Skip to main content

January 11 2023

 

By

January 11, 2023

UNC-Chapel Hill Employee Forum

Zoom Remote Meeting Only:  Connection Details Below

NOTE:  This is a draft agenda and is subject to change without notice.

I.  Call to Order & Opening Remarks: Chair Katie Musgrove (9:15 a.m. – 9:20 a.m.)

  • Welcome to Guests & Members of the Press

II. Round Table with Provost Chris Clemens (9:20 a.m. – 9:45 a.m.)

III. Special Presentations (9:45 a.m. – 10:15 a.m.)

  • Director Todd Cherner Masters of Arts in Educational Innovation, Technology, and Entrepreneurship Program
  • Director Starr Sanders on Proposed Changes to the University’s Minors in the Workplace/Classroom policy

IV. Human Resources Update (10:15 a.m. – 11:00 a.m.)

  • Vice Chancellor for Human Resources and Equal Opportunity and Compliance Becci Menghini
  • Senior Associate Vice Chancellor for Human Resources and Academic Personnel Linc Butler
  • EHRA Consultants Shayla Evans-Hollingsworth and Ashley Hockaday on the Auditing, Business, and Finance Conversion related to the Office of Human Resources
  • Director Vanessa Ragland on the EHRA Bonus Program
  • Senior Work/Life Manager Jessica Pyjas

V. Consent Agenda (11:00 a.m. – 11:15 a.m.)

  • Staff Advisory Committee to the Chancellor (STACC)- Katie Musgrove/Keith Hines
  • Campus & Community Advisory Committee (CCAC)- Katie Musgrove
  • Carolina Next Advisory Committee- Katie Musgrove
  • University Day/Commencement Committee- Katie Musgrove
  • EOC Policy Advisory Group- Katie Musgrove
  • Tuition & Fee Advisory Taskforce (TFAT) & Student Fee Advisory Subcommittee (SFAS)- Tracy Wetherby-Williams
  • Carolina Center for Public Service Advisory Committee- Jacob Womack
  • DEI Council- Janet Steele
  • Building & Grounds Committee- James Stamey
  • Policy Review Committee (PRC)- Matthew Teal, Rebecca Howell
  • Advisory Committee for Transportation & Parking (ACT)- Katie Musgrove, Keith Hines
  • Parking Appeals- Chrissy Greenburg, Tiffany Carver
  • Student Stores- David Bragg, Annetta Stokes Streater
  • Carolina Peer Support Committee (CPSC)- Elizabeth DuBose, Tiffany Carver, Stephanie Forman, Charlissa Rice, Sarah Smith

VI. New Business (11:15 a.m. – 11:25 a.m.)

VII. Announcements/Questions (11:25 a.m. – 11:30 p.m.)

  • Vice Chancellor Representatives Meeting – Thursday, February 9th (10-11 a.m., via Zoom)

VIII.  Adjournment

January 11, 2023 Employee Forum minutes

Delegates Attending: L.E. Alexander, Vanessa Blake, Randall Borror, Sharron Bouquin, Tiffany Carver, Michael Case, Elizabeth Dubose, Shayla Evans-Hollingsworth, Stephanie Forman, Adrianne Gibilisco, Chrissie Greenberg, Lonnie Hawley, Leah Hefner, Jessi Hill, Shayna Hill, Keith Hines, Rebecca Howell, Brigitte Ironside, Kira Jones, Stacy Keast, Evan Marsh, Arlene Medder, Mandy Melton, David Michaud, Katie Musgrove, Joseph Ormond, Sara Pettaway, Laura Pratt, Charlissa Rice, Kelly Scurlock-Cross, Lori Shamblin, Theresa Silsby, Janice Singletary, Jake Stallard, James Stamey, Janet Steele, Kurt Stolka, Annetta Streater, Matthew Teal, Julie Theriault, Tracy Wetherby Williams, Tracey Wiley, Michael Williams, Tyrone Williams

Chair Katie Musgrove called the meeting to order at 9:15 a.m. She welcomed all to the first day of classes and to the new year. The Chair called for a motion to approve the consent agenda. Laura Pratt made this motion, seconded by Elizabeth Dubose. The motion was approved with all voting in favor.

