parking to obtain a pass? Dobek said that any new employee should work with their parking liaison to obtain a pass. He added that parking coordinators may inform people in this situation about the Commuter Alternative Program, which provides alternatives while waiting for a space to open up.
An attendee asked about data and efficiency, specifically about vendor data for gates. Dobek said that it has been a long process to install gates. Currently, license plate reader (LPR) cameras are on the gates, allowing Transportation to better monitor occupancy. He added that Transportation is concerned about parking deck capacity and the creation of as many parking opportunities as possible. He said the only way to effectively do that is by compiling the data necessary to make these calculations. Obtaining this data on true occupancy of decks ties directly to university space studies.
Transportation and Parking also realizes the changing landscape given hybrida and remote work and is looking to change its parking structure in response. Dobek said that Transportation is evaluating how decks are used on a regular basis. Sarah Smith noted the expansion of the Kenan-Flagler Business School and Dobek’s comments on efficiency and space usage. Smith said that the school is expanding because it has more staff than it could hold in its campus. The school uses multiple far-flung buildings, including on East 54. The school has found that the hybrid model works well because there are not enough offices for the staff and faculty currently employed.
Kenan-Flagler’s space sharing led to the question of parking. Smith said that there are currently employees who are not on campus every single day but under the new model must pay for a parking space every single day of the week. She asked how this policy works with the efficiency that Provost Clemens discussed earlier. Smith thought of using hybrid work as a way to enhance community and not to require everyone at all times to be in the same space, assuming that some parking spaces could probably be utilized by two people with proper coordination. She granted that her question described a new challenge since hybrid work has only become popular these last couple of years. Smith asked how Transportation and Parking is looking at this new challenge and possibility.
Dobek said that in his previous role at NC State, once the license plate readers (LPR) were configured, permit sales were then based on the hybrid work schedule. He said that here at UNC-Chapel Hill, implementation of LPR is a bit behind that at NC State. With this LPR data, Transportation will be able to monitor what vehicles are on campus, the frequency of visits, and the peaks. Dobek noted the delicate balance between the daily and weekly permits. With the help of his team and the new technology, he was confident that Transportation should be able to maximize parking opportunities for all here.
Chassem Anderson said in response to a chat question that regulations prohibit construction of structured parking decks outside the university master plan. He recalled conversations around four years ago regarding a second Jackson Deck behind the current Jackson Deck. However, given current South Campus development, he did not believe that this plan was still on the books. Dobek added that Transportation is planning to bring gate arms down 24/7 once the implementation of various phases takes place. He said that it was embarrassing to admit, but Transportation relies on four or five different pieces of parking software to run its LPR machine. The goal is to streamline so that the task requires only one set of software. He asked for a bit more time to make the tweaks and to tighten the system up. The Chair applauded Dobek’s progress as of week five in his tenure.
Mathew Steadman asked about parking decks not being well equipped to accommodate the significantly larger vehicles common on today’s roads. He said that between the large trucks and other hitches, there is barely a car-wide lane to travel at some times in the parking decks. He asked if there had been discussions about maximum vehicle lengths, particularly in the parking decks, where there is not a lot of space to maneuver even in the best of times. Dobek thanked Steadman for his question. He said that this subject has not come up in the list of priorities shared to this point. He said that a common response is to create compact parking spaces and large parking decks.
Dobek observed that people drive through the decks pretty quickly. He ventured that there is some opportunity for education about user parking and driving in the decks. He would add Steadman’s comment to the list of items. He added that within the Dogwood deck for patient parking at UNC Hospitals, there is a designated area for larger vehicles to park when it comes to height, but not length.
The Chair shared a question from the chat feature from Annetta Streater. She encouraged Streater to submit that question through the Vice Chancellors’ representatives’ meeting, because she thought that Nate Knuffman and his team in Finance and Operations are the best people to answer inquiries regarding future Odum Village space utilization. Streater reiterated another question related to patients parking in the staff deck when the gate is open. Dobek thanked Streater for this question and he said his team is working to resolve the issue. He said that Transportation personnel have been out in the field all last week with vendors checking equipment and configurations, again with the long-term goal of having gate arms in the down position.
Sarah Green asked a question as an employee who takes the bus. She said that the move to $8 park and ride parking has made this service less accessible. Many more people are now parking at the free spaces at the Friday Center as a result. Green recalled being told that the parking situation at the Friday Center is a “hot mess,” with people not being clear in what direction they should drive, people getting stuck or parking in weird places apart from where the actual bus stops, now that more of the lot is being used. She asked what communication with the Friday Center team looks like especially since more space there is used for parking.
