Skip to main content
 

February 1, 2023 UNC-Chapel Hill Employee Forum Meeting

Delegates Attending: L.E. Alexander, Randall Borror, David Bragg, Tiffany Carver, Michael Case, Elizabeth Dubose, Jay Eubank, Shayla Evans-Hollingsworth, Stephanie Forman, Adrianne Gibilisco, Chrissie Greenberg, Lonnie Hawley, Leah Hefner, Jessi Hill, Keith Hines, James Holman, Rebecca Howell, Brigitte Ironside, Kira Jones, Stacy Keast, Evan Marsh, Arlene Medder, Mandy Melton, Katie Musgrove, Joseph Ormond, Laura Pratt, Charlissa Rice, Kelly Scurlock-Cross, Theresa Silsby, Sarah Smith, Jake Stallard, James Stamey, Janet Steele, Kurt Stolka, Matthew Teal, Julie Theriault, Alice Whiteside, Tracy Wetherby Williams, Tracey Wiley, Tyrone Williams, Jacob Womack

Chair Katie Musgrove called the meeting to order at 9:15 a.m. She welcomed Chancellor Kevin Guskiewicz to the Forum’s monthly roundtable session. Guskiewicz said it was good to see everyone. He noted continuing forward progress on three priorities from Carolina Next’s Innovations for Public Good. He was very proud of progress made regarding priorities related to career development, promoting democracy, and ensuring that Carolina maintains its status as a research and innovation powerhouse.

Guskiewicz said it was important for all of its employees to see these opportunities to participate. Very soon, the university will send surveys to campus deans on these three initiatives. He looked forward to aiding partnerships among schools and other units to find success. Guskiewicz recalled that he charged the new working group on career development and career advancement last week, with the goal to consider the essential career and personal development experiences that Carolina students need for life beyond UNC.

This working group is composed of professors, administrators, alumni, current students, staff, and a few Board of Trustees members. The group will begin by surveying work already in place on campus, to build on this good work.

Staff play a vital role in this effort, Guskiewicz said. The effort encompasses supporting staff here at Carolina in addition to students and faculty, as staff make it possible for the university to carry out its mission of teaching, research, and public service. He wished to do everything possible to retain the university’s top talent and provide sight lines for opportunities to move into new roles on campus. To this end, the university will begin to implement a formal leadership development and organizational planning process, to develop a pipeline for leadership that will allow growth from within.

Guskiewicz noted that he had appointed a new committee on academic freedom and free expression just two days ago. The goal here is to find ways to address issues facing society in a way that everyone’s voice on campus can be respectfully heard. He said that the university wishes to shine a light on its research expertise to inform policymakers, legislators, and others who are called upon to make important policy decisions, in its role as a leading global public research institution.

This committee will advise Guskiewicz and other senior leaders on some of the critical issues that society is facing. The committee will give ideas for advancing academic freedom and will articulate free speech norms and best practices for our community. The committee will publish a website that will provide updates on its work and resources for community members to help them work through issues around free speech and academic freedom.

In addition, Guskiewicz was excited that the university had been able to increase graduate student stipends, in the largest single increase ever provided. This increase will go into effect this coming summer. The university is also developing plans to build new graduate research and innovation space. He noted firsthand the importance of recruiting top-tier graduate students to campus as a vital link between undergraduates and the campus’ research enterprise. Graduate students serve critically important functions in teaching and research.

The university welcomed the early decision applicants for the class of 2027 last week. Guskiewicz was pleased with the joy that these acceptances bring to students and families across the country.

Guskiewicz again thanked university staff and the Forum for all that they do, and offered to take questions from the delegation. The Chair recalled that university officials are working closely with the Town of Chapel Hill regarding affordable housing. She was pleased that Associate Vice Chancellor for Real Estate and Campus Enterprises Gordon Merklein is scheduled to join the Forum to discuss these matters next month. She asked Guskiewicz’ opinion on a recent article in the Chronicle of Higher Education about a Virginia college’s effort to pay $10,000 to each of its employees towards the purchase of a home (https://www.chronicle.com/article/a-college-hopes-its-home-buying-program-will-attract-employees). She asked if it was feasible for the university to incentivize staff and faculty to move closer to the area locally in this way.