The Chair moved to new business, in particular the news that the State Health Plan has moved to change administrators from Blue Cross/Blue Shield to Aetna, starting in 2025. She said that Blue Cross has served the State Plan in this role for over 40 years, so the changeover has gained attention. Janet Steele asked if this change represents good or bad news. Keith Hines said that it is too early in the process to know as details are still emerging. He noted that Blue Cross is attempting to get the contract back via appeal.

The Chair noted questions regarding the bidding process and which company could provide the best pricing with appropriate amounts of service. Questions remain as to whether Aetna’s transition plan will offer the same network of providers. Tracy Wetherby Williams recalled that a reason for the switch was the desire to reduce the cost of family coverage in the State plan. Elizabeth Dubose granted that Blue Cross has issues with gaps in coverage, among other concerns. She urged the Forum to work through thoughts and concerns of employees on this question. She noted concerns that Aetna might not have in-network providers in every county in the State.

The Chair agreed that rural health concerns will play a huge part in this discussion. James Stamey proposed inviting State Treasurer Dale Folwell to speak with the Forum about the future of this transition. The Chair thought this was a great idea. Arlene Medder raised concerns about the tiered level of care offered by Aetna versus Blue Cross/Blue Shield. The Chair agreed that the Forum should develop a list of goals surrounding a future plan under a new provider. She asked that interested delegates work with the Personnel Issues committee to begin work on this document.

The Chair was pleased to welcome Provost Chris Clemens to the meeting. Clemens provided a brief set of updates, first of all thanking the Forum for its work to help improve life here at UNC. He said that the Chancellor’s cabinet meeting yesterday discussed the new budget model for granting money to campus entities, with corresponding enrollment metrics and a performance factor now included. He said that this new model allows the university to do a straightforward appropriation calculation when raising tuition. He said that this new model is good news for the university financially, as it raises the possibility that tuition increases could scale with inflation without subtraction from the initial state appropriation. This pricing scheme applies only to enrollment credit hours, a significant innovation.

In essence, Clemens said that the model will provide the university with last year’s state allocation, plus or minus a calculated amount based on enrollment. Additionally, this model will apply a performance factor to the entire appropriation, meaning that even if the university does not meet enrollment growth goals, it can still receive additional funding by meeting performance-based targets. This innovation will allow funding of more expensive projects via performance-based measures, decreasing a reliance on growth to drive budgetary increases.

Clemens said that there have also been conversations regarding capital planning, most notably involving construction of a transitional research building with specialized laboratory space. This project is moving forward to the design stage. Work on other capital projects is also taking place.

Clemens said that the administration is around two-thirds of the way through budget interviews with units in efforts to build next year’s budget. He had personally learned a lot about how the university’s overall budget is put together.

Clemens noted discussion about a lawsuit against the university regarding employment advertisements. He cautioned that employees should forward any such complaint to University Counsel and OHR to allow an educated assessment of these allegations. He said that the last thing one should do is to respond to someone making these allegations. Clemens said that the university takes these matters seriously and will fully review any such matter to ensure that all relevant laws, policies, and best practices are followed.

The university is about to announce appointment of a University Librarian, as well as the Dean of the School of Government in the next week or so. The university recently launched its search for the new Dean of the Kenan-Flagler School of Business and will begin work on the search for the Vice Chancellor for Research soon.

Clemens offered to take questions from the Forum. The Chair recalled that Graduate and Professional Student Government (GPSG) had approved a resolution requesting creation of a campus budgetary committee in hopes of increasing transparency around this new process, while increasing involvement of campus leaders. She asked Clemens’ thoughts on this resolution, noting that the Forum will possibly consider a similar resolution soon.