Dobek deferred to Chassem Anderson on this question. Anderson said that a situation does exist in which more customers are using park and ride from the Friday Center. Some of these customers are parking in the drive lanes, making the lot as a whole more difficult to navigate. He said that the frequency of stops of the FCX bus at the main lot is greater than the bus that picks up customers at Friday Center South and the Hendrick building. Transportation officials are in talks with Chapel Hill Transit to increase the frequency of buses running at the latter location.
The Chair thanked Dobek and Anderson for their remarks that morning. She was looking forward to working with the pair in the future. She then welcomed Vice Chancellor for Equal Opportunity and Human Resources and Compliance Becci Menghini to present the Forum’s customary Human Resources update.
Menghini reminded listeners to vote in the upcoming elections. She encouraged employees to make their offices and departments as serene as possible, and also to leverage leave should they need to use it. She said that the upcoming holiday breaks are approaching, with the prospect of employees working the voluntary closure days with the approval of their supervisor. She said that the idea behind a longer break is to have everyone off and able to return a little more refreshed and relaxed.
Moving to State Health Plan open enrollment, Menghini was pleased to say that 96.3 percent of employees completed their open enrollment, as opposed to around 520 employees who did not. She said that appeals of failure to enroll are possible but are rarely successful. Menghini noted the amount of individual outreach that Human Resources did to remind people of their enrollment responsibilities. She was pleased with the percentage of enrollees and hoped to see these numbers rise moving forward.
Employee Appreciation Day in October was a great success, Menghini said. She hoped that employees had the chance to interact with coworkers and enjoy some employee gifts that day. She thanked employees who contributed art and designs for the event, as well as volunteers who worked at the departmental tables that day.
Menghini recalled that many delegates were involved in several efforts to improve employee hiring. She said that Human Resources is completing an exercise to improve faculty hiring, following initial efforts on behalf of staff. Additional updates to this exercise will come out in the coming weeks and again in January. She then offered to take questions from the Forum.
The Chair recalled an employee question concerning staff financial resources for employees who may have been personally affected by Hurricane Helene and its impacts. She knew that the university has employees who work remotely from the western part of the state. She also knew that other UNC System institutions have made faculty and staff disaster relief grant funds available for application, similar to student disaster relief funds. She asked if there were any plans to create a similar fund for impacted UNC-Chapel Hill employees.
Menghini did not know if the university has made broader funds available for this purpose. She said that OHR has sent communications related to extended benefits and offerings to those who are known to be impacted, in an effort to be responsive. She did not know if OHR has received these types of requests or if a funding source is even available. Senior Associate Vice Chancellor Linc Butler did not think that a funding source like the one described was available. The Chair asked if funds were available for students affected by the Hurricane. Menghini believed that the Dean of Students office is accepting requests through the Care team. She ventured that the student emergency fund may be a source for meeting these requests.
Sarah Smith relayed an employee’s situation requesting FMLA provisions. She learned that the process requires a signed note from a medical practitioner of some sort. She understood that practitioners are now charging for these signatures, perhaps a step too far for someone needing to request FMLA assistance experiencing an overburdened life in some way. Smith realized that the university does not control the financial practices of these medical practitioners. However, she suggested that it would be beneficial to look at alternatives to requiring this paperwork from FMLA applicants. She thought that this requirement is an unnecessary burden that could be replaced with something else. The person in question had heard a charge of $25/letter, which seems to add to emotional burden and frustration.
Menghini replied confirming a conversation with her therapist in which there was a $15 charge to complete this paperwork that is not covered by co-payments or insurance. She was uncertain as to whether this charge is payable via Flex benefits. Butler said that the provision of FMLA is a federally regulated program because of the series of reporting requirements associated with it and other institutional obligations. He did not think that the university could waive the letter requirement. He would work to find if the charges are covered by NC Flex.
Menghini took a moment to praise Sherene Jenkins, who pretty much independently planned Employee Appreciation Day this year. She urged delegates to thank her directly, given the opportunity. She closed by thanking delegates and employees for all that they do.
The Chair welcomed Senior Work/Life Manager Jessica Pyjas to present customary wellness updates. Pyjas noted that the annual healthy cooking demo would take place on November 20th this year, earlier than usual, with a focus on vegetarian and vegan cooking. Senior Executive Chef Michael Gueiss and Dietitian Lee July will join the group to provide nutrition information and cooking instructions for the various plant-based recipes.
Pyjas described other wellness opportunities available to employees in her wellness update. She said that the annual Jingle Bell Jog will take place on Friday, December 6th, just after the Forum general meeting that day. She invited employees to participate and to wear costumes as has been traditional. The Jog will also feature an opportunity to donate nonperishable food items to the Carolina Cupboard or to the Orange County Animal Shelter.
