Agenda — December 5, 2001
8:45 a.m.—Reception, Wilson Library Lobby
9:30 a.m.—Meeting, Wilson Library Assembly Room
I. Call to Order
II. Welcome Guests, Members of the Press
III. Opening Remarks—Chancellor James Moeser
· Presentation of Certificates to Outgoing Members
IV. Special Presentations
· Evelyn Hawthorne, Vice Chancellor for Government Relations
· State Representative Verla Insko
V. New Business
· Forum Officer Election Statements P
Þ Candidates for Chair:
Þ Candidates for Vice-Chair: Gary Lloyd
Þ Candidate for Secretary: Kay Teague
VI. Human Resources Update
· Laurie Charest, Associate Vice Chancellor for Human Resources
VII. Capital Improvement Update
· Karen Geer, Facilities Services (tentative)
VIII. Employee Presentations or Questions
IX. Approval of Minutes of the November 7, 2001 meeting P
X. Unfinished Business
· Resolution on Terrorism (second reading)
· Date of January 2002 Meeting?
XI. Stretch Time 6
XII. Forum Committee Reports
· Career Development: Fred Jordan
· Communications: Suzan deSerres
Þ Forum Newsletter
· Employee Presentations: Sheila Storey
· Nominating: Sylvia White
Þ Forum Elections
· Orientation: Suzan deSerres
· Personnel Issues: Mary Ann Vacheron
· Recognition and Awards: Karen Jordan
· University Committee Assignments: Lee Edmark
XIII. Chair’s Report (Executive Committee): John Heuer
XIV. Task Force/University Committee Reports
· Pedestrian Safety Committee— Sheila Storey
· Transportation & Parking Advisory—Jimmy Workman
· Administrative Flexibility Study Committee—John Heuer
XVI. Transmittal of the Gavel to Newly Elected Chair
P = Included in Agenda Packet
4 = Annual Report Included in Agenda Packet
December 6, 2001
(Wilson Library Assembly Room)
Mary Ann Vacheron
“ = Ex-Officio
Chris Barfield Anderson
The Chair called the meeting to order at 9:32 a.m., noting that the Forum had a full agenda. He welcomed Representative Verla Insko, Chancellor James Moeser, 2001 Forum Chair Joanne Kucharski, and Scott Ragland from the University Gazette. He also noted that Vice Chancellor for Government Relations Evelyn Hawthorne had been called away due to prospects of a legislative adjournment.
The Chair introduced Chancellor Moeser to present opening remarks. He had been inspired by Moeser’s invitation to Employees to join in the University’s governance and consideration of design principles for a new personnel system. The Chair also thanked Vice Chancellor for Finance and Administration Nancy Suttenfield for her support of the Forum, particularly her help in finding new offices for the Forum on 134 East Franklin Street. He hoped that Employees would join the Forum at its office-warming party in the next month.
The Chair recalled when President Molly Broad had introduced Chancellor Moeser to the Forum last year, and that the two leaders have similar roots in the coalmining territory of western Pennsylvania. He was proud to introduce Moeser.
Moeser thanked the Forum for its warm welcome. He also thanked the Chair for his great leadership of the Forum this year. He said it had been a pleasure working with the Chair and the 2001 Forum Chair Joanne Kucharski. He thought the Forum had done a great job in keeping Employees and administrators aware of the concerns of University staff. Moeser also recognized the Forum Vice Chair Sheila Storey and the Forum Secretary Sylvia White for their work and service. He said it had been one of the joys of his office to get to know the leadership of the University’s staff and to engage them in discussions about the University’s future.
Moeser noted that the University was undergoing difficult processes of change which involves some displacement of parking spaces due to construction. This change will eventually make campus life much better. Moeser thanked the Forum for its leadership and participation on this concern.
Moeser welcomed Representative Verla Insko, a former UNC Employee. He was delighted to welcome her to campus and he wanted to thank her for her work on behalf of the State and University this past session. He noted that Insko had been a valiant defender of the University this past session, fending off numerous assaults to the University budget from various sides. He thanked Insko for her understanding of the role the University plays in the State.