Guskiewicz said that many universities are trying to find ways to incentivize faculty and staff to move to local communities, a difficult task. Locally, the area is becoming increasingly more expensive, and around 60% of campus employees now drive into Orange County to attend work. This is mainly due to the cost of housing. Guskiewicz deferred to OHR officials to speak on what restrictions and limitations govern possible incentives, but he was willing to give the idea consideration.

Associate Vice Chancellor for Human Resources, Equal Opportunity, and Compliance Becci Menghini said that this idea has come up at the UNC System level and would be considered non-salary compensation, meaning that some rules and approval requirements would apply. She said that the proposal would likely require Board of Governors approval. She said that there have been broader conversations about incentives in general, among them housing. She thought that as of right now, the idea would be a ways off from approval.

Tiffany Carver asked if Guskiewicz could provide any information regarding the School of Civic Life and Leadership discussed in the Board of Trustees’ meeting last week. Guskiewicz recalled saying twice this week that if something like this is to take shape, it will require a lot of planning. Provost Clemens will appoint a working group around the proposal and as mentioned Monday. The university has a general education curriculum oversight committee of elected faculty members involved with this project along with the Dean of the College of Arts & Sciences, or their designate.

As understood, Clemens has been working with others to build out the skills identified in the proposal for a new school, skills that were in fact already part of the general curriculum just launched. So, if this proposal is a way to accomplish this increased capacity, be it through a program or a school, the process will be driven by the faculty and by senior leadership, most likely from the College of Arts & Sciences and perhaps the Program for Public Discourse. Extensive planning remains.

In the absence of other questions, Guskiewicz wished the Forum well for the remainder of the meeting and the rest of the week. He said that he would stay a while, but then would need to leave.

As there was a delay in the meeting agenda, the Chair moved to the approval of the January minutes. Janet Steele moved that the January minutes be approved, seconded by Rebecca Howell. The motion was approved without opposition or abstention.

The Chair reminded listeners that the Forum will participate in an upcoming Vice Chancellors’ representatives’ meeting on Thursday, February 9th. She asked delegates to respond to the Qualtrics email asking for agenda topics and participants.

The Chair was pleased to welcome Becci Menghini to present the Forum’s customary Human Resources update. Menghini recalled that her colleagues will soon speak about the EHRA bonus program. She noted questions about what this program means for career banding, and where does the university stand regarding in-range adjustments. Menghini said that the university is not entirely in control of these things but has been advocating for a number of important tools to recruit and retain its best employees. Retention and sign-on bonuses are among those tools, and this is the first time the state has made those available to university employees.

The university’s Office of Human Resources (OHR) is currently working through its process to ensure that mechanisms are in place to provide for these bonuses, following state rules. Menghini was pleased to note that the state had come up with a bonus structure providing bonuses for SHRA and EHRA employees. It is not often a provision is made available to both sets of employees.

Menghini had no legislative updates. She said that the university continues its conversations about career banding in the state system, with all signs pointing to the UNC System Office gaining the ability to update ranges with an outside consultant separate and apart from Office of State Human Resources (OSHR) consultants. OHR awaits more details about this plan. The university will have a seat at this discussion and will provide more information when available. If activated, this new system will provide faster updates for SHRA ranges than those provided by the state currently.

Menghini cautioned that the approval of this new system would not be a fast process. She said that typically the process would require 18 months to get ranges updated, with an outside vendor who consults to look at market rates across the state and country for various positions. She noted the desperate need for these updates in the SHRA space, and she anticipated some movement on this front. Menghini thanked the UNC System Office and OSHR for their advocacy in this area.

Menghini recalled that the university is also working on a project to have EHRA ranges updated. Up until a year ago, UNC-Chapel Hill had management flexibility, meaning that the university had authority to update its ranges with the help of an outside consultant, which then received consideration for approval by the System Office.