Pyjas also described a number of commercial discounts available to UNC employees available through the Working Advantage Employee Discount program. The Chair said that she would share updates with the Forum in an email following the meeting.
The Chair moved to the consent agenda, which includes approval of the October meeting minutes. The DEI, Staff Assembly, Blood Drive, Community Service, Leadership, Education, and Career Development, and Membership and Engagement committees all asked for time to make committee reports separate from the consent agenda. Annetta Streater moved to approve the October consent agenda, with Arlene Medder seconding. The motion was approved by acclamation.
The Chair said that the Community Service committee has begun the food drive and also will be active in the provision of Hurricane Helene relief. Renata Buchanan said that the winter Blood Drive will take place December 11th, with an emailed notice going out to the UNC community soon.
- E. Alexander reported that the next round of professional development grant applications will open next week. She asked delegates interested in reviewing applications in mid-November to contact her or Shavon Carey-Hicks for more information.
Keith Hines said that the Membership and Engagement committee will soon survey committee chairs regarding delegate attendance at their meetings throughout the semester. Shayna Hill said that the UNC System Staff Assembly full body meeting would take place next Thursday and Friday at UNC School of the Arts. Individuals interested in participating should register to attend via Zoom.
The Chair noted that the Staff Advisory Committee to the Chancellor meeting will next take place on November 5th. There also will be a Vice Chancellors’ representatives’ meeting on November 14th. Delegates should have received invitations to this meeting via Qualtrics.
The Chair then welcomed the Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) committee to speak on a proposed resolution brought forward to the Forum on first reading. The DEI committee will discuss the resolution in more detail at its November 4th meeting but wanted to give delegates a chance to consider the document in advance.
Sarah Smith noted her role as Assistant Director of Civic Engagement at the UNC Y, located in the Campus Y building on the main campus. She also serves as an advisor for the Campus Y and the Disability Advocates Committee (DAC).
Smith recalled Natasha Young’s earlier question concerning what Provost Clemens termed the security measures taken during the week of October 7th around access to buildings. From her perspective as a building occupant of the Campus Y and an advisor to the DAC, she worried about the students in this space who have a wide range of disabilities. She said that her building is used by community members and features a coffee shop and employee lounge.
Smith recalled that on the week of October 7th, all buildings abetting Polk Place were put on OneCard access only for the entire week. She recalled Provost Clemens’ point that no notice to staff was given, only an email sent to students and faculty in the impacted buildings the Sunday evening before. Staff were left off of all communication.
Smith had thought that this oversight was perhaps accidental but gathered that the oversight was intentional given the remarks heard earlier in the day’s meeting. She lamented that staff did not have a chance to troubleshoot or prepare a plan to best support students or employees who access these buildings.
As the day of October 7th progressed, Smith began to realize that this oversight meant a lot regarding access to the building, creating challenges as students, staff, or faculty members in need of assistance were stuck both inside and outside buildings until someone opened a building. Smith said that she has video documentation of students being stuck in these spaces until someone could come to help them leave a building, because the accessibility buttons were shut off. She understood that even with the OneCard, upon tapping it to the accessibility button, one could hear the button trying to work but doors did not open.
A student shared an experience in which police officers were attempting to play with their service dog while it was working, so the dog could not guide them. Smith said that a few students shared with her that due to a PTSD diagnosis they were unable to attend class that week with the increased police presence on campus. She found these recitations sad and hard to listen to.
Smith said that these experiences were reported early in the week to the EOC, the Vice Chancellor of Student Affairs, and the Provost’s Office. However, nothing had been done to improve the situation by the end of the week. No changes were made, and no apologies were offered, a development that Smith said was upsetting to her personally. Thus, she thought that the Forum should take some action in this area.
Previously, the DEI committee achieved approval of a proclamation in May 2023 lamenting deferred maintenance at the university leading to students being unable to access classrooms and being stuck in dorm rooms lacking working elevators. Smith also raised concerns around emergency management planning after tornado warnings just prior to the October 7th week.
Smith thanked the DEI committee for its work on the resolution, most notably Sarah Green, Natasha Young, Katie Musgrove, Annetta Streater, and Jacob Womack. She said that the committee intends to bring its resolution to the Forum for first reading in November, with discussion of differing perspectives lending to the final consideration of the resolution in December on second reading.
Sarah Green interjected that this resolution does indeed seek action from university administration, in response to an ongoing issue which employees have seen and experienced. Green said that staff in these buildings were intentionally excluded, and their safety and access were not considered for what Provost Clemens referred to as an “operational need.”
