Skip to main content


December 2, 1998

Delegates Present Forrest Aiken Brenda Ambrose-Fortune Betty Averette
Terry Barker Maxcine Barnes Jeffrey Beam Peggy Berryhill
Linwood Blalock Connie Boyce Mary Braxton Tommy Brickhouse
Lucille Brooks Sheila Burnett Gwen Burston Denise Childress
Jean Coble Mitch Copeland Joyce Dalgleish Linda Drake
Kathy Dutton Elizabeth Evans Linda Ford Linwood Futrelle
Betty Geer Karen Geer Dorothy Grant Jennifer Henderson
Al Jeter Bettye Jones Steve Jones LaEula Joyner
Charlotte Kilpatrick Joanne Kucharski Ruthie Lawson Bobbie Lesane
Ken Litowsky Denise Mabe Dee Dee Massey Jill Mayer
Eileen McGrath Anne Montgomery Jackie Overton Ken Perry
Vicki Pineles Lynn Ray Rickey Robinson Frances Rountree
Bob Schreiner Stephanie Stadler Jane Stine Cindy Stone
Nancy Tannenbaum Terry Teer Dail White Verdell Williams
Carol Worrell Laurie Charest = Ex-Officio Delagates Absent
Martha Barbour Pat Bigelow William Carroll Monisia Farrington
Sherry Graham Lorrie Hall Michael Hawkins Janice Lee
Lesa McPherson Sharon Windsor Alternates Present Kim Gardner
Connie Dean McPherson Guests Eric Ferreri Michael Hooker
Constance Murray Derek Poarch Scott Ragland Jim Ramsey
Jacki Resnick



Call to Order, Welcome to Guests

Chair Linwood Futrelle called the meeting to order at 9:30 a.m., noting that the assembly was larger due to the presence of its incoming, continuing, and outgoing Delegates. He took a moment to recognize the stellar jobs that Vice Chair Jeffery Beam and Secretary Lucille Brooks have done in their positions behind the scenes. In addition, he recognized Constance Murray of Facilities Services and Tommy Brickhouse of University Mail Services, two of around a dozen individuals who had been recognized by the Forum Recognition & Awards committee for “behind the scenes” contributions to the Forum’s work.

The Chair introduced Chancellor Michael Hooker to provide opening remarks, adding that the Forum would present certificates of recognition to outgoing Delegates following these remarks.

Opening Remarks

Hooker wished the assembly a happy holiday season. He said that the Forum had proven itself a significant representative body in the course of University affairs over the last three and a half years. Hooker recalled that when he had assumed his post as Chancellor the Forum had seemed a somewhat fragile entity, having been established in 1992 by Chancellor Paul Hardin.

Hooker said that one of his goals upon taking office was to empower University staff, and he thought that the Forum had established itself as a fine vehicle to promote continuity, stability, and performance within the University community, and had shown itself to be a full and valuable partner in his administration. Furthermore, Hooker thought that the University had benefited from the work done by the Forum and its Delegates, and added that the Forum had done much to change the culture of campus governance. He felt that current members and Employees are the beneficiaries of work done by those pioneers who established the Forum over six years ago. He commended the accomplishments of these Employees to the incoming class of Forum Delagates.

As befits the holiday season, Hooker noted two volunteer endeavors that will envelop the campus in the coming year. The Special Olympics, an enormous event that will place North Carolina squarely before the world, will take place in June 1999. Hooker said that University resources will be dedicated to assisting event planners, and he encouraged Employees to volunteer their efforts whenever possible to the many associated Olympic activities. The Special Olympics will be the only Olympic event to take place throughout the world in 1999.

In addition, the University will participate in an effort to construct eleven Habitat for Humanity houses throughout Orange County in 1999. Hooker recalled that the Forum Executive Committee had already participated in preliminary discussions about this operation with faculty and students, and he thanked the Chair for his leadership in securing such immediate cooperation with this project.

With regard to current events, Hooker noted that the University enrollment planning task force has recommended an enrollment increase by roughly 6,000 students, to around 30,000 total students at UNC-Chapel Hill, by the year 2008. (The majority of additional students will be enrolled toward the end of the ten-year period.) This goal will be difficult to accomplish in any event and will be impossible to accomplish without significant budget increases to fund additions of classrooms, residence halls, and physical plant facilities. Hooker pledged that the University would note take in a single additional undergraduate student without having a bed in which to house additional enrollees.

