February 9, 2023 Vice Chancellors’ Representatives’ Meeting
Attending: David Bragg, Linc Butler, Shayla Evans-Hollingsworth, Kira Jones, James Jordan, Leah Hefner, Keith Hines, James Holman, Nate Knuffman, Arlene Medder, Katie Musgrove, Joe Ormond, Laura Pratt, Charlissa Rice, Kelly Scurlock-Cross, Lori Shamblin, Matthew Teal, Julie Theriault, Tracy Wiley, Tracey Wetherby Williams, Tyrone Williams, Anna Wu
Katie Musgrove welcomed all to the February 13, 2023 Vice Chancellors’ Representatives’ meeting. She asked Arlene Medder to read her first question to the group:
(Medder) What is the status of the trade apprentice program? Reminder: the program was being developed in conjunction with local community colleges to get students training, trade certifications, and work experience to offset the gray out of the skilled trades. Has it been delayed by the HR staff shortage or by the sheer amount of red tape involved or is it still making progress?
Linc Butler responded that the program is making progress in spite of the recent pandemic. In speaking with Finance and Operations officials, Butler found their goal is to launch first apprenticeships in the fall of this year. Additionally, there are plans to hire an apprenticeship coordinator to help the program grow. Butler praised the teams that have worked on this question and the leadership from Finance and Facilities. Musgrove praised Anna Wu for her work on this issue, and Wu praised the Service Center for its contributions to this goal.
Musgrove asked if there were any plans to announce the program and its rollout. Wu said that this would occur but would likely wait until after apprentices have signed on.
Kira Jones asked Musgrove to read her question to the group:
(Jones) I have a number of concerns about the decision for state employees to move to Aetna in 2025, given Aetna’s reputation in the healthcare market – denying claims, not covering all costs, and setting high deductibles. Are the conversations happening at this time raising these concerns and working to hold Aetna to providing high quality, comprehensive, affordable health care? Is there anything we as employees can do to express our concerns to decision makers?
Butler noted that the State Health Plan is operated by the Treasurer’s Office and has historically been administered by Blue Cross/Blue Shield. The design, coverage, and reimbursement rates of the Plan are decisions made by the Treasurer’s Office and the Plan itself. Blue Cross/Blue Shield helps with membership drives, identification cards, network use, and provider payments. Aetna’s role will follow this model when it takes over the contract in 2025. Aetna’s reach will not touch what the Plan covers or how much it is covered.
Still, Butler said that anytime the State changes one vendor for another in matters of such scale, there needs to be as seamless a transition as possible related to service and responsiveness. Butler said that OHR has expressed these concerns to the UNC System Office.
Butler felt less worried about the service provided by the plan administrator than the overall plan itself, in terms of what it can and cannot continue to cover. He urged the Forum, and its attendees to communicate directly with their legislators to indicate their concerns.
Kira Jones thanked Butler for these insights. She recalled that Aetna has a bad reputation in the world of healthcare advocacy in which she previously worked. She was heartened to learn that Aetna will not be making decisions about coverage. Katie Musgrove said that the span of Aetna’s coverage network versus Blue Cross/Blue Shield’s network presents different challenges to State Health Plan enrollees, especially in rural areas of the state. Musgrove noted worries about switching from Blue Cross/Blue Shield as Aetna does not have the same history here with the State plan.
Butler said he had heard that the general intent is that networks will not change, and that the plan will still have the same kind of coverage and scope across the state. If he hears anything different, he will provide this feedback to this group and also argue vehemently against reduction of the coverage network below the minimum.
Katie Musgrove read Keith Hines’ question for the group:
(Hines) Due to COVID, measures were taken in efforts to increase health and safety throughout the campus. One of those measures was the pause of banquets/receptions recognizing significant landmarks in years of service. Now that we have a better grip on COVID, though there are still strides to be made, are there efforts to reinstate the previous banquets and gifts recognizing years of service for employees?
Butler said that OHR does indeed plan to bring these tangible recognitions of service back to campus, intending to move back to a more in-person recognition and awards kind of program. The first of these events is scheduled tentatively for June of this year. He was pleased that the University could move back to in-person events as it had done before. Musgrove said that this is great and added that the last time she had checked there is a pause in the banquets and the gifts.
