Skip to main content


Agenda — February 4, 1998


9:30 a.m.–Meeting, Assembly Room of Wilson Library

I. Call to Order


II. Welcome Guests, Members of the Press


III. Opening Remarks

* Executive Vice Chancellor Elson Floyd


IV. Employee Presentations


V. Special Presentations

* Suggestions for Special Presentations This Year?


VI. Human Resources Update

* Laurie Charest, Associate Vice Chancellor, Human Resources


VII. Approval of Minutes of the January 7, 1998 meeting


VIII. Unfinished Business

* Need for Forum Committee Members, Chairs

* Computer Literacy Resolution Followup: Responsibility of Career Development Committee?

* Creation of a “Greening the Campus” Committee?


IX. New Business

* Discussion: University Priorities & Budget Committee Priorities

* Discussion: Update on Implementation of Housekeepers’ Settlement from Elson Floyd

* Employee Appreciation Fair Booth Task Force Duties Transferred to Communications Committee?


X. Chair’s Report (Executive Committee): Linwood Futrelle

* System Staff Assembly Meeting with General Administration Vice President Roy Carroll January 14

* Meeting with University Priorities and Budget Committee January 20

* Committee Rosters, Meeting Times

* President Molly Corbett Broad to Make Special Presentation to Forum April 1

* C. Knox Massey and UMA Manager of the Year Award Nominations



XI. Committee/Task Force Reports:

* Nominating—Lucille Brooks

* Orientation—

* Personnel Policies—Martha Barbour

* Compensation and Benefits—

* Communications—Jennifer Henderson/Jim Barnes

* Recognition and Awards—Joyce Dalgleish

* University Committee Assignments—Anne Montgomery

* Career Development—

* Employee Presentations—Jeffery Beam

* Employee Appreciation Fair Booth Task Force—-

* School Volunteerism Task Force—Libby Evans

* Intellectual Climate Task Force—Libby Evans

* Grievance Procedure Task Force—Bob Schreiner

* Board of Trustees Presentation Task Force—Linwood Futrelle

* Transit and Parking Task Force Representative—Libby Evans

* Outsourcing Team Representatives—Bennie Griffin/Ann Hamner

* UNC System Staff Assembly—Bob Schreiner

* Faculty Council Liaisons


XII. Announcements/Questions


XIII. Adjournment


February 4, 1998

Delegates Present

Betty Averette

Martha Barbour

Jeffery Beam

Linwood Blalock

Connie Boyce

Mary Braxton

Tommy Brickhouse

Lucille Brooks

Gwen Burston

Denise Childress

Jean Coble

Joyce Dalgleish

Martha Davidson

Linda Drake

Linwood Futrelle

Libby Evans

Betty Geer

Sherry Graham

William Grice

Jerry Hall

Phil Hearne

Jennifer Henderson

Al Jeter

Bettye Jones

Steve Jones

LaEula Joyner

Dee Dee Massey

Eileen McGrath

Lesa McPherson

Anne Montgomery

Jackie Overton

Barbara Prear

Bob Schreiner

Stephanie Stadler

Nancy Tannenbaum

Terry Teer

Dail White

Carol Worrell

Ted Wright

Laurie Charest”

” = Ex-Officio


Delegates Absent

Pat Bigelow

Mitch Copeland

Ken Litowsky

Frances Rountree

Cheryl Stout

Kenneth Yow


Alternates Present

Jim Barnes

William Carroll



Elson Floyd

Ann Hamner

Mitch Kokai


Call to Order, Welcome to Guests

Chair Linwood Futrelle called the meeting to order at 9:30 a.m. The Chair asked members to sign in and to examine the routing file as it was passed around the room. He welcomed newly promoted Delegates Gwen Burston and Barbara Prear, other guests, members of the press, and Executive Vice Chancellor Elson Floyd.


Opening Remarks

Floyd began his opening remarks by saying he looked forward to working with the Forum’s new leadership. He had been awakened the night before by reports of the fire in Carmichael Auditorium, and noted that all aspects of the University worked together to deal with this emergency. A student in the Teague Residence Hall had spotted the fire and called the police department and the Chapel Hill fire department. The fire chief spoke with a housekeeper who did not know about the fire, but took time to scan the building to make sure that no one was trapped inside. Floyd was encouraged that the campus responded to this crisis in a collaborative fashion.

Unofficially, Floyd said that it appears the women’s basketball team will be able to use Carmichael for future games. However, this decision will be made at the discretion of the athletic department.

Floyd thanked the many staff Employees who helped make UNC System President Molly Corbett Broad’s visit to campus a success the day before. He said that the day-long visit had been valuable in acquainting Broad with the campus and its programs.

Regarding legislative priorities, Floyd said that General Administration had yet to compose its official list for 1998. However, he was convinced that certain items will hold a prominent place on this list, for example the need for appropriate salary increases for faculty and staff. Floyd felt that as a leading public university, UNC-Chapel Hill must maintain wages competitive with its peers and local market levels. He was absolutely convinced that the issue of salary increases is among the top issues on the University’s legislative agenda.

Floyd said that General Administration will also lobby for increased graduate student tuition remission in order to attract the best possible candidates. He thought that peer institutions have done a much better job than the University has supporting graduate students through tuition remissions and stipends.

Floyd outlined a number of capital improvements that the University will seek in the short session, including renovations to the Undergraduate Library, additions and renovations to the Student Union, and construction of an herbarium and research building in the North Carolina Botanical Garden. He felt that these projects will find support in the General Assembly.

Floyd noted that the University has contracted with a national consulting firm to look at the services and functions of its police department, and that consultants have been conducting discussions with various students, faculty and staff. He imagined that the firm would issue a report or statement to the public on or around March 1.

In response to health and safety concerns, the University has cancelled installation of a telecommunications antenna on the roof of Hamilton Hall.

Floyd offered to receive questions from the Forum. Tommy Brickhouse asked, in light of North Carolina’s robust economy, about the possibilities of funding the comprehensive compensation plan for State Employees. This plan calls for 6% increases for State Employees based on cost-of-living, career growth and merit considerations. Floyd said he was unsure of General Administration’s position on this subject and asked Associate Vice Chancellor for Human Resources Laurie Charest to follow up on this question for the Forum.