The addition of 6,000 students would require another 1,500-1,600 staff and 600 faculty to be hired at UNC-Chapel Hill. This colossal addition will place a great strain on existing resources in Chapel Hill and Orange County. For this reason, Hooker emphasized that the task force’s primary principle is that the campus cannot support additional growth without prior budgetary support. He cautioned that this growth may not occur at all over the next two years, but said that given current demographic trends it was important to plan for future enrollment growth. The University will work to handle these demands in the most responsible manner possible.

Hooker noted recent announcements that the University had recently hired Mike O’Brien from Rochester, New York to fill the vacant Director of Housekeeping Services position. He was excited about this appointment and was convinced that O’Brien would do a good job in this new role. Hooker took a moment to acknowledge the work done by Barbara DeLon and Hardy White in this position; while there are problems remaining to be solved, he was pleased with strides the University has made to establish good working conditions for housekeepers. In addition, Hooker thanked those who work on the front lines keeping the work going in the Housekeeping Department.

As a sideline, Hooker recalled that a student advisory committee to the Chancellor had passed on word stating how pleased students are with the appearance of the campus grounds. Hooker had passed on this commendation to the Grounds department, and urged Employees to express their thanks to Grounds Employees as well.

On Sunday, December 20 the University will hold its Winter Commencement ceremonies, at which Jim Peacock is scheduled as the keynote speaker. Hooker noted that the event falls the day following the Tar Heels’ appearance in the Las Vegas Bowl. He thanked all those involved in the preparations for commencement, particularly those involved in last-minute computation of grades.

Hooker offered to field any questions from the Forum. The Chair asked where the University planned to place the new buildings required for the campus enrollment increases. Hooker said that this problem dovetailed with the campus master plan land use study, which should identify where and under what conditions new buildings should be built. In addition, the effort will be supported by the University’s upcoming $1 billion capital campaign. One finding from the Ayres, Saint, & Gross land use study has been that the campus has enormous space to grow but has not used its space very efficiently. Consultants have found that the Avery and Kenan forest areas have been poorly planned in terms of providing maximum efficiency of land use. Consultants have also explored reconfiguring South campus by replacing some of high-rise dormitories, which were quickly built to accommodate the baby-boom generation in the 1960s. Hooker thought that this plan would better utilize available space and could be accomplished in the overall plan associated with the renovation of South Campus. In addition, new facilities, such as a dining hall, a recreational center, and other commercial amenities, are planned for South Campus to meet student needs.

Hooker also envisioned knocking down some older buildings, such as Swain and Abernethy Hall, to find more room for better designed academic facilities. In these buildings place Hooker foresaw construction of a multipurpose academic facility with 2.5 times square footage of Swain and Abernethy combined. Additionally, the big parking area between Phillips and Venable Halls presents another possible area for construction, although the University was wary of any plan that would cut parking spaces available to campus members.

Speaking of parking, Hooker said that it was his first order to the Ayres Saint Gross consulting team to find a way to fix the parking problem on campus. Ayres Saint Gross had done fine work in resolving the parking problem at Emory University in Atlanta, and had advised Hooker that parking is a fixable problem at UNC-Chapel Hill. However, the only way to arrive at a solution to this problem is through increased user fees. While regretting the need for such increases, Hooker was convinced that the campus as a whole would go along with such increases if it was certain to benefit.

Hooker said that before the University would move to ask the Transportation and Parking Advisory Committee to approve fee increases, it would need to convince the great majority of campus of the attendant benefits. Elizabeth Evans asked that Hooker group parking with other transit options such as mass transit, walking and bicycling when discussing the campus situation. Hooker agreed, and noted that Ayres Saint Gross have a strong record in integrating different transit options into campus design. He once again noted the work at Emory University in which the consultants recommended closing the interior of campus to all but pedestrian traffic, relying more on buses to meet campus transit needs, and constructing additional parking decks. Ayres Saint Gross have done consulting work at the University of Virginia, among other campuses.