As of now, UNC-Chapel Hill no longer has that authority, which was exchanged for the ability to manage more transactions locally. Menghini was pleased to be part of these discussions and guessed that these will continue likely for at least another 14 months or so.

The UNC System Office is arranging these agreements. UNC-Chapel Hill is at the table but is not the main party negotiating the deal. Thus, Menghini guessed the time involved will be 14 months for EHRA ranges and 24 months for SHRA ranges, possibly faster. OHR is pushing to get the SHRA ranges updated sooner rather than later.

Many people have contacted Menghini asking where the university stands on providing additional updates to Housekeeping employees related to career banding. She said that conversations have taken place. Also, additional sessions set up to talk about career banding with housekeepers will take place in mid-February. Any further updates to salaries will be discussed directly with employees involved before news is shared with the Forum.

Elizabeth Dubose asked about onboarding responsibilities related to new employee orientation. Menghini said that employees with questions should consult their Employee and Management Relations liaison who can help connect to the appropriate resources. Dubose asked if employees or supervisors are responsible for satisfaction of details like issuance of UNC One Cards to new staff. Associate Vice Chancellor Linc Butler said that these items should be addressed during the new orientation process as these employees onboard. If these employees face additional challenges once through that process, their local HR representative should be able to help them. Angenette McAdoo suggested supervisors use a checklist with new employees to ensure that these employees are adequately prepared for life on campus.

Rebecca Howell asked about insurance updates related to the coverage of gender-affirming care. She asked if the District Court’s decision is overturned, would this eventuality impact insurance coverage this year or the next. Secondly, she asked if gender-affirming care was a part of the State Health Plan RFP, and how decisions were made in selecting a new carrier.

Menghini replied that she could not answer the latter question, as the RFP is put out by the State Health Plan Board, which makes final decisions in these matters. The Treasurer does not make these decisions on his own. Menghini recalled that Blue Cross had argued that the Treasurer had made decisions on his own.  However, the governance on these questions goes before the full Board, which put forward the RFP.

Menghini did not know what was included in the RFP concerning gender-affirming care. UNC-Chapel Hill has indicated its support for gender-affirming care in the State Health Plan through the UNC System Office. Menghini understood that if the relevant rule is overturned, the impact of the change would take place in the next calendar year. She deferred to attorneys who have been tracking the issue closer than she has.

Howell asked in turn if the Employee Forum could obtain this information, as it composes a very large part of her concerns about working in North Carolina. She noted that this type of care is exceptionally expensive. She also was concerned that UNC Health has recently completely removed the UNC Hospital’s Gender Clinic website. Howell was thus very nervous about care for her child given the lack of firm knowledge about whether she would be able to cover her children’s care without leaving state employment. She said that this issue is huge for her and other parents working here at UNC-Chapel Hill. She thus asked for more transparency and information about this process to save time in digging up knowledge elsewhere.

Menghini understood Howell’s viewpoint, and said that OHR personnel have been in contact with benefits personnel with the State Health Plan on this question. She would follow up to see if her office could find more information, although she was uncertain from where to obtain it.

David Bragg asked if there would be an administration push to get people who are currently below market rate with regard to their salaries to at least market rate. He has been approached by employees with this question and he noted reports of at least one person working at the university earning $45,000 and living homeless in a tent. From a local church, he understood at least 40 to 50 people are users of the local food pantry. He said that most employees cannot afford to work for the university much longer.

Menghini said that Bragg raised an important point which strengthens the case to get salary ranges updated sooner rather than later. She recalled that the university had received state money as part of the Labor Market Adjustment Reserve (LMAR) intended to bring people below market rate closer to market rate for their position. She said that units were asked to deploy these increases based on information from the system about how far these employees fell below market rates. UNC-Chapel Hill has more employees closer to existing market rates than many of its peers, so figuring out how to best use this money presented somewhat of a challenge. Still, this money was made available to units to move their particular employees closer to existing market rates.

Menghini said that the phrase “existing market rates” is a key one, as these rates are very dated. People substantially below dated market rates face a real problem. So, LMAR raises were rolled out with the intention of addressing this problem up until the university can update the ranges themselves. Menghini granted that this solution is not entirely satisfactory, but she refused to turn down this step in the right direction, which put in place three million dollars across the institution to raise many employees closer to existing rates.