Clemens said that university administration will meet with GPSG leaders to discuss elements of the resolution. He thus wished to wait until that meeting occurred to make comments more fully. However, he did think that some practical parts of the idea will be difficult to accomplish. He recalled that his first exposure to budgetary meetings was very involving and detailed. He doubted that it would be helpful to have representation at these meetings.

He added that there is nothing to hide in these meetings and there is no reason they cannot be transparent. However, the process is complex, long, involved, and sometimes tedious. The challenge is not of transparency but rather how to pragmatically include people in something like that. What are the touchpoints from which people could check in to ensure understanding? He thought that the university could take up this idea in some form and give it some thought. He asked what the first step would be to find what representatives would want to see and at what point in the process that would occur.

Clemens added that the creation of a budgetary committee seemed to represent a lot of work for little benefit. He said that the university does not see much increase in revenue from year to year, and so the campus is unable to fund most increases that come in, by many multiples. Much of this work involves determining the few critical areas that the university can actually fund, while sometimes strategizing around other areas to allow these decisions. The university can sometimes use other sources of funds or think of other clever ways to take care of problems.

Clemens said that the issue seems to involve diminishing returns, to involve many people in the administration about a relatively small amount of money. He noted that the university could approve only a few of the 1,700 individual requests for funding last year.

The Chair recalled her experience with the complicated logistics of a budget process in her current role. She thought that there is some good precedent in the existing Tuition and Fee Advisory taskforce (TFAT), which handles a very complex process of hearing increase requests. She granted that the university’s budget process is vaster and more complex than that of the TFAT, but she thought the latter could serve as a good model for discussion.

Clemens drew a distinction that the governance issue involved for TFAT is more than just transparency, it is oversight. He cautioned that adopting this model for a campus budget committee could lead to the involvement of more parties lacking oversight authority. He said that the process is already complex enough to determine budgetary authority for involved parties. Clemens asked what the Chair and others would want in the way of transparency authority. He asked what the check would be to help people understand what is going on.

Keith Hines noted that the university’s budget resembles the legendary, legislative sausage that no one gets to see how it is made. He said that staff only seem to receive updates on the budget after it has been created, after consideration by the Board of Trustees and the Board of Governors.

Hines thought that staff have questions about the budgetary process and want to at least hear the conversation about these decisions. He did not think that staff want to dictate these conversations. Clemens agreed with Hines, stating that he did not want to imply that GPSG wants any governance authority. Instead, he was commenting on the parallel with TFAT which does hold some governing authority.

Clemens thought that the university needs to communicate about these processes better. He thought that Vice Chancellor Nate Knuffman has done a great job in laying out the revised budget process. However, Clemens asked to whom Knuffman’s expertly written memos should be distributed. This is a public document that goes out to all units, describing the process in great detail. Clemens said that even the 5-6 page summary memo is a bit tedious to read with further sections on calibration of expectations. A latter section notes that the university will not have a lot of extra money, so units should confine their requests to three categories, for example. These categories are a bit different each year but are usually closely related to the strategic plan. Then, units undergo their own process to figure out what they will request, which may differ by school or unit.

Clemens reiterated that the university has done a great job of publishing documents that fulfill transparency needs, but that could be communicated better so that people can see and understand the process. Hines said that something distributed to the entire campus should not be written in a way that limits its audience to people with doctoral degrees. Clemens agreed, saying that the memo in its current form presents details to people who need to act upon these details. He would speak about this issue with Vice Chancellor Farwell and the Communications team about translating the memo into a summary for general consumption.

Clemens added that the university still needs to add points of constituent engagement in the process if desired. He asked that the Chair consult with him further if the Forum planned to write a resolution on this topic. He thought it would be helpful to be specific about points of engagement, allowing insertion of these into the process as time goes on. He thought that this process simply needs someone to take on the task of making sure that when the technical memory goes out, a translation of this material is made available on the university’s website.