Betty Averette noted that increases in campus parking fees greatly affect staff, particularly in comparison with other UNC System institutions and State agencies whose staff do not pay parking fees. Often staff feel that their annual increases are not enough to keep pace with rises in the cost of parking. Hooker understood that the cost of living in the Triangle is very high, and the salary structure for campus Employees is not adequate. Jeffery Beam suggested that the University investigate charging parking fees to Employees and faculty based on household income. He added that UNC-Wilmington had instituted a similar model. Hooker said that the University would look at a tiered parking rate structure.

Averette raised what she said was a “sore spot” on the subject of parking privileges. She recalled that an Employee with 14 years service to her department had lost her space for a new faculty member recently hired to the University. She found this action very unfair, and called for all parking privileges to be based on accumulated State service.

Hooker granted that this situation does not seem fair, but added that the situation was complicated by considerations of fairness and market realities. UNC-Chapel Hill competes for faculty in a national marketplace against institutions such as the University of Michigan and the University of California at Berkeley. One of the ways the University can compete for the best faculty is by offering ancillary benefits such as parking privileges. Parking must be factored into a competitive offer for a top faculty member.

However, the University must account for standards of fairness as well as market considerations when setting its internal policies. If its policies are perceived as unfair to other Employees, this perception damages the University in ways that it cannot afford. Thus, the University must engage in a balancing act when dealing with these problems, just as any other institution must. He acknowledged that the University will mess up in this area from time to time.

However, a perception that the administration of campus parking privileges is arbitrary, capricious and unfair has a market impact on staff hirings, as well. The University must compete with the Research Triangle for staff much as it must compete for faculty, an area in which it is relatively inexperienced. Triangle companies have cherrypicked the best University information technology workers, creating 30 vacancies in that area alone. The Triangle ranks among the lowest areas for unemployment in the country, which places the University in a situation in which it was legitimate to argue about benefits. Hooker added that some campus staff salary structures have been found to lie close to local market rates, but the Employee benefit structure is seen as comparatively inadequate.

The Chair then moved to recognize the Forum’s outgoing Delegates for their time in service to the Forum at the University. Hooker presented these Delegates with their certificates of recognition. The Forum’s outgoing class of 1998 is as follows:

Jeffery S. Beam: Forum Vice-Chair, 1998; Employee Presentations Committee, 1997 & 1998 (Chair); Orientation Committee, 1997 (Chair) & 1998; Recognition & Awards Committee, 1997 Patricia C. Bigelow: Compensation & Benefits Committee
Thomas S. Brickhouse: Executive Committee, 1997 & 1998; Compensation & Benefits Committee Chair, 1997 & 1998; Lucille D. Brooks: Forum Secretary, 1998; Executive Committee, 1998; Compensation & Benefits Committee 1997 (Vice-Chair) & 1998; Nominating Committee Chair, 1998; Employee Appreciation Fair Booth Task Force, 1997 & 1998
Sheila Burnett Gwen E. Burston: Career Development Committee, 1998 (Chair)
Mitchell W. Copeland: Employee Presentations Committee, 1997 & 1998; Joyce L. Dalgleish: Executive Committee, 1998; Orientation Committee, 1997 (Co-Chair) & 1998; Recognition & Awards Committee, 1997 & 1998 (Chair);
Elizabeth Evans: Forum Secretary, 1997; Nominating Committee 1997 (Chair), 1998; Intellectual Climate Report Task Force Chair, 1998; Communications Committee, 1998; Transportation and Parking Advisory Committee, 1997 & 1998; Betty B. Geer: Orientation Committee, 1997 & 1998; Employee Appreciation Fair Booth Task Force, 1997
Alfred Jeter: Employee Presentations Committee, 1998; Nominating Committee, 1998; Orientation Committee, 1998 Bettye H. Jones: Compensation & Benefits Committee 1997 (Secretary) & 1998; Nominating Committee, 1998
Stephen B. Jones: Orientation Committee, 1997 & 1998; Recognition & Awards Committee, 1997; University Committee Assignments Committee, 1998 Anne J. Montgomery: Executive Committee, 1998; University Committee Assignments Committee Chair, 1997 & 1998; Communications Committee 1998; Public Affairs Committee, 1997
Jacqueline E. Overton: Executive Committee, 1998; University Committee Assignments Committee, 1997 & 1998; Nominating Committee, 1998 Frances H. Rountree: Employee Presentations Committee, 1997 & 1998;
Robert C. Schreiner: Forum Chair, 1997; Executive Committee 1997; Career Development Committee Co-Chair, 1998; Communications Committee 1998 Stephanie C. Stadler: Executive Committee, 1997; Orientation Committee, 1997; Employee Presentations Committee, 1998; Recognition & Awards Committee, 1998
Nancy B. Tannenbaum: Executive Committee, 1997; Orientation Committee, 1997 & 1998 (Chair); Nominating Committee, 1998 Dail C. White: Nominating Committee, 1997 & 1998