Moeser noted that the difficult budget situation had hit especially hard in the staff sector, which had to absorb a 3% permanent cut. The University had been able to negotiate down a proposed 4% non-recurring revision to 2.7%. Moeser said that this figure would remain subject to upcoming revenue projections. The State’s sales tax figures will play a critical role in whether the State can sustain its current budget.
The University has begun to feel the poor state of the national and State economy. Sadly, Moeser noted that 17 Employees had been laid off. Human Resources will try to find these Employees other positions at the University. Moeser said that this development was sobering for everyone on campus, saying that it hurts to lose even one Employee. He said that the campus had fought tenaciously to avoid these cuts and would work to give these Employees the utmost consideration when other positions come open. He asked Associate Vice Chancellor for Human Resources Laurie Charest to provide more background on this subject during her report.
On another topic, Moeser was pleased that the University had achieved great progress in relations with the Town of Chapel Hill. He recognized the contributions of outgoing Chapel Hill Mayor Rosemary Waldorf, who had worked closely with the University to achieve the 8-1 Town Council vote on the campus development plan. Moeser said that the University and the Town had addressed issues of the fiscal relationship between the two bodies, and the University had satisfied almost all of the Town’s stated concerns. (The level of fire protection money that the University provides the Town remains unresolved, with the Town asking for twice the $588,000 annual payment that the University now provides. The two bodies have agreed to approach the State for these funds.)
Moeser said that the recent discussions between the Town and the University had raised issues about municipalities and their dealings with institutions of importance to the State. He had asked the General Assembly to examine the relationship between such institutions and their host towns, particularly the locus of State and local responsibility. He thought that this discussion concerned all taxpayers in the State, and said that the University and the Town could not alone address these concerns. What are the responsibilities of the State versus those of Orange County or the Town of Chapel Hill, when it comes to the administration of the University?
Moeser thanked the many staff members who were involved in the development of the campus master plan. He could not say enough about the dedication of those who but together the studies and reports for the University under a tight time frame. The quality of this work was really splendid, and reflects well on the University.
The master plan provides a tremendous opportunity for the University, with almost $1 billion of construction scheduled through the State bond issue, self-funded projects, and student and private funding. This round of construction will affect developments 200 years into the future.
Moeser said that the University must live up to the quality of the existing campus’ landscape and architectural heritage. The University must not mess up the exquisitely beautiful campus landscape, but must also correct architectural and aesthetic mistakes of the past. The master plan should allow the University to transpose the beauty of the North campus onto the hodgepodge of the South, while preserving and protecting the University’s 200 year old architectural heritage.
Thus, as the University stands poised on the start of its greatest growth spurt in its history, Moeser hoped that 200 years from now people would regard these times as a golden age. He said that it would be the University’s responsibility to make this vision happen. The choices we make now will affect who we are regarded in posterity. He was determined to do his best to make people in the future as proud of the University as we feel today.
Going further, Moeser said that the University’s heritage and culture are not composed of just bricks and mortar. He recalled the green grass and blue sky of this incredible weekend, noting victories in women’s and men’s soccer, football, men’s basketball, and volleyball. Moeser said that the University had hosted three NCAA tournaments on campus this weekend, and all had been successful events.
Moeser said that the University’s heritage was not just bricks, mortar, and athletic teams, but a history and tradition of commitment to academic freedom and excellence. He felt proud of the general campus response following the events of September 11, and said that the University had shown the country what a great place it is by its response. He said that the University continues to have a wide spectrum of political views on campus, and said that the University had also received attacks from the right and the left.
David Horowitz had called Moeser a radical for allowing campus teach-ins, but Moeser had been the first to defend Horowitz’ right to come to campus and speak. He urged students not to silence Horowitz but to give him an opportunity to be heard as is his right. Moeser said that supporting the right to freedom of speech, even dissenting points of view, represents what the University is all about. He continued to feel proud of the maturity and sensitivity that he saw every day on campus.