Green asked for input from delegates on the resolution and presumed that the issue goes farther than the Polk Place area of campus. She invited employees to connect committee members with interested parties from all parts of campus with similar concerns. She added that the resolution is only for presentation on first reading, and delegates can take other actions in this area beyond voting to approve the resolution.
Jacob Womack, the Forum Parliamentarian, confirmed that committee members make a motion for the body to consider the resolution. Following this step, the Forum enters first reading and which point the floor is open to debate. Accordingly, Elizabeth Dubose moved that potential resolution 24-04 concerning accessibility concerns be considered on first reading, seconded by Arlene Medder. The motion was approved by acclamation.
Sarah Smith then read the first reading of the resolution. At this point, the Chair opened the floor for discussion. Tiesha Williams asked about the officer who was said to distract the service dog that Smith mentioned earlier. Williams asked if this student would be comfortable submitting this information anonymously via the Public Safety website if they have a complaint. Smith thought that the student was willing to send a formal complaint. To this point, the student has lodged a complaint with the DAC, but Smith would not be averse to putting the complaint through the police format if the student agreed. Williams said that the student could pursue either course.
Williams then asked about the section of the resolution regarding reallocating funding from armed police officers in Section 5B. Williams said that the Police use their own money and thus, did not agree with this section of the resolution. Smith thanked Williams for the relevant perspective on this issue.
The Chair confirmed the document’s status as a resolution asking for action from the university on this issue. She said that delegates could add comments and changes to the resolution in a Teams link following the meeting. The DEI committee would discuss the day’s findings at its November 4th meeting. Annetta Streater thought that the reallocation section of the resolution needs more discussion and clarity. Smith said that the resolution is asking for a review of not only security changes, but also increasing training, especially on interactions with people and their service animals.
Regarding reallocation of funds, Smith said that the impetus for this section arose from the increase in surveillance especially around Polk Place. Committee members asked that some of the funding that has already been allocated in the direction of increased police activity, cameras, and tightened general security be used towards mental health safety and crisis intervention teams. Smith said that the resolution does not ask for less security or a reduced police presence. She offered to rework this section of the resolution.
Concerning the source of these funds, Smith recalled last year’s administrative move to eliminate DEI committees, councils, teams, and personnel, with this money intended to go towards more police funding. She said that the clause derives from this previous move. She said that the committee understands that there is a belief that more police will keep the campus safer. The committee asked for less armaments and more mental health and preventative care funds allocated.
Streater thanked Smith for this background. She thought that the resolution needs more work and clarity. She suggested that there be funding allocated to provide mental health for first responders, rather than moving money from UNC Police to support either the training of or make mental health available to first responders. Streater thus suggested not a replacement in funding but rather an expansion. She also suggested further discussion with Tiesha Williams regarding the resolution. She hoped that the resolution would support asking for these funds rather than reallocating funds from one area to another.
Streater also thought that there are views behind this item that need to come to the forefront to ensure that the Forum has buy-in on those views. She said that the reallocation of funds from police or campus safety creates an entirely different message that the Forum must be clear that it wants to send. She said that this underlying message and the ask are different, conflicting items at this point.
Natasha Young recalled that Provost Clemens’ comments indicated that part of the procedures implemented for the week of October 7th were in response to anticipated action on campus that would interrupt operations. She thought that the DEI committee is attempting to address this anticipation or assumption of a disruption in light of the fact that students with disabilities were harmed during that week by not being able to access class. She thought that the issue is multi-faceted and wondered whether policing and mental health advocacy are indeed two separate items.
Thus, Young wondered if it would make more sense to be specific in the resolution regarding actions of police officers that inadvertently caused some students with disabilities to not access their classes that week. She had also met with students with PTSD and or mental health diagnoses that require consideration in these situations. She wondered whether the Forum had focused on two things that are somewhat related but not clearly related through the rest of the resolution.
Keith Hines asked if the police officers in question were carrying out the duties assigned to them by university administration. He did not want the attention to lay with the individual police officers when it may have been administration which told those officers to do this. He said that employees have all been in situations in which they have been told to do something that they did not want to do. Hines said that administrators may have made this choice to lock down these buildings or limit access to a certain subset of people. Responsibility should not be allocated to officers who carried out an inappropriate administrative order, Hines thought. He did not want to blame police officers for something beyond their control.