The Chair noted a chat question that was appreciative of the long overdue update to banding ranges. The questioner asked if any funding resources will come with those changes, as funding must be provided to make a difference on campus. The Chair recalled that the university had established a staff retention fund to cover cases where departments lacking appropriate funding.

Menghini said that this is correct, stating that resources used for staff retention made a pretty good dent in these needs. She hoped to find a mechanism to make these dollars recurring. Menghini bemoaned the one bit of bad news about the long delivery time to revise market ranges, that it will be a while before the university can put resultant money in the hands of employees. On the other hand, the university will be able to build for these increases in its budget cycle. Departments have recently submitted budget expectations and plans along this line, making the university better able eventually to manage these requests. Menghini has continued to communicate the urgency of these requests to university leadership. She said that the banding issue is only one part of the problem, however.

Jacob Womack asked if the Chapel Hill labor market is particularly tough because salary banding and market rates that are outdated, but also are based on statewide ranges. Menghini said that the state’s salary bands do not consider the cost of living in an individual region formally. Bands are instead managed with the idea of different areas’ costs of living.

Menghini commented that the university has gotten further in discussions about cost-of-living adjustments in EHRA market range meetings than SHRA meetings. Consultants have been considering cost of living in whether to expand bands or create additional ranges for classification for certain regions, providing a bit more flexibility for EHRA employees in a way not typically done in standard classification and compensation systems. Menghini said that a tiering of UNC System campuses may govern job classifications. There may be three tiers of UNC System campuses with different ranges across each tier. Thus, position differences on different campuses would be addressed.

Elizabeth Dubose asked about an employment situation in her department, related to position qualifications and hiring. Menghini offered that Dubose could discuss her question with OHR officials on the call following the meeting. She said that unit leadership across the institution is making decisions about what they can afford for various reasons. She thought that sometimes university officials need to be more honest about whether a proposal can be supported if people doing the needed work go away. These situations require honest conversations about staff duties, unit responsibilities, mission, and objectives. She offered again to speak with Dubose about her particular situation. She also commented that the well-being of human research subjects is an important part of all of this balancing and making determinations as a unit.

The Chair noted another chat question: what is the process for reclassification or reviewing a position, and how much time does this take for EHRA non-faculty and SHRA positions?

Senior Director for EHRA Non-Faculty and Academic Personnel Vanessa Ragland said that the university has a certain authority in the compensation of EHRA positions as opposed to SHRA positions, which have salary rates set by the state. The university has authority to classify or reclassify instructional research, IT, audit, business, or finance positions based on criteria established by the UNC Board of Governors. Ragland said that reviews of these positions would typically take 3-5 days, studying the position and making sure that it satisfies the criteria for classification.

Tier One of Academic Administrative officers includes Vice Chancellors and Deans; Tier Two includes Associate Vice Chancellors, Associate and Assistant Deans, changes to which must be reviewed and approved by the UNC System Office and the UNC System President. These approvals take a bit longer because the university must send these out for external review. In addition to that review, the Office of State Human Resources (OSHR) has a small piece in that review as well, Ragland said. In total, she estimated a two-week turnaround for a review or reclassification of this kind of position.

The Chair posed one final question from the chat for Vice Chancellor Menghini, asking when Human Resources will begin hiring housekeepers for second and third shift. James Holman said that the department has positions which have been open for two years, leaving staff to not be able to handle the workload due to being stretched so thin. Menghini recalled the numerous conversations that Forum delegates have held with Finance and Administration officials on this subject. She said that unit HR officers must provide information on what is coming. She advised Holman to direct his questions to Tracy Agnew and her team first, then forward the questions to Finance and Administration if he runs into trouble. In any event, Menghini said that these questions need to go to unit leadership first.