Moeser noted the question of returning Gerrard Hall to its historic status as a non-sectarian chapel. He said that many universities hold non-denominational places for individual meditation or organized services. The University has had two such places, Gerrard Hall and Person Hall. Moeser said that in consideration of this proposal, the University had hired James Polcek, an architect from New York City, to study the implications of turning Gerrard Hall into a shared non-denominational chapel and performance venue. In addition, Polcek would oversee the restoration of the Playmakers Theater which would include installation of a proscenium and small orchestra pit.
Moeser directed listeners’ attention to the restoration of the Campus Y, Gerrard and Steele Halls to their original painted colors. He said that maintaining buildings’ facades against neglect was very important, as evidence of physical neglect implies other types of institutional neglect to campus visitors. He said that the University must maintain these outer facades even as these buildings await more substantial internal renovation. He thanked all those responsible for this good work and noted that one reason for the bond issue had been the weight of deferred maintenance on campus. He also praised those grounds workers who maintained the campus landscaping.
Moeser noted that the Christmas holiday had changed to the winter holidays in the University’s nomenclature. This change reflects the University’s posture of sensitivity to those of all religions, and Moeser said that the campus needs to develop a greater sensitivity to the high holy days of faiths other than (but including) Christianity.
Moeser noted the number of service projects that campus members would participate in during the holiday season. The departments of Housing, Resident Education, the Carolina Center for Public Service will participate in the AIDS community resident association holiday project. Members of the School of Social Work will assist Orange County Social Services and adopt a local family. Mary Herndon, a campus Human Resources facilitator, will collect luggage to give to local foster home children. He praised these contributions and encouraged everyone to find ways to make these kinds of contributions to their community.
Moeser offered to answer questions. In the absence of any questions from the Forum, he assisted the Forum in presenting certificates of participation to outgoing Forum Delagates.
Employee Forum Outgoing Delagates’ Committee Service 12/01
Chris Barfield Anderson: Transportation & Parking Advisory Committee
Anita Booth: Recognition & Awards committee 2000 & 2001; Nominating committee 2001
Suzan de Serres: Executive Committee 2000 & 2001; Communications Committee Chair 2000 & 2001; Orientation Committee 2000 & Co-Chair 2001
Edward Eldred: Communications Committee 2001
Jeffery Fuchs: Personnel Issues Committee 2000;
Tommy Griffin: Employee Presentations 2000 & 2001; Nominating Committee 2000 & 2001
John Heuer: Forum Chair 2001; Executive Committee Chair 2001; University Committee Assignments Committee Chair 2000; Orientation Committee 2001
Tom Jenswold: Executive Committee 2000; Nominating Committee 2000 & 2001
Karen Jordan: Executive Committee 2000; Communications Committee 2000; Orientation Committee 2000 & Co-Chair 2001; Recognition & Awards Chair 2001
Ramona Kellam: Personnel Issues Committee 2001
Lauren Mangili: Nominating Committee 2000
John Meeker: University Committee Assignments Committee 2000 & 2001
Tom Rhyne: Personnel Issues Committee 2001
Wendy Riley: Recognition & Awards Committee 2001
Joanne Terry: Recognition & Awards Committee 2000 & 2001; Nominating Committee 2001
Robert Thoma: Executive Committee 2001; Personnel Issues Committee 2000; Employee Presentations Committee 2001
Elaine Tola: Personnel Issues Committee 2000; Communications Committee 2001
Sheila Storey: Forum Vice Chair 2001; Executive Committee 2001; Employee Presentations Committee 2000 & Chair 2001
Mary Ann Vacheron: Executive Committee 2001; Personnel Issues Committee Chair 2001
At this point, Vice Chair Sheila Storey presented Chair John Heuer with an engraved silver picture frame as a token of appreciation for the Chair’s service to the Forum and the University. The Chair said that it had been an honor to lead the Forum these past twelve months.