Jeffery Beam took a moment to praise the Chair’s administrative and people skills, and presented him with a commemorative silver frame to mark his year in office. The Chair said that this year had been without a doubt the richest of his 23 years in office, and thanked Beam, Secretary Lucille Brooks, the Forum Executive Committee, and the rest of the Forum for their contributions in keeping staff interests in the forefront. He declared the year’s successes had been a team effort from the beginning.

Employee Presentation

Beam introduced Jacki Resnick, Director of Proposal Development Initiatives for the Institute for Research in Social Sciences, to speak on the subject of benefits for part-time Employees. Resnick asked the Forum to readdress the issue of access to benefits for part-time staff Employees. She noted that access to and support for benefits are two interfacing issues.

Currently, benefits are paid for by the University for Employees working over 30 hours a week; Employees working 20-29 hours a week can access health care benefits by paying into a system, as they can also do by paying into a retirement plan. However, the cost for access to these plans is much greater than the benefits to be gained, once the relative salary earned is taken into account.

As director of research for an academic development program at UNC, Resnick has hired a staff of excellence that is composed significantly of part-time administrators, support staff, and coordinators. These Employees help bring millions of dollars into the University, but do not have equal access to health care benefits because of their status as half-time Employees.

Resnick thought that the University has a great obligation than ever before to address this issue formally, as its policies serve as a role model for the entire State. She was delighted to hear that part-time Employees at the University of Michigan now have equal access to retirement benefits with that university matching retirement contributions up to 5%. Part-time Michigan Employees also have the right to buy into 401(b) plans, but do not receive employer contributions.

At UNC-Chapel Hill, there are at minimum around 200 part-time Employees excluding General Administration and UNC Hospitals. Part-time Employees desiring health care access must pay $145 a month for single coverage, $235/month for payer and child coverage, and $360/month for family coverage. State salaries cannot compensate buying into the health care system at these rates.

Given the importance of staff support activities, Resnick hoped that the University would recognize the need to take a look at these issues again. She noted that $15-20 million grants allow benefits for part-time Employees, but may not do so because State rules do not support these benefits.

Stephanie Stadler noted that the Medical School Forum for Women Faculty has examined these benefits, and is working on various options with Human Resources. She thought that this issue was an important one given UNC-Chapel Hill’s standing as a model for excellence. Jean Coble noted that a half-time staff person in her department is asked to handle research assistants for students and may typically work over her allotted hours a week. She thought that the half-time cut-off for benefits may have resulted in a two-tiered system for Employees.

Jeffery Beam asked if Resnick could create a reference document for the Forum to use as it begins discussions. Resnick said that she had already started this work but had found that many institutions will not share information on their policies. She proposed using the University of Michigan plan as the gold standard for a possible UNC proposal.

Betty Averette noted that many companies in private industry have moved to hiring part-time Employees in a bid to save money on staff benefits. As a State institution searching for ways to stretch finances, the University may have needed to act from similar motives. Resnick agreed, but asked if the University as a model employer did not owe its own community members equal access to health care.

Dorothy Grant noted that full-time temporary Employees also must pay for access to health care and other benefits. Often, these people obtain the status of “temporary permanent” workers, who work continually with brief, legally required breaks for one department over a period of years without being converted to permanent status. Resnick added that some people assigned to work only on a part-time basis are often forced to work hours approaching full-time status.

Resnick asked Employees in working on this topic to contact her. The Chair proposed that the Forum Personnel Issues Committee consider this issue further in 1999.