Smith thanked Hines for his comments. She did not know if there is a way to find out what the specific directives were. She agreed that the goal of the resolution is not to call out individuals. Instead, the resolution is meant to look at a system lacking oversight. Smith recalled specific students who shared a secondhand story of being followed from their classroom door from Polk Place by a UNC Police officer. She did not know what particular colors or uniform this officer may have worn. However, she thought that changing the resolution language from police to security would help reinforce that the resolution does not intend to make an anti-police statement. Instead, the resolution seeks to address safety and harm to students and community members. Smith said that lack of both ready entrance and exit paths led to students being locked inside of buildings during the week of October 7th, a very unsafe occurrence.
Smith asked the committee to consider tabling section 5B while finding a better way to state its point here. She appreciated all of the chat and Teams comments during the discussion of the resolution. Tiesha Williams asked Sarah Green to reach out to discuss possible miscommunication or lack of understanding in some clauses of the resolution. Williams wanted to know more about the disability buttons. However, Williams did not know that staff were not included in the email communication, because that communication did not come from UNC Police. Williams thought that there was miscommunication about people needing to access these buildings.
Sarah Green appreciated Williams’ comments and said that she would seek further clarification from Williams in an attempt to capture the point of view of a person knowledgeable about these concerns. Smith added that the intention of resolution writers is not to criticize police, but rather to hold administration accountable, because it was in the planning that the oversight occurred. She agreed with Hines’ comments that the folks on the ground are doing what they have been told to do.
Smith was frustrated that people who asked to be included on these committees told the administrators to think through the implementation of such a plan. Administrators indicated that they would but did not, and then these errors occurred. Students were told after the fact that they should have talked with emergency planning regarding this plan, but Smith did not think that this responsibility lies with the students but rather with the administration. She emphasized that it should be in writing that students, staff, and faculty be considered when these plans are made.
Mathew Steadman recalled from discussion that things did not go as they intended them to go. He said that similar episodes occur in departments when buildings are shut but the information informing employees did not go out when it should have. He recalled this had been a random occurrence on a random day in his department.
Steadman asked how to ensure everyone knows what they need to know in a timely manner, even if initial notification is not sent to staff. He said that there was a breakdown of faculty communication in the Polk Place buildings as they did not inform their staff in a timely manner. Furthermore, he asked how the university holds all of its layers accountable to ensure everyone knows what they need to know in order to work safely.
He thought that every department, school, and unit should assign someone responsible to ensure coworkers receive relevant information in a timely and efficient manner. He said these employees could be responsible for informing everyone who accesses a building of this news. Thus, he thought that there is a local responsibility on departments, schools, and units as well. The Chair agreed, stating that 95% of the time a staff person would be the boots on the ground person who could communicate this news to their respective constituencies and know who would be impacted by such news.
Jacob Womack clarified that the UNC OneCard office, not UNC Police, is responsible for assigning OneCard access and controlling various door openers. He thought that the language should reflect that there are times when a building needs to be locked and its doors should not let people enter. The Chair said that buildings at all times should allow exit.
Womack added that the door openers connected to OneCard system are very expensive and time-consuming to install. He said that this installation would fall on campus facilities units, which have been swamped with work since the shooting incident last August. The Chair agreed, stating that her office obtained a quote for a OneCard reader that costs $11,000, with the new type of readers possibly costing even more money.
Womack said that installing readers on more than 50 campus building doors would entail a capital improvement project, which becomes state controlled and slows down even more. These things occur slowly because of state law. He appreciated the idea of prioritizing situations from a budgetary and operational standpoint and hoped the point would be emphasized in the resolution.
The Chair said that she would share the resolution draft and the chat comments from the meeting. She asked that delegates read the resolution and provide comments in the Teams document towards the Monday November 4th DEI committee meeting on this subject. The resolution’s second reading incorporating all of this feedback will occur at the December 6th general meeting. The Chair thanked the DEI committee for its work on the document, particularly Smith, Green, and Young.
The Chair opened the agenda’s “It Takes a Village” section of the agenda, asking delegates to share their praise or appreciation of fellow staff employees. Arlene Medder thanked Facilities Services for their work keeping leaves off campus sidewalks, thus helping prevent her from falling. Elizabeth Dubose praised the partnership with the UNC Botanical Gardens. She was also grateful to have the opportunity to contribute feedback during the School of Medicine interview process for applicants. Keith Hines praised Isothermal Community College for allowing him to use space to work with internet following Hurricane Helene. Rebecca Howell thanked everyone for their support of the Employee Forum. She urged employees to hang in there and take care of themselves. The Chair thanked volunteers at all three of the Forum’s Employee Appreciation Day tables—Forum, Blood Drive, and Voter Information— for making that event fun and useful.
In the absence of further discussion, Keith Hines moved that the meeting adjourn seconded by Arlene Medder. The meeting adjourned by acclamation at 11:24 a.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Matt Banks, Recording Secretary