The Chair noted that Representative Verla Insko had worked as a staff member of the University from 1988-94, before her election to the Legislature in 1996. He read a resolution honoring Insko and Senator Eleanor Kinnaird for their accomplishments as UNC Employees and elected representatives.
Insko thanked the Forum for the opportunity to speak. She felt very honored to represent Orange and Chatham counties in the State Legislature along with Representative Joe Hackney. She also recognized State Senators Kinnaird and Howard Lee, saying that all worked to serve their communities in any way possible.
Insko thanked the Forum Delegates for their involvement in the government of the University. She praised their involvement as integral to the functioning of democracy, and she said that the University’s excellence depended on everyone’s willingness to participate.
Insko noted that she would return to the Legislature as soon as possible after her remarks to be present for the final adjournment. She said that she had hoped to enter the General Assembly as an education expert, given her experience as a teacher, a member of the Orange county board of education, the county commissioners, and the University community. However, given the number of former teachers and community college professors already in Raleigh, Insko was asked too chair the mental health care oversight area. Over the past six years, Insko has worked to reform North Carolina’s mental health system, and has introduced and sponsored several bills too this affect.
Insko praised Carmen Hooker-Buell, the new secretary of Health and Human Services, for her work, standards, and hires. Unfortunately, the State anticipates a $350 million deficit in its Medicaid budget this year. Insko noted the importance of protecting the State’s AAA bond rating. She said that auditors typically study how a state spends its money when setting bond ratings, not just how much is spent. If North Carolina had balanced its budget by cutting education, it might have endangered its bond rating indirectly. She felt proud that North Carolina had supported education, but education was the only department that did not absorb a decrease in its budget this year.
That said, North Carolina still must go a long way to catch up with the national average for K-12 education. Over the years, the State has greatly supported the University System, and must continue its focus on K-16 education. Insko said that the University must make sure that the public remains supportive of public school education.
Insko said that budget forecasts anticipate that the State budget should survive until the second quarter, but if revenues do not rise the Legislature might be summoned back into special session. She did not anticipate that the University would need to absorb additional cuts. She said that Governor Easley can rely on several rainy day funds before asking departments to revert more money. She noted that President Broad and Chancellor Moeser, working with other System chancellors, will work with legislators to reduce any possible impact on the University System.
Like many other Employees, Insko did not feel happy about the $625 raise given this year. She said that the State must focus on the fact that its employees do not receive the same increases in salary as other teaching and other employees. She said that the State must place a higher priority on the contribution of its employees.
Given the contributions of good government, it seems strange that so many badmouth it and its workers. She noted that the USA has the safest drugs in the world, restaurant inspections, public health safety measures, and other amenities that are easy to take for granted when things are going well. However, public service salaries must be competitive with the private sector market place or the quality of overall service becomes compromised.
One cannot mention the plight of State employees’ salaries without mentioning the detrimental effect of rising health care costs. Insko reported that a drive to reduce health care benefits had been stopped in House committee. She said that much of her job as a legislator has been to stop bad bills before they become law.
With regard to the proposed study of the UNC System’s Board of Governors, Insko thought that it would hurt UNC-Chapel Hill to remove it from the UNC System. However, she granted that other local legislators might have a different position. She noted the advantages of having common UNC System lobbyists to fight for all of the campuses together, and noted the declining number of UNC-Chapel Hill graduates in the General Assembly. She said that UNC-Chapel Hill needs to be alert to the possibility of being singled out by its enemies.
Insko noted that the General Assembly contributes only 27% of UNC-Chapel Hill’s operating budget. Much of the rest of its money comes from grants and endowment income. Insko had worked to protect UNC-Chapel Hill’s overhead receipts in legislative negotiations.
Responding to the question of why the legislative session had taken so long, Insko noted the difficult budgetary year and the perceived threat of redistricting to incumbent legislators. She recalled that the State budget office had thrice directed the Legislature to reduce its budget projections in negotiations. Redistricting, of course, had led to inter-party contentions about the divisions of population between perceived Republican and Democratic electoral districts.