Bob Schreiner asked about the status of the Vice Chancellor for Administration search. Floyd said that this position, formerly the Vice Chancellor for Business and Finance, remains the last key post to be filled by the University. He said that this search is ongoing, though the search committee has not met recently. While no candidate has been immediately scheduled to interview on campus, the University remains committed to fill this position.

Floyd offered his aid to the Forum and its members and proclaimed his appreciation for the assistance the Forum provides.


Employee Presentations

There were no Employee Presentations.


Special Presentations

The Chair asked members to brainstorm about possible ideas for special presentations in 1998. Vice-Chair Jeffery Beam suggested that the Forum hear from Joe Hewitt, Director of Libraries, on the changing role of University Libraries given emerging technologies. He also was interested in the role the undergraduate library will play as the University enters the next century. The Chair pointed out that this presentation tied into issues involving the intellectual climate and Employee computer literacy, both subjects that the Forum has recently addressed.

Bob Schreiner proposed that the Forum hear from Lindsay Reeves of Heels for Health. Two years ago, the Forum had heard a presentation from Reeves on the functions of her office and certain relaxation techniques. Schreiner urged the Forum to act fast to schedule Reeves as her calendar fills up quickly.

Linda Drake suggested that the Forum ask either Bruce Runberg, Associate Vice Chancellor for Facilities Management, or Gordon Rutherford, Director for Facilities Planning and Design, to speak on the master plan for central campus.

Denise Childress asked that the Forum hear a special presentation from a representative of transportation & parking. She was particularly interested to hear what factors have influenced talk of raising the cost of parking permits. The Chair anticipated that the Forum would want to hear this presentation fairly quickly as the transit and parking task force will issue its report in the near future. Libby Evans confirmed that the task force will make its recommendations in the very near future, and would provide a further update in her task force report.

Beam suggested scheduling the University Priorities and Budget Committee (UPBC). He reported that the Employee Presentations Committee has plans to invite the UPBC to be the featured attraction at the Forum’s spring community meeting (to be held in late spring or early summer), but still thought it would be useful for the committee to meet with the Forum as a whole. The Chair expected that the subject of budget priorities and reallocation will become a very hot topic later in the year and thus will be a good subject for a special presentation. He invited members to send him their ideas on other special presentations.

Secretary Lucille Brooks noted that UNC President Molly Corbett Broad is scheduled to address the Forum at its April 1 meeting. The Chair looked forward to hearing Broad’s vision for the University.


Human Resources Update

The Chair introduced Laurie Charest to give the Forum’s customary Human Resources update. Charest would first report on several recent issues to come before the Forum before returning to the salary issue raises by Brickhouse.

The first of these reports concerns the transition team at General Administration (GA). This team was established as a result of work related to GA’s persistent personnel issues committee which was itself composed to address continual problems arising from personnel issues related to the University System. Out of this group’s work and the support of the Office of State Personnel, General Administration and the Office established a partnership agreement to deal with these issues. A transition team was appointed to establish a working model of this groundbreaking agreement.

Charest has been told that an addendum to this agreement has been drafted although not yet signed. The addendum would allow the University to develop an equivalent personnel system under the State Personnel system which would allow additional flexibility in areas unique to University life. This addendum is only at the draft stage and has not yet been signed; however, Charest was excited to share the news that the transition team has developed a set of draft guiding principles. These principles have not yet been approved or adopted, but Charest thought that these principles formed the basis of a different and exciting system of University personnel administration.

Draft guiding principles for the new system include:

* Delegation of authority to the lowest possible level with a great deal of local control.

* Consultation within the University system and with the Office of State Personnel.

* Responsiveness.

* Flexibility: providing a menu of options for each institution to implement.

* Emphasis on Results, rather than process.

* Simplicity: making the system understandable to all within while avoiding redundancy and repetitive, excessive work.

* Efficiency, to make maximum use of University resources.

* Innovation, to follow the best human resources practices in existence anywhere.

* Partnership: working in true concert with the Office of State Personnel.

* Use of Technology to the greatest degree possible benefit of the system.


Charest was excited to see developments move in this manner and was interested to hear members’ views on this draft set of principles. She would keep the Forum updated on the transition team’s progress.


Concerning the grievance procedure review task force, Charest thanked Forum members for their assistance in finding the names of a number of nominees for this task force. The group’s membership has been set, and will meet for the first time the afternoon of February 5. Members are: Laurie Charest (Chair); Bob Schreiner (Vice Chair); Diane Balcom (UNC Physicians & Associates); Susan Ehringhaus (Legal Counsel); Mary Everett (Biostatistics); Linwood Futrelle (Academic Technologies & Networks); Evelyne Huber (faculty—Latin American Studies and chair of faculty grievance committee); Martha Johnson (Housekeeping); Bob Joyce (Institute of Government); Joanne Kucharski (Registars’ Office); Dee Dee Massey (Physical Plant); Drake Maynard (Human Resources); Rosa Nolen (Financial Systems); Peter Schledorn (Research Services); Joe Totten (Human Resources). Charest felt this was a great group and she would keep the Forum updated on the task force’s work.


Concerning long-term care, Charest recalled that at the last session of the General Assembly the Legislature passed a bill offering an Employee-paid plan to all members of State Government. Human Resources has awaited word on the details of this plan and has lately been informed that the State health plan has heard three bids and will select a carrier very shortly. The target date for the program’s implementation is the middle of this year. Charest hoped to have more details soon.


Charest noted that progress continues on the implementation of the Human Resources Information System (HRIS) and that Human Resources is aiming for May implementation of the first phase. This first phase will include Employee and position information, and will replace a number of paper forms such as the PD 105, the PD 7, the PD 118, and numerous other smaller forms.

As development continues and testing begins, Human Resources is about to initiate an extensive training period. A partial demo is available to demonstrate how the system will operate. Charest had spoken with the Chair about the possibility of the Forum viewing this demo to provide feedback; the Chair suggested that the Executive Committee hear this presentation and invite all interested members to attend, as the demo is too long to be part of a regular Forum meeting.

Charest asked the Forum’s feelings about her arranging this session. It was noted that the Executive Committee meets from 10-11:30 a.m. the third Tuesday of every month. The Chair said that the meeting would be moved to a classroom meeting the necessary video production and computer requirements. Evans expressed an interest in attending this presentation. Charest said she would work on getting information about the HRIS demo to Forum members before the meeting, and she hoped to see many members in attendance.