Arlene Medder asked if OHR will recognize individuals who did not receive their banquets during the pandemic. Butler said that as one of those who hit 25 years of service during the pandemic, he would hope that would take place. More information would come out that question later on.
Katie Musgrove read the fourth question of the meeting:
(Musgrove) Starting October 3, 2022, the UNC System entered a contract with Ginger to provide emotional and mental health support to UNC employees at participating UNC institutions. Services provided through this program include: 24/7 access to a behavioral health coach, access to Ginger Emotional Support App for resources and online chat sessions with therapists and coaches, on-line self-care library (self-guided activities, videos, podcasts, etc.). As of the November, 2022 presentation about this benefit to the UNC System Staff Assembly, 11 of 17 institutions were participating, with UNC Chapel Hill being one of the six institutions not opting into the service. Given the continued presence of a mental health crisis in higher education, impacting employees as well as students, why did UNC Chapel Hill decide not to participate in this benefit to supplement the only existing mental-health resource dedicated to employees, the Employee Assistance Program (EAP)?
Butler said that there were a couple of issues that OHR officials had concerning Ginger. One was that their call structure model is based on the total population of an organization, not on utilization rates. Thus, under Ginger, the University would be paying for a contract for its entire employee population. This arrangement would work out poorly for the University if it has only 1-2% utilization rates. Secondly, there has not been work done on the front end to gauge interest in use of the software. Butler recalled that with the current system, Employee Assistance Program (EAP), utilization began in single digits and only with internal work has grown to 24% last year. This rate was the highest in the UNC System, which required significant ramp-up to achieve. Currently, utilization of Ginger among the 11 participating universities across the UNC System is about 3.7%. Thus, while the program is being offered, there does not sound like a great deal of use is occurring right now.
Butler said that OHR was also concerned about Ginger’s lack of alignment with current EAP services offered now. He noted a question about wellness coaches plugged in to replace licensed therapists in some areas. Butler also recalled that, as part of the structure in which the University would need to export employee data, Ginger could not offer out-of-the-box functionality to support multi-factor authentication. This flaw raised significant IT concerns. So, OHR continues to work with its account representative to ensure that staffing levels are appropriate and that challenges receive attention on the EAP side. He thought that EAP offers already the majority, if not all, of what Ginger offers as part of its platform. The answer regarding Ginger is a ‘not now,’ not ‘never.’
Musgrove commented that Butler’s information regarding the Ginger platform was useful, particularly the part regarding multi-factor authentication. She said that these concerns must be addressed given HIPAA factors. However, she hoped that cost is not the only factor in deciding this question. She thought that the University would be remiss if it did not add as many services as possible to the sphere of things available, given the challenges involved. Butler said that cost was a factor, but not the determining factor.
Musgrove said that utilization rates depend on the publicity attached to the new program. She wondered if efforts have been made to publicize Ginger to the degree that EAP has received. She thought that the utilization rate could change if employees hear more about Ginger.
Matthew Teal noted that there is trouble accessing resources that EAP offers for a variety of reasons. He asked if there is a Ginger competitor that the University could consider, perhaps with different resources or a different financial structure. Butler said that this supposition could be true, but it would require a bit more research to verify. Butler said that Ginger was judged to not be a good fit for UNC-Chapel Hill right now. He added that the last thing the University wants to do is to sign up for things just to check a box. Instead, OHR will want to ensure that whatever agreement entered into provides the best bang for the buck.
Matthew Teal suggested that the UNC System Office might create a System-level contract, providing this service for all institutions in the UNC System. Butler pointed out that the Ginger contract is a System contract, but it works on an option. He thought that this option could eventually prevail, with the System Office bearing the costs similar to the EAP arrangement.
Julie Theriault raised a question on health care via the chat feature:
To follow up on the health care, are you saying that providers that are currently used via BCBS state plan will still be accessible, or will we need to change providers if they do not take Aetna? For example, not all MH providers are in Aetna network. Will the ‘state plan’ for BCBS essentially transfer to Aetna state plan for service?