Mary Ann Vacheron asked about the legislative proposal too allow Employees to be fired at will. She asked which Employees would be affected by this legislation. Insko understood that this legislation would affect only State Health plan Employees, resulting from disagreements between director Jack Walker and his staff. Legislators sympathetic to Walker’s position had included provisions in the technical corrections bill, possibly sneaking the changes in through the back door. However, Insko did not think the changes would survive the House.
Linda Collins asked about changes in the State’s mental health system. Insko recalled that the State had put in almost $700 million in studies over time, leading advocates to ask the State to stop spending money on mental health studies. The first piece of governance will require the secretary of Health and Human Services to make a plan to create a uniform system across the State to manage substance abuse and developmental disabilities. The State must also create a business plan to manage the Medicaid system. Insko noted that the State had recently had to absorb a $34 million Medicaid payback due to some billing errors.
The proposed changes will require local area programs to demonstrate their financial management of services, and will divide the delivery and management of these services. Previously, the State has allowed franchises to monitor themselves, contracting out Medicaid services.
Additionally, the changes will move people out of large institutions into small community care settings. The State plans to spend $47.5 million to provide smaller community care and to treat patients closer to home. These changes will allow patients too function better and more normally in society. This change also results from a Supreme Court decision which requires states to provide for mental health patients to live in a community should they request it. This change will take from five to seven years to accomplish.
The Chair asked about legislation for a State-wide health plan for all citizens. Insko said that she had introduced that bill both last session and this session. This bill would amend the State constitution to make adequate health care a constitutional right that every citizen should have available. She said that if the State were to take all of the money now spent on health care it could adequately cover more people. The reason that it does not is because many people are making money through our current system, through prescription drug extortions, exorbitant doctors’ charges, and other methods. She noted that people visiting a doctor will pay 100% of retail if they do not have health insurance, but can pay as little as 40% of retail with VA benefits. Uninsured people pay the highest amount of money for their coverage.
Insko said that she could give the Forum the names of the State Health Care committee which makes decisions about the plan.
The Chair asked why State Employees always seem to fall last on the State’s budgetary agenda. Insko said that the Governor pays attention to needs which fall in his agenda. In this district, all four representatives favor higher salaries and benefits for State employees. She said that higher salaries and benefits must become a priority for the State leadership before one will see progress. She personally was appalled by what State Employees had experienced this year.
Mary Ann Vacheron noted that money from tuition increases can only go to campus faculty and EPA staff. Insko hoped that the State would see some turnaround. She said that the State cannot use student tuition to supplement salaries in the Department of Natural Resources, and noted that University Employees are still State employees. She personally opposed the use of tuition increases to supplement faculty salaries, saying that the State should support needed increases outright.
Robert Thoma asked if the Legislature had plans to address the chronic staffing problems at State mental institutions. He noted that these institutions typically have a 25% vacancy rate, or even higher. Insko said that the State would need to increase salaries and benefits to attract these nurses. However, she noted that as the State downsizes its care, it can better treat patients in smaller patients while receiving substantial federal subsidies. The federal government subsidizes sixty-five percent of smaller care settings but will not subsidize larger settings at all. Insko emphasized that the State system would need to use these savings to fix other areas.
Thoma said that the State’s patient load should then decrease. He worried that the State might have to absorb many costly lawsuits if it cannot address these safety concerns. Insko said that the State understands its vulnerability to lawsuits and is trying to reduce patient loads.
Andy Maglione asked about the prospects of geographic pay differentials for State employees, noting that the eastern part of North Carolina has a substantially lower cost of living. Insko said that this question would be a wonderful addition to the UNC System study legislation. She hoped that the Legislature would consider its addition to the study commission.
The Chair thanked Insko for her remarks and praised her prompt reply to constituents’ e-mails.