The Chair moved to Vanessa Ragland’s presentation on EHRA bonus programs. Ragland said that the EHRA sign-on and retention bonus program is now active, with departments able to use the program as their budget permits. Individuals who are candidates for or who are in permanent EHRA positions are eligible for these bonuses. However, an individual who is not meeting expectations on their annual performance appraisal is not eligible, as is someone who is under a performance improvement plan or who no longer works for the university. An individual must not have worked for the university as a permanent employee in the previous month to be eligible for sign-on bonuses.

Departments have begun to receive questions from employees as to whether they are eligible for sign-on or retention bonuses. An individual working in a permanent position would not be eligible for a sign-on bonus. An employee working at least 20 hours a week may receive either one sign-on bonus or one retention bonus within a 24-month period.

Performance bonuses are considered separately from sign-on and retention bonuses and are an additional benefit of the EHRA bonus program and are not available for SHRA employees. An individual doing stellar and exceptional work who has received a sign-on or retention bonus may also be eligible to receive a performance bonus.

Ragland noted a likely question as to whether someone who has received an annual raise process could receive a performance bonus in that same cycle. Ragland said that the answer to this question is ‘yes,’ but the performance bonus is set to a higher bar for eligibility. Retention bonuses do not preclude an employee from receiving a retention salary increase, for example in which a department can permanently match an external offer. In this case, the department might give some amount in a retention increase towards a retention offer, with an additional amount provided in a retention bonus in hopes of retaining that employee. Individuals can receive only one performance bonus a year.

Sign-on bonuses are granted for specific job classifications which are considered critical to the university and for which there is a labor market shortage for this skillset and experience. A departmental HR consultant can provide feedback on which positions meet these qualifications. Ragland said that the university can offer a relocation allowance for payments to an individual joining the university. A department cannot offer both a sign-on bonus and a moving allowance, however.

Ragland said that EHRA personnel already in employment at the university can obtain retention bonuses in that same classification or in a specific job classification as well. These bonuses must be job classification specific.

A final scenario is an EHRA employee who is likely to leave the university, and decisionmakers want to retain them. In this case, departments can offer a retention bonus instead of or in addition to a permanent retention increase. She cited the case of employees needed to work on a special project who are critical to this initiative. Another example might be in University Development, wherein employees are needed to implement a new system from start to successful completion.

Performance bonuses must be tied to specific criteria and quantitative and qualitative goals. The performance or the contribution that the individual makes must be measurable and broadly acknowledged, typically something with broader impact in the school and the university.

One would focus on one or more contributions of collaboration, creativity, or commitment in making this determination. One or all of these criteria would be written into the performance bonus eligibility document submitted to support the award. Approvals would go to EHRA review and then to executive leadership in OHR, in part to ensure that bonus amounts that individuals receive for sign-on and retention are the same.

A person could receive up to $25,000 or 20 percent of salary of the new position for a sign-on or a retention bonus, whichever is less. The retention bonus is 20% or $50,000, whichever is less. These may be paid out all at once or in installments. There is a repayment requirement for sign-on and retention bonuses, which state that if an individual receiving these bonuses leaves the university within twelve months, they would have to repay the bonus. Performance bonuses are not bound by these restrictions as they are tied to the prior year’s work. Performance bonuses are tied to the annual review process.

Ragland said that administrators are extremely excited about the advent of these bonuses for EHRA employees in an effort to retain and attract good people to the university. The Chair read a chat question asking if a retention bonus could be offered to an employee receiving an offer from a different unit within the university. Ragland said that would not occur as the university does not compete against itself. Thus, retention bonuses would be issued for employment opportunities external to the university.

Julie Theriault asked via the chat if Ragland could give examples of job positions considered mission critical under EHRA, or if bonuses depend on how the request is presented. Ragland said that there is no set list of positions. Each application must explain the unit and position work that makes a position mission critical.

Shayla Evans-Hollingsworth noted a chat question about the regular retention process and retention bonus requiring proof of an external offer. Ragland said that evidence of recruitment for EHRA employees is sufficient to demonstrate need, although an offer in hand is required for SHRA employees. In either case, the person must be in competition for an external offer.