Concerning salary issues, Charest attempted to address Brickhouse’s question about what levels of compensation should be deemed reasonable. She was uncertain about the answer to his question, understanding that Brickhouse supports full funding of the comprehensive pay plan. Brickhouse felt it was time for Employees in work units to come to an understanding of the plan’s importance and to start writing letters in support of the plan. Charest asked if the Forum wished to ponder its role in advising the Chancellor on this issue. She proposed that the Forum discuss this role, possibly beginning by writing the Chancellor a letter expressing its views.

Charest noted that the difficulty in pursuing this task is that the proposal for SPA Employees’ salary increases must come directly from the Governor as opposed to proposals for faculty salary increases which originate with General Administration. This stipulation does not mean that the Chancellor cannot hold an opinion on the comprehensive pay plan; however, Charest suggested that the Forum discuss whether it wants to communicate to the Chancellor on this subject, to ask the Chancellor to communicate the Forum’s feelings to the Governor, or to pursue some other course.

Charest recalled that the comprehensive pay plan was passed into law in the 1994 session of the General Assembly. The pay plan for SPA contains three parts: a cost-of-living segment, a career growth segment (movement within an employee’s salary range), and a performance/merit segment. The comprehensive pay plan has never been fully funded by the General Assembly since becoming law. Some years, only the cost-of-living portion of the plan has been funded; last year, the cost of living and career growth portion were supported. There has never been funding established for the merit/performance parts of the plan.

The comprehensive pay plan is officially North Carolina law, but the Legislature has only funded pieces of the plan. Charest assumed that Brickhouse would like the plan to obtain full funding from the General Assembly.

Charest recalled that the pay plan as written would mean a 6% pay raise for State employees, split into 2% for cost-of-living, 2% career growth and 2% merit pool segments. Because the Legislature has not allocated a 6% raise for all employees since 1994, it has been decided each year to only fund one or two of these different segments. Charest speculated that it would take a reasonably sized increase to fund all three aspects of the plan.

Brickhouse noted that the comprehensive pay plan relates to a resolution that had been forwarded to the Forum by NC State University’s Staff Senate. The Chair thought that this resolution would be a good supporting document to forward to the Chancellor for use in conversations with the Governor.

Charest asked if there were any further comments or questions from the Forum on salary concerns. Bob Schreiner noted that the partnership agreement negotiated by General Administration and the Office of State Personnel will devolve a fair measure of authority to local campuses. He asked if campuses will also receive the authority to set salaries at a level competitive with local market conditions.

Charest hoped that campuses will receive this authority, but did not have information on this subject. She noted that the transition team has divided itself into three groups to work on three different aspects of the personnel system, one of which is a classification/compensation group. This group is studying different compensation and classification systems in the public and private sector. She knew that the group has received feedback that local market conditions present a problem for some campuses. Beam asked Charest what were the other two groups the transition team commissioned. Charest replied that these other groups studied performance appraisal and recruitment and selection.


Approval of the Minutes

The Chair called for a motion to approve the minutes of the January 7, 1998 meeting. Joyce Dalgleish made this motion, with Linda Drake seconding. There was no discussion, and the minutes were approved.



Need for Forum Committee Members, Chairs

The Chair reported that all of the Forum’s various committees have appointed leaders with the exception of the Orientation Committee. (Nancy Tannenbaum has since volunteered to head this committee.) The list of committee rosters and meeting times continues to be revised as groups finalize their information. The Chair asked that members communicate their most up to date information to the Forum Office; he also noted that all Forum Delegates are required to serve actively on a Forum committee and asked Delegates that have not yet made a choice to do so in the next month.


Computer Literacy Resolution Follow-up: Responsibility of Career Development Committee?

The Chair noted a suggestion that the Career Development Committee assume responsibility for tracking the University’s follow-through on the computer literacy resolution which the Forum approved in December 1997. Previously, other members had suggested the appointment of a special task force to monitor implementation of this document.

Gwen Burston and Bob Schreiner, Co-Chairs of the Career Development Committee, indicated their group’s willingness to assume this charge. It was noted that the 1997 Career Development Committee had been the driving force behind approval of the computer literacy resolution. The Forum agreed by acclamation to follow this course.


Creation of a “Greening the Campus” Committee?

The Chair recalled Forum discussion about creation of a “Greening the Campus” Committee, following on remarks from Chair of the Faculty Pete Andrews at the Forum’s January meeting. The Chair noted that “greening the campus” implies more than planting trees and flowers; the term also involves incorporating recycling, energy efficiency, and a multitude of other “green” goals into campus activities and functions. The Chair opened the floor for discussion.

Beam felt that the Forum should establish a task force rather than a committee to address this topic. He thought that the University should establish a pan-University committee containing faculty, staff and students. He did not think it a bad idea for the Forum to start exploring the efforts needed to accomplish this goal, but was uncertain that establishing a full-fledged committee was the best way to proceed.

Anne Montgomery asked if a delegate in favor of establishing a committee could share their point of view. Libby Evans said that she and Sherry Graham had discussed the idea among themselves at the January Forum meeting. From her point of view, Evans felt the idea presented another valuable opportunity to work with faculty and students on an issue of campus-wide interest. She thought that the Forum could lay the groundwork for the committee before its establishment as a pan-University group. Evans was convinced that the campus could become more ecologically aware though it had progressed a great deal in recent months.

For example, the creation of a master plan for central campus presents a great opportunity to instill “green” values into the University’s planning process. Evans noted federal and State initiatives to support passive and active solar design, and thought the University could play a leading role in bringing these technologies into active use.

The Chair asked what the Forum Guidelines and/or parliamentary rules say with regard to the creation of a Forum committee or task force.

Montgomery noted that the University has established an Energy Conservation Committee which meets monthly with Physical Plant representatives. Evans asked if this group is a departmental committee, and Montgomery said that the group deals with University-wide matters. She recalled that the group had strong representation from University Housing, and that Roger Hayes (Facility Mechanic Engineer) and Herb Paul (Physical Plant Director) were prominent members of the group. Montgomery suggested that Hayes would be a good contact in this endeavor.

Stephanie Stadler suggested that the Forum hear a special presentation from members of the Energy Conservation Committee on their activities. Brickhouse noted that Hayes would be easy to contact. Evans was encouraged to hear of the Energy Conservation group, but said that “greening” activities encompass a range of actions which go beyond simply increasing energy efficiency or preserving green spaces. For example, she wondered if the Energy Conservation Committee considers recycling an energy conservation issue which in fact it is on a global scale.