Moving to unfinished business, the Chair issued a second call for nominations for Forum chair. Sylvia White nominated Thomas H. Griffin to be the next Employee Forum chair. Griffin has been employed at the University since 1973, and now works in the Facilities Services division as a maintenance mechanic. Griffin holds a wealth of knowledge and experience, and has served on the Forum for two full terms, and has served as an alternate for three terms. Griffin is well-known and dependable, and has earned the confidence of his fellow workers. He has also served faithfully on the Forum’s Executive Committee, Nominating committee and has served on the University Insurance committee and its grievance panels. White said that Griffin has been sensitive to Employee concerns and does not hesitate to express himself. She praised his good sense of humor and positive attitude for staff improvement. She felt confident that he would serve the Forum well.
Griffin noted that he had arrived on campus as a temporary Employee in 1966. He felt privileged to be on the first Employee Forum, and praised the Forum as a great voice of the people. He indicated his desire to serve as chair and placed the decision in the hands of the Forum.
The Chair asked for any further nominations. Robert Thoma moved that nominations be closed, and Keith Fogleman seconded. This motion carried. The Forum then moved to elect Griffin by acclamation.
The Chair asked if there were any further nominations from the floor for the office of Vice Chair, to go with Gary Lloyd. There were no other nominations, and Thoma moved that the nominations be closed. Fogleman seconded, and the motion carried. The Forum then elected Lloyd by acclamation.
The Chair asked if there were any further nominations from the floor for the office of Secretary, to go with Kay Teague. Fred Jordan moved that nominations be closed, seconded by Fogleman. The Forum then elected Teague by acclamation.
The Chair wished his congratulations to the new officers. He then moved that the Forum take a five minute break. He also asked outgoing and continuing members to check in with Forum Assistant Matt Banks to receive their annual portrait.
Human Resources Update
The Chair welcomed the long-time Forum friend Laurie Charest to present its customary Human Resources update. Charest wished her congratulations to the incoming and outgoing Delagates and their officers.
Charest noted that the request for proposals (RFP) for dependent health care insurance, issued jointly by UNC-Chapel Hill, the UNC Health Care System, North Carolina Central, and North Carolina State Universities, had gone out recently. Responses are due December 14.
The University had recently completed North Carolina Flex program enrollments, adding another 100 members to flexible spending accounts.
The input subcommittee of the University’s administrative flexibility study committee will soon distribute forms asking for responses on a variety of issues. Employees can study the committee’s work at http://www.ais.unc.edu/ir/personnel/flex The committee will continue work on this survey in January. The benchmarking subcommittee continues to study Human Resources practices at peer institutions and local employers.
Charest reminded listeners that the Jingle Bell Jog would take place at 11:45 a.m. December 8 in front of the Woollen Gymnasium.
Sylvia White asked what efforts the University had made in placing the 17 laid-off Employees. Charest said that only one Employee had reached their lay-off date and Human Resources was working to place them elsewhere at the University. As many State agencies are undergoing hiring freezes, it is a difficult time to place people. Human Resources will also look at local governments to allow these Employees to remain in the retirement system.
Fred Jordan asked how many of the laid-off Employees were eligible for retirement. Charest knew that some of these Employees were eligible, but she did not know how many.
The Chair noted that he had spoken with Charest about the number of Employees enrolling in supervisory resources training. Charest said that she had not yet received this report but said that she would send it on to the Chair upon receipt.
Capital Improvement Update
The Chair was pleased to welcome Karen Geer, the business manager for Facilities Planning and Management, and 2001 Forum Secretary, to present a capital improvement update. Geer congratulated the new officers and Delegates.
Geer noted that new scaffolding will emerge around South Building around the first of the year, as work begins on the roof and elevator installation. Facilities Planning hopes to have the construction progress on the elevator underway by June.
Work on the School of Public Health has had a slippage in schedule, with construction now due to start in May or June. Memorial Hall will go out for bid in April with construction to begin in May or June.
The elevator work at Bingham Hall is now complete and the completely new elevator is now operational. Work on the residence halls abutting Manning Drive are now scheduled for a July completion date.