Special Presentation

The Chair introduced Director of Public Safety Derek Poarch to make a special presentation. He recalled his October remarks and added that his background is in community-oriented policing. He said that Public Safety would work with other campus organizations in partnership on issues including crime, the fear of crime, campus quality of life, and transit issues.

Poarch cited a working philosophy dedicated to the quality of customer service. Public Safety must find different problem-solving mechanisms to improve the quality of service, and one method is by establishing partnerships with groups such as the Employee Forum, the Faculty Council, and Student Government. Public Safety must reach out in its attempt to address campus concerns.

Poarch then spoke on the work he had done since his hiring a few months ago. He had recently finished 150 individual interviews with each individual Employee with the Department of Public Safety. He took this task very seriously, filling four legal pads with Employee suggestions to address longstanding issues. Poarch found commonalties in Employee comments, among these the obvious complaint of communications difficulties within the department. Part of this problem is a result of the move in late 1996 to merge campus police, parking & transportation, Point2Point, and Bolin Creek services under one group. Communications are very difficult in an organization of such size composed of such diverse functions.

As part of the effort to deal with these problems, a communications committee has been composed and has met twice since October. The group will work internally to improve communications within Public Safety operations, and externally towards improving day-to-day operations. As an example, Poarch noted that in the past field officers have not been informed about lot closings or other developments affecting parking decks, which have led to embarrassing discrepancies when dealing with the public. Public Safety will need to address such instances and improve communications to reduce such aggravation.

Poarch said that training for community-oriented policing was germane not just to police operations, but would be instituted throughout Public Safety. Police officers have been enrolled in introductory community-oriented governance classes, which are provided free of charge through a federal grant.

Poarch is also undertaking an assessment on Public Safety’s organizational structure. The department will blend together two consulting studies to find ways to best provide services to faculty, students & staff. Poarch noted the important contributions of the Transportation & Parking Advisory Committee (TPAC), recognizing Employee representatives Betty Averette and Tom Rhyne. TPAC has reviewed the recommendations of the Parking & Transit Task Force that have not been implemented, among them implementation of permits for night-time parking, review of permit allocation methods, and routing of bus services. These recommendations will be studied for administratively feasibility through the spring.

Concerning the future, Poarch said that Public Safety would place more police officers on campus in visible roles, in response to customer surveys. The department will also implement its community oriented policing policy and will work to improve internal and external communications. Poarch invited Employees to contact him at 6-5730.  He would try to be prompt with responses, cautioning that he could not always provide a satisfactory answer.

Poarch thanked the Forum for the opportunity to speak, and particularly recognized Forum members Jackie Overton and Lynn Ray for their contributions to the department and the Forum. He offered to field questions from the group.

Elizabeth Evans noted that Poarch had said he had driven over from his office to attend the morning meeting. She asked why Poarch had not utilized mass transit instead. Poarch said that he did not have 30 minutes to wait on the Point2Point service. Having around ten appointments a day across campus with only minutes in between, Poarch could not rely on mass transit. He noted that Point2Point services are funded on an annual basis, and said that Public Safety will study the program in the future. Poarch noted that the Tar Heel Express bus and the campus ‘U’ and ‘RU’ buses are mass transit alternatives to Point2Point. Dorothy Grant said that Point2Point is most often on time if summoned after 9 a.m. The Chair commented that Point2Point could be seen as a victim of its own success.

Ken Perry asked if Public Safety would look into charging parking fees on a proportionate basis given the disparate incomes of campus members. Poarch said that Perry should ask Rhyne and Averette to bring this idea up at the next Transportation and Parking Advisory Committee meeting.

Human Resources Update

Associate Vice Chancellor for Human Resources Laurie Charest thanked departing Delegates for their two years of service and stated her appreciation of the work done on behalf of the staff of the University. She welcomed the Forum’s new Delagates to what she saw as an essential part of University governance, and to what she hoped would be a wonderful and rewarding experience.

Charest reminded the Forum of the upcoming Jingle Bell Jog, sponsored by UNC Heels for Health. She hoped that members would make time to attend.

Ken Litowsky asked that Charest remind the Forum about the University’s adverse weather policy. In sum, the University is open unless the Chancellor or his designees declares it closed. Employees should listen to announcements specifically concerning the University, not the State.