The Chair asked about repayment terms. Ragland said that these will be based on the amount of time that the individual has been with the university, with the longer time leading to less of a payback. There is a specific formula used, Ragland said. Her office encourages departments to make bonus payments over a twelve-month period in order to place less financial responsibility upon the employee.

The Chair moved to the next special presentation of the morning: Senior Associate Director Lauren Mangili of Campus Recreation here to speak about opportunities for staff to participate in various campus recreation initiatives. A former Forum delegate, Mangili works with fitness and wellness in business operations and strategic planning. She thanked the Forum for the invitation to speak.

Mangili said that Campus Recreation is a campus department that designs and delivers innovative, diverse, and inclusive experiences to stimulate well-being, enjoyment, and learning for the entire community. She noted that employees can join in recreational membership options at a cost of $12.50/month, usually paid for via payroll deduction. Family plans are also offered and are pro-rated.

Membership offers access to all recreation facilities, including the Student Recreation Center and the Rams Head Recreation Center, which offer cardio and strength equipment as well as group fitness classes, functional training space, and areas for small group training. The facility on top of the Rams Head parking deck at the east end of Kenan Stadium offers basketball and volleyball courts, indoor track options, a climbing wall, and a multi-purpose studio. Woolen Gymnasium offers squash and basketball courts, a second climbing wall and cycle studio, locker rooms for daily use, and aquatic facilities, including indoor and outdoor pools. Campus Recreation also manages a variety of outdoor spaces for which membership is not required. These include the Outdoor Education Center.

Campus Recreation offers fitness and wellness classes, with over 50 in-person classes weekly held at the Student Recreation Center, Rams Head, and the cycle studio. Some of these formats include yoga, step, pilates, strength, base, total body conditioning, dance, and other classes. These classes are free to all members. Virtual classes are also available.

Campus Recreation also accommodates departmental requests for one-time or sequential classes. Employees can also sign up for personal training program and group training, the former having eight or twelve session packages for $30/session. A startup package includes a consultation and assessment to help get one started.

Mangili noted other small group training programs as well as aquatic offerings via group lessons and private swim lessons for members and others in the community. She said that the Challenge Course at the Outdoor Education Center frequently hosts team-building exercises for departments. The course features a dual zip line, one of the largest in the nation. The center also features over three miles of multi-use trails for hiking, running, walking, and biking. Mangili also highlighted the climbing program, which hosts a lunchtime climb for beginning employees on Fridays from 11-3 p.m.

A chat question asked if the facilities include free weight and bench options. Mangili said that the Student Recreation Center and the Rams Head Center feature free weights and machines for strength training. Another chat question asked how a department could sign up for the Challenge Course zip line. Mangili responded that a department can contact David Rogers, the Assistant Director for the Challenge Course.

Another questioner asked if people who use wheelchairs can engage in the ropes course in any way. Mangili thought that there is a way to accommodate these people, but she advised speaking with Rogers for an authoritative answer.

The Chair thanked Mangili for her remarks and turned to Senior Work/Life Manager Jessica Pyjas to provide an update on other wellness topics. Pyjas noted that February is American Heart Month, with February 3rd being Wear Red Day to bring awareness to the prevalence of heart disease as a leading cause of death in the US.

Pyjas said that the Employee Wellness Expo will take place Wednesday, March 15th. Employees can obtain fifteen-minute health screenings there. Pyjas praised the group fitness semester pass offered by Campus Recreation. She urged all to prioritize their physical activity, either at home, outdoors, or in the gym.

Eat Smart, Move More, Weigh Less will start its February series on Monday, February 6th, and is covered by the State Health Plan. The group will meet for 15 weeks. Pyjas then outlined the other courses in mindfulness and self-compassion to take place throughout February. She noted assistance that employees can obtain when trying to quit or cut back on tobacco and nicotine products through the plan.

The Chair confirmed that volunteers would be able to obtain screenings during the Wellness Expo. Pyjas said that was the case. She said that there would be free parking at the Cobb Deck that day and the day will be promoted as a non-meeting day. Visits to the Expo are considered worktime. Lenoir Dining Hall will provide a healthy lunch to attendees for a discounted price, as well.