The Chair thanked Geer for her report. He hoped that Employees would keep in mind the campus’ future when negotiating its current inconvenience.
Approval of the Minutes
The Chair asked if there were any corrections or changes to the November meeting minutes. He noted that Lisa Garman had been incorrectly identified as the UNC Women’s Center office manager. Robert Thoma moved that the minutes be approved with this correction, seconded by Tommy Griffin. The minutes were approved as amended.
The Chair noted that the resolution condemning terrorism, Resolution 05-01, was up for second reading. He noted that David Horowitz had spoken in condemnable terms about the campus for allowing teach-ins about the September 11 attacks. The Chair observed that having teach-ins seemed to be the reason for the campus’ existence. He noted also that an article in The Nation magazine had noted that UNC-Chapel Hill had served to champion free speech in this difficult time. He asked the Forum to approve the resolution on second reading.
Rob Sadler moved that the Forum adopt the resolution as written, seconded by Thomas Griffin. The motion was approved by acclamation. The Chair said that he would forward this motion to the Chancellor.
The Chair noted that the next scheduled Forum meeting was due to take place January 2, the day following the holiday New Year’s Day. He noted that the Executive Committee had thought that it would be difficult to conduct business on this day. He noted the proposal to postpone the regular Forum meeting until the January 18 retreat. The Forum agreed to leave this decision in the hands of the new Forum officers.
Forum Committee Reports
Fred Jordan, chair of the Career Development committee, said that the group had discussed the campus apprenticeship program on campus. The committee will have Norm Loewenthal, director of UNC Continuing Education, as its guest at its next meeting. This meeting will take place December 20, at 1 p.m. in 042 Sitterson.
Jordan welcomed comments from Ray Doyle, who had received an appointment from Linda Carl to study a part-time degree seeking program for Employees.
Suzan de Serres, chair of the Communications committee, said that group would meet again at 9 a.m. in Ye Olde Waffle Shop on Franklin Street to discuss its final edition of InTouch for the year. She said that the Forum had received around 40 responses to its Human Resources manual contest.
Sheila Storey, chair of the Employee Presentations committee, said the group had not met, but that she planned to consult with new Vice Chair Gary Lloyd soon. She noted that the committee had followed up on the Forum resolution to hold more community meetings, noting that the Forum had sponsored three community meetings on the subject of administrative flexibility this past month. The Chair noted that only flexibility study committee members had attended the midnight meetings, but he felt satisfied that the committee had given second and third-shift Employees every opportunity to attend.
Sylvia White, chair of the Nominating committee, said the group had held its last meeting November 29. She thanked all of the committee’s members for their work and congratulated the various Forum officers.
De Serres, chair of the Orientation committee, noted that group would host the Forum’s annual retreat January 18 at the Friday Center. Committee members will call Delagates to obtain RSVPs before the group’s next meeting December 12.
Mary Ann Vacheron, chair of the Personnel Issues committee, reported a happy resolution to concerns about in-range salary increases in Facilities Services. She said that she planned to continue on as committee chair next year. The Chair thanked Vacheron for her commitment and work for the Forum this year.
Karen Jordan, chair of the Recognition & Awards committee, said that the group had met to finalize its annual report. The Chair noted that all committee chairs should have annual reports in to the Forum office by January 11. Vacheron asked that Banks forward the format for these reports to all committee chairs. Jordan noted that the committees should emphasize goals to pass on to the new group.
Linda Collins of the University Committee Assignments committee noted that group had finished its work filling committee positions. She noted the on-line information for University committees available on the Forum website. She thanked Banks for his assistance with this project, and Lee Edmark for chairing the committee this year. The Chair thanked Edmark and John Meeker in particular for their work on the on-line committee catalogue.
The Chair welcomed Jimmy Workman of the Transportation and Parking Advisory committee to make a report. Workman noted that the committee had been charged with several issues, among them how to implement resident student parking, to create a night parking plan, to study permit allocations, and to address cost increases.