Sherry Graham said she had conceived of this idea in terms of everyday issues the University faces–where will the campus preserve its green spaces in light of continued development of parking decks and buildings? How can we insure planning for “human-scale” walking and biking paths? Graham was astonished at the creativity exhibited to deal with “greening” concerns in her visits to other campuses, and hoped to find a way to import these approaches to UNC.

Beam thought it best to invite an Energy Conservation Committee representative to address the Forum on activities that are already in place. After hearing this presentation, the Forum could ask questions about the committee’s expansion of activities into more inclusive greening concerns. Perhaps, the Forum could suggest this group become a campus greening committee, or the Forum may afterwards choose to establish a task force. Consulting with existing groups beforehand could save the Forum a lot of work involved in establishing a committee or task force. In any event, Beam thought hearing from these representatives would be a good place to start.

Montgomery asked if members knew of any University-wide committee that was thinking about green space in its deliberations. The Chair did not think that there was a group specifically charged along these lines, though green issues have been mentioned in several different contexts. Evans imagined that the Buildings & Grounds Committee ponders greening issues along with other questions it must address. However, she doubted that the Buildings & Grounds Committee considers all of its activities from start to finish within the green context.

Beam noted that much green thought is designed to create an activism which establishes the importance of making everyone in an organization involved as a participant. This is a different approach than the piecemeal treatment of various issues by various committees.

Stadler gathered from Floyd’s earlier comments that green concerns will be considered when the master plan is presented for main campus. She thought it a good idea for the Forum to have some members interact with those involved in the creation of this master plan as a way to present these ideas. The Chair concluded that the Forum should do a bit more homework before carrying the proposal further. He asked for volunteers to research this subject and to report to the Forum on what University committees are handling concerns.

Brickhouse offered to look into the Physical Plant’s work, noting that the Physical Plant does a great deal already with regard to controlling buildings climate through automated temperature controls and other means. The Chair thought that the Physical Plant is currently more concerned with energy consumption management than the broad range of green issues.

Montgomery noted that the University is responsible for upwards of one million light bulbs, and so has a concrete interest in management methods that might save money or labor. She imagined that a great deal of these activities are already contained in Employee job descriptions and departmental mission statements. She proposed that the Forum learn more about what is already in progress, but added that the activism component has appeal. Graham said that Pete Andrews had sent her a brochure about a conference in South Carolina; she thought that if no one was able to attend the conference it would be useful to obtain some of the accompanying literature.

Beam wondered if a task force of three or so people should work on researching the issue by consulting with the Buildings & Grounds, Recycling, Energy Conservation Committees as well as other groups associated with green concerns like the Physical Plant. Tommy Brickhouse, William Grice and Ted Wright all agreed to work on this task force. Wright commented that Physical Plant offices work on different aspects of this task, but there seems to be no overall organization towards a common goal. He said that his department was working to instill green concepts into planning for new buildings.

Jim Barnes sought to clarify the Forum’s plan of action. On the one hand, an institutional focus on certain aspects of conservation already exists throughout campus. However, organizers hope to instill a consciousness among the campus community as to what is meant to be a student of the environment, including but not limited to common acts like recycling and energy conservation. This move would rely on the University’s traditional place in the vanguard of social change and improvement to make a conscious decision to incorporate environmental concerns in all of its actions, such as constructing solar-powered buildings. Barnes asked if this concept was what Evans had in mind.

Evans agreed, and added that the University will want to take into account pedestrian and bicycle pathways in its environmental planning so that the campus does not become lined with brick sidewalks. Barnes confirmed that this effort will need to result in a very visible program incorporating contributions from faculty, staff and students. The program will need communicate and act publicly on a daily basis.

The Chair asked members to send their contributions on to Brickhouse, Grice and Wright. Dee Dee Massey also volunteered to serve on the investigating task force.

Montgomery asked if this endeavor had possibilities for development under the aegis of the intellectual climate report which has already cobbled together contributions from faculty, staff and students. Evans said that creating green space in which campus members can meet and discuss issues is mentioned in the intellectual climate report, but was uncertain that the other aspects of a “greening the campus” effort fall within the scope of the report. Beam thought that it may become the Forum’s role to convince the University community of the usefulness of a pan-University committee, noting how green concerns affect the campus intellectual climate. Nonetheless, he was uncertain whether a pan-University group would form as a result of the intellectual climate study on its own.

The Chair noted that the UPBC priorities document also explicitly mentions the need for adequate public spaces for socialization. He thanked the task force members for volunteering and Forum members for their contributions to discussion.




Discussion: University Priorities & Budget Committee Draft Priorities List

The Chair opened discussion of the draft list of University priorities and goals as established by the University Priorities and Budget Committee (UPBC). The Forum Chair and Bob Schreiner, the 1997 Forum Chair, both serve on the UPBC. In the past month, the UPBC has met with student leaders, the Executive Committee of the Faculty Council, the Chancellor’s Executive Council, and the combined 1997 and 1998 versions of the Forum Executive Committee.

The Chair referred members to a draft copy of the University Priorities & Budget Committee priorities list. He noted that these are broad, sweeping priorities that set the agenda for change within the University into the 21st century.

The Chair opened the floor for comment by Forum members. Libby Evans recalled a statement at the joint Forum Executive Committee meeting urging that communications be made a priority category within the document. She reiterated this request.

The Chair noted that the Forum Executive Committee had been the most animated and had made the most contributions of the different groups meeting with the UPBC. The UPBC will deliberately not incorporate any of the various changes suggested by the different University groups until consultation with all groups is complete.

The Chair recalled a Forum Executive Committee feeling that the issue of space for staff should be made more explicit. He recalled that many programs are crippled by lack of adequate office and teaching space. He thought that setting any goal to improve performance without addressing the space issue would not be realistic.

Jeffery Beam noted that this document could ultimately result in the restructuring of departments and curricula. This restructuring will mean not the loss, but the shifting of jobs among departments to meet the demands of reconfiguration. Thus, it is important that staff have a say in the unfolding of this process.

The Chair noted that one of the implied functions of the UPBC process is to see if the University’s resources are properly distributed, and to redistribute resources if necessary. This process will have a direct effect on staff working in programs seen as dormant or dying, as these Employees may find themselves working in other places.