Treasurer Tracy Wetherby Williams contributed to the discussion, noting her role on the Tuition and Fee Advisory Taskforce. Williams thought that the role of that committee is advisory, with the opportunity to contribute thoughts and feedback to the proposals being presented. She said that on that committee, it is taken very seriously if someone objects to fees, and may change the trajectory of what gets approved/rejected, but they cannot technically stop proposals from going forward.

The Chair said that she appreciated Clemens’ feedback on a possible Forum resolution on this topic. Clemens appreciated that the Forum seeks more than transparency and engagement from these discussions, it seeks an actual understanding of the university’s budget process. He said that such understanding is now becoming more common among university leaders thanks to Knuffman’s reforms. He said that previously there was no understanding of how the whole swath of funds flow and how a decision in one place would make another choice more difficult. This view of the budget is only becoming available in the past year. He appreciated the interest of the Graduate and Professional Student Government in the process and envisioned a time when graduate students could help find inefficiencies in the work. However, we are not there yet, he said.

Clemens also mentioned that the pandemic has not yet ended. He said that he has received concerns about the reinstatement of a mask mandate by Orange County. Nonetheless, it seems as though things are a bit closer to normal than before. He noted that the data are difficult to interpret because so many people now test for COVID at home. Arlene Medder noted that Duke University is talking about masking mandates again. Clemens said that people always have the option to wear masks on their own if they wish.

The Chair welcomed Todd Cherner, Director of the university’s Masters of Arts in Educational Innovation, Technology, and Entrepreneurship (MEITE) program. Cherner was proud to speak on this program within the School of Education. He described the purpose of the program to prepare leaders who produce, utilize, and analyze high-impact educational innovations for the social good across the public and private sectors. The program is interdisciplinary, allowing a choice of courses across academic units to align with students’ professional interests. Emerging graduates become instructional designers, curriculum and digital development content creators, and program assistant coordinators, among other callings. Some graduates now work for Innovate Carolina.

Cherner said that the program’s focus is on design thinking, mainly consideration of challenges that the student encounters in their own working context. How could the student understand these challenges from multiple perspectives, then work through the design thinking process to pinpoint and define their challenge? The student then brainstorms a variety of responses to these challenges.

Responses lead to prototypes, which are tested, then are modified, and refined based on observed data to lead to better results addressing the original challenge. Cherner was proud to have designed this program that addresses educational innovation and educational entrepreneurism in structural design using a variety of technologies for specific professional tasks.

This semester, program students are partnering with the local Ronald McDonald House to set up a maker space for patients there. Projects vary from semester to semester. The second seminar of the program emphasizes the next steps of the student’s professional journey through the consideration of status and goals towards achieving advancement.

Concentrations include startup launches, innovation specialization, entrepreneurship, learning engineering, and adaptive learning analysis. Final projects require an industry analysis and business profile, done in a professional report format featuring multimedia and in-depth analysis. Cherner described the instructional design framework of the final report, a well-made online course with science behind it.

Cherner said that the program will hold an information session that evening and offered that people could follow the program via social media. He noted that UNC employees can use their tuition waiver benefit for this program and can make the program fit their time schedule. He invited discussion via email at tturner@unc.edu. The Chair thanked Cherner for his presentation.

The Chair welcomed Director Starr Sanders of the university’s Protection of Minors program, to discuss proposals for a policy on minors in the workplace and classroom. She recalled that Sanders has worked on this matter with the Forum’s Personnel Issues committee and the University’s Policy Review committee this past fall.

Sanders said that the university does not currently have such a policy, but needs one given the number of employees and students continually bringing children to campus following the pandemic. She said that this practice has been disruptive to campus operations and instruction. Her office has not had an option to deal with these situations, and so has sought the creation of a policy.