Workman noted that Cheryl Stout had provided the committee a copy of a night parking proposal from previous years to start discussion. The committee has received overwhelming responses that those with a daytime permit should not have to pay more for an evening permit. Employees and managers of departments pointed out the difficulties for those staying past 5 p.m. to work who might face tickets for their commitment.
Workman asked for Employee feedback, and noted the misunderstanding that Employees might have to park further from their workplaces under a night parking system.
Concerning student accusations that they had not been consulted with regard to night parking, Workman said that these assertions were not accurate. He said that the University had talked about night parking permits for 4-5 years, but had been spiked by student protests each time. He said that a new night parking permit system would be enforced until 9 or 11 p.m., with permit holders allowed to park in any North campus lot.
Workman noted that pay lots now operate in the evening. He also noted that the University would plan to hold some lots open at no charge, under a first-come, first-served basis. The Bell Tower parking lot would be first-come first-served, for example.
The Transportation and Parking Advisory committee will meet again that afternoon at 3:30 p.m. to discuss night parking proposals. Mary Ann Vacheron asked if the University held classes at night. Workman said that the University does hold a fair number of classes, and experiences night traffic with events at Hanes and Memorial Hall, the various libraries, and student committee meetings.
Maglione asked if the University planned to solidify bus routes for those who cannot get to their vehicles in park and ride lots at night. He said that the night parking plan would work if the buses run on schedule.
Workman said that the committee had focused on transit issues, and hoped that more people would be willing to take the buses once they become free in January. Fred Jordan asked how much the committee anticipates that bus ridership will increase in the first year of fare-free service. Workman cited reports hoping for an increase of up to 35%. Much will depend on the success of the changes in routes, and the increased frequency of service. The University has studied dedicated routes to park and ride lots, provided either through Chapel Hill Transit or another provider.
Keith Fogleman noted the number of construction parking spaces that still clog up campus although the relevant construction has long departed. Workman advised Fogleman to contact Public Safety. Fogleman noted the unused construction spaces near Phillips and Peabody halls. Roy Caudle noted that as long as the contractor has a contract with the University and until they have totally completed their contract, they can retain their space. He noted that sometimes contractors must stay with a contract due to a lull in service, for example the time required to remove substandard wiring. Workman noted that these contractors pay for these parking spaces and their laydown space as part of their contract.
Linda Collins relayed the concern of Health Science Library Employees that to pay twice for parking would be very difficult, and would reduce access to the library for a large number of people. Workman said that one proposal has been that Employees paying for daytime parking would not have to pay also for nighttime parking. He noted the option of putting up meters for students.
Vacheron said that the Law School does not now have a parking problem, but many Employees like to come back to campus for special events. She thought that night parking permits would reduce this participation. Workman said that University parking must be self-sustaining, meaning that it must be paid for by people using the system. He noted that one major user not contributing to the campus parking upkeep has been nighttime parkers, thus the effort to spread the cost to these users. Without nighttime parking permits, daytime parking fees will go through the roof. Vacheron noted that Law School students, staff and faculty are against the proposal.
Collins asked if nighttime parking permit requirements would extend to weekends. Workman said that the required hours would probably cover times when people are working.
The Chair thanked Workman for his remarks.
The Chair congratulated the Forum’s outgoing Delegates for their work, and said that he would miss the regular contact with many of them. He thanked Matt Banks for his faithful work. He asked Delegates to work with new chair Tommy Griffin as they would with him, in a spirit of collaboration and good friendship. He thanked Griffin for the courage to stand for office, and wished him every success. He then passed Griffin the Forum gavel.
Griffin thanked outgoing Delegates for their service and asked them to consider continuing their committee service. He congratulated Chair John Heuer on the outstanding job done and thanked him for his many sacrifices. He noted that Heuer had always been there, doing double and triple duty on behalf of the Forum and the University.
In the absence of further discussion, the meeting adjourned at 11:48 a.m.
Matt Banks, Recording Secretary
Finis Coronat Opus