Evans noted that the UPBC priorities list is a very general document. She thought it would be more helpful to think of specific ways the University will implement these priorities. Evans thought this approach led to Betty Averette’s point about office spaces and how staff are assigned to office spaces.

Bob Schreiner suggested that the January 20 Executive Committee minutes capturing discussion on this topic be sent to the UPBC for its reference, along with accompanying comments from the Forum. These excerpted minutes would compose the body of the Forum’s official response on this topic. The Chair said that the Forum has promised the UPBC copies of the minutes when they become available. In addition, comments from the current meeting also will become part of the document.

Beam proposed that the Forum postpone its discussion until the January 20 Executive Committee minutes were available for reference and response. The Chair agreed with Beam’s idea, and it was agreed by acclamation to postpone further discussion until the March 4 meeting.


Discussion: Update on Implementation of Housekeepers’ Settlement from Elson Floyd

The Chair noted that a copy of the update on implementation of the housekeepers’ settlement had been included in the monthly agenda packet. The document outlines what the University has done to date with regard to the agreement and what is yet to be done. The Chair opened the floor for members’ discussion and comment, noting that the document had been widely circulated to the press and throughout the University and had been posted on the Forum website.

Barbara Prear asked if the Chair knew the reason why the document had been circulated so widely. The Chair replied that the document was meant to serve as a barometer of the status of the agreement. He thought that the document was intended to spread the word on what the University is doing to meet its obligations under the settlement.

Tommy Brickhouse thought that the Chancellor had spoken several times to the media about the current status of the agreement. The Chair recalled that the subject had arisen at the January Board of Trustees meeting, and the Chancellor made a statement there.

Prear thought that the reason the Chancellor made a statement was to respond to a document issued by the NAACP on the agreement in the second week of January. Prear said that the Chancellor had made remarks that she said were not true, based on her firsthand knowledge. She speculated that the Chancellor may have been given incorrect information.

Brickhouse said he was unaware of this discrepancy and asked Prear how the Forum could obtain more information. Prear recalled that at the Martin Luther King rally January 19 the NAACP had issued a report card on the housekeepers’ settlement an `E’ grade. Some of the information on this report card was taken from a housekeepers’ rally held October 12.

Prear granted that since October 12, some things have changed. However, concerning the Chancellor’s statement that the housekeepers just want more money, she said this was incorrect. She said that since the settlement housekeepers have not raised the subject of money, but rather have fought to implement the entire program specified in the agreement.

In response to the Chancellor’s statement that either the New Careers Training Board or the Housekeepers’ Association chose the training programs, Prear said this point was incorrect, and that Human Resources chose the programs offered. She lamented that sometimes authorities say things in the media that are incorrect. Prear noted that Floyd had offered to meet with the New Careers Training Board in the next week, and she hoped that these misunderstandings could be resolved.

Jeffery Beam asked if the housekeepers had any input into which training programs were created. Prear said that housekeepers were offered four set programs to choose from, but only Human Resources decided which programs and the content of the programs offered.

Brickhouse asked when the New Careers Training Board’s next meeting was to take place. Prear said that the meeting will be Tuesday, February 10, at 9 a.m. at 725 Airport Road. Bob Schreiner noted that the Forum’s Career Development Committee needs to appoint a liaison to the New Careers Training Board to replace George Sharp, who served in this capacity last year. The Chair said that he would try to attend the February 10 meeting along with Brickhouse.

Betty Averette asked who speaks for housekeepers in discussions about the content of the training programs. Prear said that Human Resources had done all of the planning for these programs on its own. She thought that there should have been consultation between housekeepers and Human Resources before the content of the different training programs was determined.

The Chair said that there would be more to report following the February 10 New Careers Training Board meeting.


Employee Appreciation Fair Booth Task Force Duties Transferred to Communications Committee?

The Chair noted a proposal to transfer responsibility for overseeing the Forum’s Employee Appreciation Day Fair Booth to the Communications Committee. He asked the Forum’s preference on this issue.

Jennifer Henderson, Co-Chair of the Communications Committee, said the committee had discussed this proposal the previous week and had decided that it could not take on this function as a permanent duty. She herself was willing to serve on the Fair Booth Task Force, but said that the Communications Committee could not take on this job given the duties accompanying the group’s newly rewritten charge.

Respecting Henderson’s wishes, the Chair called for volunteers to serve on the Employee Appreciation Fair Booth Task Force. He noted that the Employee Appreciation Fair will take place May 29. Al Jeter asked if the Communications Committee has been responsible for the maintaining the booth in the past. The Chair said that a Task Force has always planned the Forum’s booth, though all Forum Delagates are expected to serve a half-hour staffing the booth. In the past, the Forum has done an informal survey of Employee concerns and feelings about the Forum.

Jeffery Beam asked a member of last year’s task force to give an overview of the group’s work. Lucille Brooks said that the booth had required hard work in accomplishing a variety of tasks. Task force members solicited donors for drawing prizes and gathered summary information from Forum committees. Betty Geer and Jeffery Beam recalled that the task force was responsible for setting up the Forum booth, scheduling volunteers and manning the survey questionnaire jar.

The Chair felt that the Communications Committee should be responsible for compiling brochures describing the Forum’s work. Geer and Brooks recalled the task force began its work in February or March. Beam said the group met around once a week to start, but tapered back to once a month after the fair took place in May. Geer felt that the Forum’s effort this year would not need to be as extensive given leftover materials from 1997.

The Chair thought that the Forum would do well to limit itself to an informational booth describing the work of the Forum and how Employees can participate on Forum and University committees. Anne Montgomery noted that Janet Tysinger had written a comprehensive annual report on the task force’s activities that should be very useful to the Forum’s new members.

The Chair asked for volunteers to serve on the task force. Jennifer Henderson volunteered to serve, but could not chair the task force. Beam thought that Henderson would be a good liaison between the task force and the Communications Committee.

The Chair thought that the Forum would need to insure itself of a reserved booth for the fair. Libby Evans, a member of the fair’s Exhibits Committee, said she would insure the Forum will get a space on the floor.

Terry Teer volunteered to serve on the task force along with Henderson; the Chair agreed to serve as chair of the task force. The Chair promised to contact other Delagates to ask them personally for their assistance.


Chair’s Report

The Chair asked if Bob Schreiner would report on the meeting between members of the UNC Staff Assembly and UNC System Vice President Roy Carroll. Schreiner said that representatives from North Carolina Central University, NC State University, and UNC-Greensboro joined him in this meeting. He had sent Carroll copies of the draft Assembly preamble, charter and by-laws as briefing materials before the talk.