Litowsky will soon send out a notice concerning campus leave options surrounding the Special Olympics. Also, departments should have received a copy of the campus holiday schedule. Some Delagates said that they had not yet seen the schedule, and Litowsky invited Employees to send their questions to him. Scott Ragland of the University Gazette also agreed to publish the schedule in a coming issue.

Oath of Office

The Chair led members in the Employee Forum oath of office.

Approval of the Minutes

The Chair called for a motion to approve the minutes of the November 6 meeting. Jackie Overton made this motion, with Joyce Dalgleish seconding. Matt Banks noted a correction that a reference to the University grievance process on the last page of the minutes incorrectly referred to “stages” rather than “steps.” Overton accepted this amendment to her motion, and the minutes were approved by the Forum as amended.

Unfinished Business

The Chair noted that last year during the Executive Committee debate there had been some confusion concerning criteria for the Forum’s Community Award (3-Legged Stool). As the 1998 Executive Committee had been unable to resolve these issues this year, it chose not to present the award in 1998. Instead, the committee worked to clarify the award criteria, and thus proposed new criteria for the Forum’s consideration.

The Chair thought that these changes were good ones that better recognized the various constituencies that make up the University as an institution. He also noted that the criteria require no direct link to the Forum, but rather serve to recognize service benefiting the entire University community.

Elizabeth Evans praised the proposal, and thought that the clarifications and the intent that the recipient not be directly associated with the Forum were welcome changes. She thought that the changes were easy to understand and offered a proper perspective on the Forum within the University community.

Concerning eligibility, Ken Litowsky asked if individuals satisfying the criteria that have left the University are prevented from receiving the award. The Chair said this was a good point, and noted that Patti Smith, who has done a tremendous amount of work on behalf of the University on the blood drive and other efforts, would fall into this category. He said the Forum might choose to change the criteria to admit recently departed community members if it so chooses. Jeffery Beam recalled that it was the intent of the Executive Committee to limit the award to those currently serving at the University. Elizabeth Evans said that allowing “current or former members” might allow candidates from 50 years ago.

Beam also noted that current Forum Executive Committee members would be ineligible for the award under the new criteria. The Forum decided to ask the 1999 Executive Committee to work on the criteria further at their first meeting of the New Year.

New Business

Secretary Lucille Brooks welcomed the Forum delegate class of 2000 to their first meeting. She would introduce the slate of nominees to serve as Forum officers in 1999. Each nominee would have a delegate make a nominating speech of up to three minutes on their behalf, and then would have up to three minutes to speak. Elections will be conducted in January, with nominations from the floor then having the opportunity to speak for two minutes. Matt Banks was designated as timekeeper for the presentations.

Elizabeth Evans made the nominating speech for Jane Stine, candidate for Forum Chair. She cited their many years working together and Stine’s creative, cheerful, and enthusiastic personality as reasons that Stine would be a good Chair.

Jane Stine said that she felt the desire to give something back to the University was a primary factor in her decision to run for Chair. She would give everything back she could if elected to office.

Kathy Dutton made the nominating speech for Vicki Pinieles, candidate for Forum Vice Chair. Dutton praised Pinieles’ wonderful interpersonal communication skills and leadership in a myriad of University activities as reasons to support Pinieles in her candidacy.

Vicki Pinieles sought to make a difference in the campus community through service as Forum Vice Chair. She hoped to improve the quality of life at the University, particularly in the areas of parking, childcare, and the campus intellectual community.

Linda Drake made the nominating speech for Jennifer Henderson, candidate for Forum Secretary. Drake cited Henderson’s capable, quiet, and unassuming demeanor, as well as her excellent writing skills as reasons to support her candidacy.

Jennifer Henderson said that she would work for the betterment of staff life, and hoped to help the Forum make a difference by improving career growth and continued educational possibilities for Employees.

Brooks felt that these three nominees were well qualified to run for office, and thanked them for their willingness to serve. She reminded continuing members willing to run for office that they could be nominated from the floor in January. The Chair thanked Brooks for her hard work on the Forum nominating process throughout 1998.

Chair’s Report

The Executive Committee met with the Executive Committee of the Faculty Council in November, with the goal of meeting quarterly with that group. The committees plan to work jointly with student groups on a “blitz build” for the Habitat for Humanity project, among other projects.