Butler replied that he did not envision any massive cuts or realignments, although developments are in a very early stage. He said that the University would resist any significant loss of networking or services for its employees. He noted that such changes would particularly be disruptive to mental health and other services as well. Theriault said that membership in Aetna has been challenging. She wanted to ensure there would not be an immediate stop of services or transferring services away from people with longstanding health concerns.
Matthew Teal read the next question:
(Teal) Given ongoing staffing challenges, has the University considered dropping college degree requirements for at least some positions where that is currently required? Maryland, Utah, and, most recently, Pennsylvania state governments have already implemented this change, as have numerous private-sector companies.
Butler responded that the short answer to this question was ‘no.’ He said that most of these articles address requirements in which North Carolina already has an equivalent combination language and minimum requirements. For example, in end-user support roles in technology, customer-facing roles and administrative support roles may in some cases require high school and work experience. In other cases, a position may require a bachelor’s degree and three years’ experience, or an equivalent combination of education and experience. He said that some positions might allow for flexibility whereas others, like accountants, would not allow different qualifications. He added that the State has continuing questions related to the career banding system. At present, there is currently no discussion about dropping these requirements.
Matthew Teal read his second question:
(Teal) In an interview with The Well that was published on January 23, 2023, Chancellor Guskiewicz said career development for University employees was a top priority for 2023. Chancellor Guskiewicz said “We’ve heard over and over about the challenges that higher education is having with the workforce shortage, how public universities are losing top talent to private industry. We want to be sure that our faculty and staff see opportunities for upward mobility within this organization.” What is the University’s plan to implement Strategic Plan Objective 3.2 regarding “upward mobility within this organization” this calendar year in response to the chancellor designating this as one of his top priorities?
Butler said that the Chancellor has discussed this priority at Forum meetings and other meetings as well. He said that the University is working to grow the capacity of Carolina to improve in this area and to make these offerings more accessible to a wider variety of the workforce. Training is the first step in this process, but other offerings are necessary as well. Career development will require advancement opportunities, but will also need funding for a staff mentoring program. Butler hoped that the staff mentoring program would eventually hire a coordinator to oversee its work.
Teal said that he loved the mentoring idea. He asked if OHR coordinated with the Employee Forum on its development. He hoped that the Forum could work to help shape this program. Butler recalled that OHR sent an interest survey regarding mentoring to all staff to obtain feedback.
Musgrove followed up, asking her specific place as Forum Chair in the strategic initiative, including when meetings of that group will occur. Butler said that he would check on this question later that afternoon.
Matthew Teal read the last pre-submitted question of the meeting:
(Teal) On October 25 of last year, Governor Cooper signed Executive Order 271. According to the press release for the signing, Executive Order 271 is intended to “accelerate the state’s transition to a clean energy economy that creates good jobs and opportunities for all North Carolinians while protecting public health and the environment.”
Section 6 of the Executive Order requires Cabinet agencies to prioritize purchasing or leasing “medium- and heavy-duty” Zero Emission Vehicles. The order also directs the NC Department of Administration to add medium- and heavy-duty Zero Emission Vehicles to state term contracts to facilitate this vehicle replacement process. Does UNC-Chapel Hill plan to comply with the Executive Order? I recognize that UNC-Chapel Hill is not a Cabinet agency and so is technically not required to comply. However, we have complied with similar executive orders in the past. For example, in 2019 UNC-Chapel Hill complied with Executive Order 95 regarding parental leave that was only required for Cabinet agencies.
Nate Knuffman began his response by noting the good and transparent work of Sustainable Carolina, which is tracking this executive order as well as others. He said that medium and heavy-duty Electric Vehicles (EVs) are not yet on State contract, mainly as a function of supply. It is unclear when there will be enough supply to fulfill the requirements of a State contract.
Knuffman said that the price delta related to EVs is pretty significant, and Finance will think about cost versus benefit analysis. In terms of emissions, Knuffman said that Operations staff and Sustainable Carolina are discussing this factor a great deal.