Schreiner said that the meeting lasted around two hours with approximately twenty to thirty minutes devoted to general discussion. Part of the discussion touched on which System campuses have active staff organizations, which do not, and which organizations have been actively involved in the creation of the Assembly.

Following this topic, the group spent the next hour and twenty minutes going over the eight pages of documents line-by-line constructing revisions and further changes. Carroll said that he would discuss the Assembly with President Broad and he anticipated that Broad would discuss the subject of staff organizations with the various University chancellors.

Schreiner recalled that the group approaching Carroll aimed to form a Statewide organization parallel with the faculty and to ask General Administration’s support for the creation of staff organizations similar to the Forum on other campuses. Schreiner said because of the fact that most campuses do not have staff assemblies, organizers have undertaken a two-pronged effort.

Schreiner had entered the meeting somewhat dubious about the Assembly’s prospects, but left feeling much more encouraged. A copy of the relevant documents was included in the Forum’s routing file.


The Forum Executive Committee met with its 1997 counterpart and the University Priorities and Budget Committee January 20. He said that this meeting had been very fast paced with many thoughtful questions and suggestions for the UPBC to consider. He thought that the Forum’s representatives acquitted themselves very well and offered many positive suggestions. The Forum Office will produce minutes from that meeting very shortly for members’ reference.

The Chair noted that he and Schreiner attend the UPBC meetings every Thursday at 7:30 a.m.


The Forum’s committee rosters, including committee chairs and meeting times, were included in the monthly agenda packet. The Forum Office will update the list to account for changes and errors for the March packet.


President Molly Corbett Broad will address the Forum at its April 1 meeting. The Chair asked if the Forum wished to have a reception for Broad. Forum Assistant Matt Banks volunteered to handle the catering for this reception if the Forum desired. Members agreed to defer this question until more information about Broad’s schedule was obtained.


The Chair encouraged members to nominate worthy co-workers for the Manager of the Year and C.Knox Massey awards. He felt that University Employees were fortunate to have these awards available and was saddened to see only a minimum of nominees for each. He also noted that a cash award of $5,000 is attached to the Massey Award.

Betty Averette thought that Employees generally do not take these awards seriously and many throw their nomination forms directly into the trash. She thought that Employees generally think that managers and supervisors are supposed to win these awards. She did not hear talk about people being nominated for the award until after it is presented. The Chair felt this was an important reason why Forum members should step up and take the few minutes necessary to write nominations on behalf of our co-workers. He thought that Employees need to be much better at recognizing the contributions of their coworkers.

Libby Evans added that the information technology awards are up for nomination once again. She thought that it is now possible for Employees to make nominations via the web. The Chair noted that the information technology awards are given out to computer support people and this year’s winners are required to organize the awards banquet for the following year. He felt that the award recognizes superior service for one’s co-workers, and encouraged everyone to submit nominations as they saw appropriate.


Committee and Task Force Reports

Lucille Brooks, Chair of the Nominating Committee, said that group will meet in mid-March. She thanked everyone who signed up for the group, particularly 1997 Secretary Libby Evans.

Jeffery Beam, past Co-Chair of the Orientation Committee, said that group had not yet appointed a chair for 1998. He said the group will schedule a meeting soon and he was encouraged by the large size of the committee.

Martha Barbour, Chair of the Personnel Policies Committee, said the group had held its first meeting January 27. The committee will continue to meet the fourth Tuesday of each month.

Tommy Brickhouse, Chair of the Compensation and Benefits Committee, said the group had met the day before. The committee had been referred a resolution from the NC State University Staff Senate that the Forum had been asked to endorse. Brickhouse noted that the NC State Staff Senate resolution specifies that in the event the comprehensive pay plan is not completely funded, a greater percentage of increases be reserved for merit raises. Brickhouse said it was the opinion of the Compensation and Benefits Committee that the greater percentage of increases be reserved for career growth to address long-standing problems of salary compression. Members of that committee also cited problems with the merit system itself. He advised the Forum to closely examine NC State’s resolution before adding its endorsement.

With regard to difficulties arising from comparative cost-of-living expenses, Brickhouse said the Compensation and Benefits Committee had begun its investigation of this subject last year. The committee held a couple of discussions on this topic with Human Resources, and plans to continue its study this year.


Jennifer Henderson, Co-Chair of the Communications Committee, reported the group had met that month and discussed efforts to refocus its dealings with the Forum’s internal constituents. The committee would like to increase the Forum’s profile to staff so that they can better use the Forum as a representative voice.

Towards this end, the committee indulged in a brainstorming session to define some tasks it wishes to accomplish this year. For example, the committee will seek to continue the Forum’s good relationship with the University Gazette. When the Gazette selects its new editor, the Forum should invite this person to its meetings in order make this person an ally much as Margaret Balcom and Mike Hobbs were. In addition, the committee hopes to produce more of the Gazette inserts similar to that produced last October. Possibly too the committee may seek to reserve space for a regular column in the Gazette and may seek to publish a periodic newsletter.

The Communications Committee may speak with the Forum Office about updating the Forum’s web site and changing its appearance. Also, the committee will seek to update the Forum video. Finally, the committee will try to improve outreach to Employees in lower pay grades.


Joyce Dalgleish, the Chair of the Recognition and Awards Committee, said that group will meet February 11 and the second Wednesday of each following month.


Anne Montgomery, Chair of the University Committee Assignments Committee, reported the group met for the first time February 3. The committee has four enthusiastic members. This year, the group will seek to update the list of University committees relevant to staff Employees. The group will share this listing with the Forum along with the names of staff Employees placed on these committees. The University Committee Assignments Committee will encourage these Employees to give the Forum feedback on relevant issues and their experiences.

The committee has forwarded nominees to the University grievance procedure review task force and the e-mail privacy task force. Jennifer Henderson, Steve Jones, Jackie Overton, and Hank Robertson’s names have been submitted to Susan Ehringhaus as candidates for the later task force. In addition, the group has been asked to find candidates to serve on a committee to set criteria for the Excellence in Management Award. Several Employees have volunteered for this endeavor, and Montgomery reminded Delegates that all Employees are eligible for service on most staff-related University committees. Patti Smith has asked that the Excellence in Management committee members be ready to set criteria in time to present awards in May or June.