The Chair moved to committee updates, noting that the Advisory Committee on Transportation and Parking is due to begin meetings soon. She noted Duke University’s program to provide subsidized parking for its employees earning less than $80,000/year.

There were no updates from the Communications and Public Relations committee. The Forum Book Club is due to meet again in March. Jacob Womack reported that the Community Service committee has been active planning another March Kindness event. The committee is busy selecting charities and hopes to culminate its work in March.

Laura Pratt said that the summer blood drive will take place Wednesday, May 3rd in the Dean E. Smith Center. The event will overlap with the Forum meeting that day, but she hoped that delegates will take the time to participate in both events. More information for prospective donors and volunteers will be released soon.

Arlene Medder had no updates regarding the Carolina Community Garden committee. Janet Steele said that she had enjoyed a very good meeting with the University’s DEI Council and Beth Posner this month. She thought that Posner received good feedback for the Carolina Women’s Center relaunch. Steele invited delegates to the DEI committee’s upcoming meeting with Terry Phoenix of the LGBTQ Center. Steele noted that the Forum DEI committee may request a statement from the Forum on hiring prior to the proposed rule change related to DEI from the Board of Governors.

At this point, the Chair turned the meeting over to Vice Chair Keith Hines to run the meeting, as she had to attend another meeting elsewhere. Hines invited the Education and Career Development committee to speak. Laura Pratt previewed the April work of the committee on professional development grants and the Carolina Family Scholarship. There was no update from the Membership & Assignments Committee.

Matthew Teal noted that the Personnel Issues committee had discussed transparency and the budgeting process and whether the Forum needed a resolution on this subject. Currently, the committee is working to update Resolution 22-03 concerning sexual assault and sexual harassment. Delegates interested in this subject are invited to participate in these rewrites. Teal also hoped that the committee would persuade an official to speak to the Forum on affordable housing initiatives. The committee’s next meetings will be February 16th and February 28th.

Tiffany Carver had no updates from the Recognition & Awards committee. Hines noted that the peer recognition process will begin soon. There was no update from the UNC System Staff Assembly.

Regarding University committees, Hines said that the Staff Advisory Committee to the Chancellor (STACC) meets every other month with the Chancellor. Matthew Teal noted that the Policy Review committee found that requirements for COVID-19 vaccinations for employees who work in healthcare facilities are now being implemented as the Center for Medicare and Medicaid services requires them. These requirements apply even to Facilities personnel who might step in to change a lightbulb, Teal said. University Council and Environment Health and Safety (EHS) are continuing conversations with the federal government to clarify these requirements.

Keith Hines noted a comment in the chat window that reminded delegates that they are required to serve actively on at least one Forum committee. He strongly encouraged delegates to step up their diligence in service. He noted that delegates are also expected to attend at least two high-level meetings like the Vice Chancellors’ representatives’ meetings during their term in office.

Chrissie Greenburg reported on how the secondary appeals for the Parking Appeals process works. She noted representation from staff, faculty, and student organizations. She hoped that the committee would have its charge clarified this next year. Tiffany Carver provided an update from the Carolina Peer Support Collaborative that grants are available for programs or activities that promote peer support. She would provide a web link to this program for the Forum.

There were no other university committee updates. Tiffany Carver was troubled by the progress of the proposed new School on Civic Life and Leadership, noting that faculty were not aware of the school until the Board of Trustees held the vote affirming the school.

There was no old business for the Forum to discuss. In new business, delegates raised questions regarding the new school related to civic discourse and its effect on the creation of new positions and university structure, which require faculty approval.

Rebecca Howell said that she would go forward with her health insurance appeal regarding gender-affirming care. She would possibly petition the Forum to put out a resolution on this topic depending on the decision of the Court of Appeals.

Arlene Medder said that she had taken the Lean Foundations training the previous week and found it very informative. Hines noted that Beyonce has just released tour dates.

In the absence of further discussion, the meeting adjourned at 11:29 a.m.

 

Respectfully submitted,

 

Matt Banks, Recording Secretary

Comments are closed.