The University Priorities and Budget committee is currently meeting with campus deans and vice-chancellors in its effort to determine campus funding priorities. The Chair planned to meet with his successor about the responsibilities associated with this important committee. The main content of work has been where operational units are in terms of established University priorities, and how they may move to match these priorities.

Among other duties, the Chair has served also on the Student Fee committee and the University Council. The University Council is composed of the heads of the Forum, the Faculty Council, the Student Government and the Graduate and Professional Student Federation as well as the Chancellor. Though the Council met only once this year, the Chair thought it had served to create a good relationship among faculty, students, and staff.

Committee Reports

Bob Schreiner, co-chair of the Career Development committee, referred members to a copy of a draft Employee manager training & education program. He hoped that next year’s Forum would consider the proposal and ways to promulgate the ideas within. He thought that the document could serve to promote positive attitudes among Employees and supervisors concerning Employee education. Connie Boyce had no report from the New Careers Training Board.

Jennifer Henderson, chair of the Communications committee, said that group had not met that month. She thanked the group for its supportive and helpful work in redesigning the Forum web page, producing the annual Forum University Gazette insert, and expanding contacts with members of the media.

Tommy Brickhouse, chair of the Compensation & Benefits committee, referred the group to its annual report. He thanked the committee for its work, particularly committee secretary Lucille Brooks. He encouraged new members to serve on the Personnel Issues committee.

Jeffery Beam, chair of the Employee Presentations committee, thanked Jean Coble for her work on the annual report. He would provide more information on the group’s work during the annual retreat January 15.

Lucille Brooks, chair of the Nominating committee, said the group had held its last meeting November 18. She recalled concerns about a declining trend in ballot returns for Forum elections. She hoped that new members would work to offset this trend. Brooks encouraged new members to sign up for the committee, as it requires between 8-12 members to function effectively.

Nancy Tannenbaum thanked the members of the Orientation committee for their contributions over the last year, among them Jeffery Beam, Linwood Blalock, Joyce Dalgleish, Linda Drake, Betty Geer, Al Jeter, and LaEula Joyner. She encouraged members to join this group, as many members will rotate off in January, following administration of the January 15 retreat.

Joyce Dalgleish noted that the Recognition & Awards committee had finished its projects for the year; she thanked Betty Averette, Mary Braxton, Stephanie Stadler, and Carroll Worrell for their work. The committee would meet again December 8.

Anne Montgomery, chair of the University Committee Assignments Committee thanked Denise Childress, Steve Jones and Sharon Windsor for their work with the group. She believed that the committee had given its best efforts to meet its objectives, which included placing staff members on relevant University committees and making a full survey of all such committees.

Montgomery introduced Ruthie Lawson, staff representative on the University Buildings & Grounds committee, to speak a few minutes on the workings of that group. Lawson has served on Buildings & Grounds for one full year, along with one faculty member, two undergraduate students and one graduate student. The committee was established in 1913 and formally chartered in 1993.

The Buildings & Grounds committee involves itself with all aspects of building design and construction, from topographics, window design, and building appearance to the selection of doors. As examples, the committee oversaw creation of the mural at the Carolina Coffee Shop and determined the font and size of letters on the commemorative plaque outside the campus arboretum. The committee hears whenever traffic patterns are changed.

Lawson said that she would be glad to forward issues of concern to the committee, and would be happy to make committee reports when necessary. She felt that her voice was indeed heard by the members of the group. She would also make sure to add the Forum Office to the list receiving Buildings & Grounds’ proposed agendas.

Bob Schreiner reported that the Grievance Procedure Review Task Force had sent its draft to the Office of State Personnel for a feasibility review. (A feasibility review is usually done when there is the possibility that a public draft may be rejected.) Following the review, the draft will be widely submitted for comment from the University community.

Betty Averette presented Forum Assistant Matt Banks with a gift of appreciation from the membership. Banks thanked Averette and the Forum for their generosity and kindheartedness.

In the absence of further discussion, the Chair called for a motion to adjourn. Jeffery Beam made this motion, seconded by Lucille Brooks. There was no discussion, and the meeting adjourned at 11:24 a.m.

Finis Coronat Opus


Respectfully submitted,


Matt Banks, Recording Secretary

Comments are closed.