Katie Musgrove noted that this meeting is the final one before Associate Vice Chancellor Anna Wu will attend before her retirement. Attendees wished her all good tidings upon her retirement. Keith Hines said that the Forum appreciated Wu and all that she has done for the University.
Matthew Teal asked if Wu could provide an update on the number of current Housekeeping vacancies as of present. Wu said that the last she had been told there are 97 vacancies in Housekeeping. Facilities is recruiting to fill 17 open positions on third shift. Twenty-five applications were received for these openings that were posted from January 10-28th. Facilities will also post 20 openings on second shift and will also engage temporary recruitment efforts.
Teal thanked Wu for these specific metrics on recruitment efforts. He asked if she could speak more about what exactly these numbers mean. Is the University simply posting on the UNC jobs website, or is it getting out in the community with job fairs and advertising? Wu said that Facilities had done job fairs over the summer and into the fall. She recalled that Tracey Agnew with Operations Excellence has exchanged emails with James Holman following up on his suggestion for print advertisements. Facilities has also done LinkedIn and grassroots efforts like providing printing cards that Housekeepers can share with people they know.
Wu said that perhaps Facilities needs to do more mass media for recruitment. She said that Facilities has at least a 25% vacancy rate across the entire department at all levels, including operations, housekeeping trades, and professional positions. These are very challenging times for Facilities. Musgrove said that it was troubling that the rate of vacancies in Housekeeping had grown from around 60 to almost 100. Wu said that the recent Labor Market Adjustment Rate increases for these positions have not alleviated this crisis.
Teal asked if Facilities knows why people are leaving Housekeeping specifically, or Facilities in general. Wu said she would have to check how active Facilities has been with exit interviews of departing employees. She understood that many are simply leaving for higher paying jobs, or are retiring, or have identified promotional opportunities in Facilities. This latter reason represents a professional development opportunity for these employees and in that sense is a real positive for Facilities Services, although it remains a challenge to backfill positions.
James Holman said that many staff are leaving because they are stressed out. He said trying to maintain standards while doing the work of 2-3 people is extremely stressful. He noted one recent hire who had been working here only three months and had just said that she plans to leave employment.
Holman said that he had not received these employment cards mentioned earlier, nor had he heard of others receiving these cards. He recalled only one job fair, although Wu said that Facilities had attended at least two more. She said that Facilities needs to be more creative in reaching different outlets.
Regarding stress on positions, Wu said that Facilities has had to be flexible in moving staff from one assignment to another to cover priority areas in zones that are not adequately staffed. This effort requires a lot of flexibility and creativity at the crew leader and zone manager level, and a lot of flexibility at the staff level. She said that officials are trying to recruit additional staff, while this recruitment may not be happening in a timeframe that Holman or others would like, it is not for lack of effort. Holman said that a number of housekeepers have said that they are going to retire given the current situation.
Holman asked that the University do whatever it can to advertise these positions to get news of these vacancies out to the public. He said that people are willing to work for the amount of money on offer now, particularly with benefits included. He added that hiring sheets seem to indicate that some applicants are not receiving interviews. He said that a person does not need housekeeping experience to be a housekeeper. He would be glad to train new hires how to do the job.
Tyrone Williams asked why Facilities has the same people doing interviews who are also hiring candidates. He believed that applicants could be a good fit for elsewhere in Housekeeping even if a hiring officer does not agree that they would fit a particular role. Williams also commented that people seem to be sick of excuses regarding staffing, and are leaving as a result. He advised loosening hiring standards to bring in candidates en masse to fill vacancies.
Matthew Teal asked if OHR could possibly relax hiring requirements or make procedural changes to broaden the number of interviews offered. Linc Butler said that OHR has worked to do all it can to streamline this process. He noted that interviewing every applicant is a sure way to slow down the hiring process. He said that there are some obvious things on an application that give good reason not to select an applicant for an interview.
Arlene Medder asked if there were any revisions to the State’s adverse weather policy this year. Butler had no changes to the adverse weather policy to report.
Katie Musgrove adjourned the meeting, wishing Anna Wu well for her retirement.
Respectfully submitted, Matt Banks, Recording Secretary