Gwen Burston, Co-Chair of the Career Development Committee, said that the group had met January 29 and established a regular meeting time of {the third Monday of the month from 8:15-10 a.m. in 102 Abernathy}. Bob Schreiner will serve as the committee’s other co-chair.

The committee discussed the possibility of Jim Barnes serving as the Forum’s liaison with the New Careers Training Board, as he said he was willing to do this.

Ron Strauss, liaison from the Faculty Council committee on educational policy, presented ideas from the faculty on the subject of continuing education. The Career Development Committee will work with Strauss to produce a proposal for the full Forum’s consideration.

The group also discussed the focus of the 1997 Career Development Committee’s work, including the possibility of finding permanent funding for the University career counselor position and doing more outreach with University Employees in lower pay grades. The committee decided to invite Erika Phillips, the University career counselor, to attend committee meetings in the future to provide updates on the activities of her office and other policy matters.


Jeffery Beam, Chair of the Employee Presentations Committee, said the group had not met yet but would meet February 9 and the second Monday of the month from 10:30-noon thereafter. Beam hoped to concentrate on encouraging more Employees to visit the Forum and make Employee presentations to the Forum. Any Employee on campus can present an issue to the Forum in the form of an Employee presentation. Beam hoped to invite liaisons from University committees to make presentations. He proposed hearing from these people will provide the Forum with a more up to date picture of what is happening in these committees and how Employees contribute to their decisions.

The Employee Presentations Committee is also beginning planning for the spring community meeting which will tentatively take place the first week in June. Group members have arrived at 5-6 ideas for the spring meeting and Beam encouraged others to raise their ideas when they found it appropriate. Beam anticipated that the UPBC will make up at least part of the spring meeting’s program.


Concerning the Employee Appreciation Fair Booth Task Force, Beam reminded the Forum that task force participants need not be Forum members. He encouraged listeners to ask their co-workers to serve if interested.

Libby Evans reported that the work of the School Volunteerism Task Force was now on hold; she anticipated this group’s work will tie in with the Intellectual Climate Task Force as the year progresses.

Evans noted Pete Andrews’ preference for the phrase “intellectual community” rather than “intellectual climate.” She imagined that members will hear both phrases used interchangeably. The Forum’s Intellectual Climate Task Force has been working on a survey to determine what kind of involvement staff have and are interested in having with campus intellectual activities. In addition, the survey will ask what skills Employees might be willing to share to improve the intellectual climate.

Laurie Charest met with the task force February 2 and had been very helpful in focusing the group’s work. Evans reminded the Forum that Charest had suggested the new Human Resources Information System (HRIS) would be a good resource to catalog survey data. However, Charest emphasized that the Forum needs to seize the moment in terms of emphasizing staff involvement in the intellectual community. Thus, the task force decided to focus on gathering information that can be used in a response to the intellectual climate report. The survey will include a note letting respondents know that their answers may become a part of the HRIS system.

The task force discussed publishing the survey in the University Gazette as a way of reaching all staff and faculty, but the Gazette is currently without an editor and is publishing in a limited mode. The group has decided instead to send out a separate mailing to all Employees, asking Forum Delegates to pretest the questionnaire before general distribution.

The group will meet again February 6.


Libby Evans said that Gwen Burston is among the Forum representatives on the Transit and Parking Task Force. The task force is at the point where departmental consultants have submitted a shopping list of things that might be done on campus concerning parking and transit. She reminded listeners that the task force’s charge extends to general transit issues (“ways to get people to and from campus”) such as the mass transit system, pedestrian and bicycle traffic, not only parking.

This shopping list included the different options’ “associated” costs, meaning cost figures that factor in estimated savings resulting from expenditures that the University might devote in different areas. In other words, some options cost the University money while other options save money. Task force members indicated on a survey whether they thought each option would be a good thing, a bad thing, or was negotiable.

In the meantime, along with long term planning, the task force realized it must address financial arrangements for the coming year. Evans noted that the Department of Transportation and Parking maintains a huge debt service as a result of recent parking deck construction. Evans noted that Forum Delegates recently received a handout depicting the relative costs of surface lots and parking decks. Costs required for building decks must be dealt with next year, probably through higher parking costs. In response to a question by Denise Childress, Evans regretted that this rate hike would occur, but saw no other options.

Jeffery Beam asked how much the Educational Foundation (Rams’ Club) contributes to campus parking maintenance. Evans’ impression was that a lot of money spent on decks that Employees benefit from is contributed by the Educational Foundation. She did not know an exact figure but many things done on campus would not exist without the Foundation’s help. Concerning maintenance costs, Evans thought that some structures would not be to require maintenance without the Rams’ Club contributions.

Gwen Burston emphasized that the task force is also concerned about moving people around campus, by Point-2-Point, walking, bicycle traffic and car traffic. The task force has involved itself in these issues also.

Evans stated her opinion that there is a finite space available for parking and that there will always be a finite space available. However, the University seems to be growing at a great rate, adding new programs and centers every year. The University needs more parking, but is going to have less parking. Thus, the task becomes how to get people to and from campus, and once on campus, around campus, quickly and affordably.

One option that was agreeable to everyone on the task force was the emergency rideback service. The rideback service allows people who cannot or choose not to park campus to have a way to get back to their car quickly in emergency situations, such as family illness or doctor’s appointments.

The real difficulty will be in getting people to, from, and around campus in an efficient and effective manner. If this system works well, people will be more willing to give up parking spaces on campus. Those people who get parking spaces on campus will need to be more willing to pay a higher cost reflecting their relative value.

Burston said that parking spaces on central campus will cost more as there will not be huge growth of spaces in this area. More parking spaces may be available in outer areas, and alternative modes such as van pooling will be more available. The task force will try to create an incentive plan to make using these alternative plans a better option.

Evans said that UNC Hospitals have created their own major transit system which features an emergency rideback service. Reports show that the rideback service has not been overused or used casually, but reserved for times when most necessary.

Betty Averette lamented the difficulties in getting Point-2-Point service on a timely basis. She had heard that Point-2-Point was experiencing major problems with maintaining staffing and that one driver had recently quit service. Evans granted that no one would say that current options of transit around campus work well. She thought that Point-2-Point had worked well in the beginning, but had been killed by its own success. Whatever the task force develops will also have to insure the plan is not killed by its own success.

Another option the task force has discussed is making it cheaper for commuters to park off-campus, and making it effective and efficient for people to move on to campus. There will thus be financial incentives for off-campus commuters. Averette cited the security concerns associated with off-campus parking. Evans said that the task force has discussed security issues, particularly storage parking for students.

Linda Drake asked if there is an expectation that parking fees will cover the cost recovery for deck construction. Evans said that parking and transportation expenses are cost recovered. Drake asked why this situation exists given that Employees are not expected to fund most other capital improvements. Evans replied that the recent Institute of Government budget request included parking deck expenses, but this request was the first item cut by the Legislature.

By custom, though not by law, the Legislature has decided that State parking must be self-supporting. Evans said that State Employees may want to go to the Legislature to request parking funding but something must be done in the meantime. In addition, if the Legislature assumes parking duties, it will need to find supporting dollars for every State agency. The University, Evans said, must do something about its situation now.

Childress noted that the University’s parking and transportation functions must be self-supporting; she asked if Employees could examine the department’s budget to see how it spends its money. Burston said that task force consultants received a copy of the budget but task members did not.

Childress thought that the department may not have an incentive to reduce expenses for certain activities such as construction and printing without constituent budget oversight, citing certain wasteful printing techniques such as reprinting entire manuals to incorporate small changes and ordering multi-colored brochures and letterhead. She observed that State Employees must generally account for very strict cost management procedures. Evans said that the task force would ask for more information on spending practices.

Al Jeter said that in the course of doing physical inventory after hours in Venable, Employees sometimes park in a loading dock that is not used after 5 p.m. Venable Employees know that the dumpster that uses this loading dock only picks up once a week, and never after 5 p.m.; however, Employees parking in these spaces after 5 p.m. are regularly ticketed.

Evans said that Jeter’s point raised the subject of nighttime and weekend parking, as well as making the most of the spaces currently available. The task force discussed moving State cars off campus rather than reserving spaces right outside workplace doors. Evans agreed to meet with Jeter to discuss his situation after the meeting.

Stephanie Stadler thought that the task force should suggest to the development office that a parking deck would be a good naming opportunity for a prominent donor. She joked that this donor would be among the most popular people on campus. Evans noted that the real expense for parking decks is the continuing maintenance costs; Stadler replied that the donor could set up an endowment.

Averette noted that staff using State cars now have difficulty finding places to park, and some lots now specify that no State cars are allowed. Evans joked that if State cars are banned from on-campus lots this problem would no longer be evident. She was uncertain whether this would be the best solution, but the issues of State cars not used daily, whether quick access is vital for most State cars, and how many departments require State cars for on-campus trips were all questions to be discussed.

Martha Barbour noted that the School of Dentistry uses its State cars regularly, and said that she thought it would be a horrible idea to move all State cars off-campus. Evans asked if Barbour could describe how the School of Dentistry uses its cars. Barbour said that faculty use the vehicles to visit patient sites, a need that also exists in Dental Ecology.

Barbour, granting that disabled and handicapped spaces were necessary, felt that the School of Dentistry reserves far too many of these types of spaces. She felt too often these spaces were not utilized. The Chair believed that these spaces were federally mandated.

Barbour also wished to be able to move her car from the parking deck to the lot beside the School of Dentistry when working after hours, given security concerns. She said that some disabled spaces are reserved 24 hours while others are reserved from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. Evans said that she did not know how the hours for these spaces are determined. Barbour commented that the disabled spaces are not prominently marked, and thought that many people get tickets in these spaces because they do not see the customary blue  symbol. (Instead, there is a bright pink text sign.)

Evans thanked members for their good comments.


Bob Schreiner reported that the Grievance Procedure Review Task Force will begin its work February 5.

The Board of Trustees Presentation Task Force has met once and kicked around ideas for its 30 minute presentation. Nancy Tannenbaum suggested that after the group firms up its efforts, it rehearse its presentation before the entire Forum. The Chair thanked Tannenbaum for her good idea.


Ann Hamner reported that the Outsourcing Steering Team met February 2 after not meeting for the past couple of months. Printing Services is beginning its study and has issued a request for proposals (RFP) for a consultant.

The Outsourcing Team learned that Hank Holmes, the Team’s contact with General Administration, is retiring; Kevin McNaughton will replace Holmes in this capacity effective March 1.

At the February 2 meeting, Herb Paul gave a report on where the Team stands with regard to HVAC, Grounds, and vehicle maintenance related to Grounds. He has received a draft report from their consultant stating that none of these three areas should be outsourced. Vehicle maintenance for Grounds and HVAC would actually have cost the University more money to privatize. Privatizing the Grounds Department would have saved the University very little money, not enough to meet the University’s standard that privatization cannot be recommended unless it saves more than 10% of current costs.

The Outsourcing Team made trips to several other universities that have privatized to see if and how they have saved money. The visiting group learned that these other privatizing universities have saved money mainly through cutting staff benefits. The Team felt strongly that the University should not cut Employee benefits to realize savings, and would make it a part of any outsourcing contract that outsourced Employees’ benefits not be cut.

The Outsourcing Team hopes to receive final reports on three areas of the Physical Plant in the next two weeks. The Team will then study these reports in anticipation of its March 2 meeting. That three hour session will investigate the possibilities for recommendations to go to Elson Floyd. The two possibilities to be discussed will be 1) recommending not outsourcing these functions, and 2) recommending issuing an RFP. This very important meeting will take place from 9-noon March 2 at a place to be determined.

In addition, the Team hopes to have Employees available to ask questions about the report and the consultant who helped the Physical Plant make its report. Employees from the areas involved may also presumably wish to attend.


Bob Schreiner had nothing further to report from the UNC System Staff Assembly. Faculty Liaisons had nothing to report.



Anne Montgomery noted the Forum Office calendar that had been requested by the Forum in 1997. Jim Barnes asked about the mail address for the Governor’s Office. Members referred Barnes to the Institute of Government home page. Tommy Brickhouse said that Barnes could address a letter to “Governor Jim Hunt, State Capitol, Raleigh North Carolina,” and the letter would presumably find its way to Raleigh without zip code, though he did not advise the practice.


In the absence of further discussion, the Chair called for a motion to adjourn. Stephanie Stadler so moved, seconded by Joyce Dalgleish. There was no discussion, and the meeting adjourned at 11:19.


Respectfully submitted,




Matt Banks, Recording Secretary






Comments are closed.