Sanders said that one option could be allowing a child on campus for an emergency purpose but upon a second occasion revisiting this permission. She noted a tendency for some people, notably faculty, to bring their child to campus then to assign their care to someone else. For example, a faculty member might ask an administrative assistant to keep an eye on their child while they teach a class. Others may feel discriminated against because their job does not allow them to bring their child to school.

Other universities have developed either university-wide or departmental policies. Sanders recalled discussions about whether children are being brought into a safe environment, as most campus buildings are not built to care for children. Others note that some academic topics are unsafe for discussion with children present. Student-parents may sometimes resist discussion of certain topics because they wish to protect their children from these subjects, depriving other students in class of necessary consideration of these subjects.

Sanders said that groups she has talked with agree that a policy is necessary. The policy would be separate from the current protection of minors on campus policy and would be administered either by her office or OHR.

Sanders noted that by state law, all state employees are mandatory reporters of child abuse. If one does not report suspected abuse, one can be charged with a misdemeanor now. If an employee who brings a child to work is suspected of abuse, an employee will need to report this situation. Who would be comfortable in this workplace situation?

In addition, Sanders noted that her office does not oppose bringing a child to campus for a couple of hours here or there but is not comfortable with the university serving as a de facto childcare facility. She asked for feedback on this idea. Rebecca Howell recalled that this subject had been discussed in a Forum committee, with attention placed on the different natures of campus workplaces. In addition, the discussion touched on the prospective policy’s impact on students of color, non-traditionally aged students, and single parents. She sought to take these groups’ issues into account so that the policy does not discourage enrollment or employment among group members.

Howell added that this policy should give autonomy to units when appropriate. She recalled her experience as a single parent in discussions with professors about whether to bring her child to class. She also noted power discrepancies which can lead to inappropriate requests for childcare. She wondered if feedback from other universities discussed how children in the workplace policies affect particular work environments.

Sanders said that feedback she received showed no negative impacts reported like dropping out of class or quitting over policy. She recalled receiving an email offering provision of childcare for staff, faculty, and students recently, and thus thought that childcare is available in Chapel Hill. She said that the university might need to communicate better about this availability. She said that fathers sometimes are among the parents bringing children to campus, meaning that this is not simply a mother or single-parent type of thing.

Howell thought that having childcare centers on campus available for drop-in care would be fabulous for community members. She thought it important that supervisors be flexible in allowing certain intervals for children in the workplace. The Chair thought the largest issue involves the availability of childcare enabling employees to participate in their work or studies, paired with adequate and affordable day-to-day childcare solutions. Howell suggested that the university provide third-shift childcare, similar to that made available in hospitals.

The Chair pointed out that the wait list for the university’s childcare center is very long and exists only for employees, not students. She asked if Vice Chancellor for Human Resources, Equal Opportunity, and Compliance Becci Menghini had any thoughts regarding this discussion. Menghini thought that empowering supervisors is generally a better practice than enacting standalone policies. She wished to ensure that employees and supervisors are empowered to do what makes sense in these situations. She said that the university absolutely should not allow minors on campus as a substitute for childcare.

Any policy developed would need to be leavened with common sense regarding hours allowed and other factors, she said. Menghini noted the need to hold accountable people exploiting power dynamics to obtain improper services from their employees like providing childcare or picking up dry cleaning.

Howell tied the discussion to the Forum’s proclamation on the Dobbs decision, noting that employees may experience a greater need for childcare, along with a lack of accessibility to afford quality care. She hoped any eventual policy would be revised or reviewed with these ideas in mind.

The Chair welcomed back Becci Menghini to present the Forum’s customary Human Resources update. Menghini wished the Forum well. She recalled the earlier discussion regarding State Treasurer Dale Folwell and the State Health Plan’s decision to move to Aetna in 2025. As Blue Cross/Blue Shield have announced plans to appeal, Menghini said that Folwell may not be able to speak publicly about this issue until the legal process has been completed. She noted that questions remain concerning the decision and its implications for employees.

Menghini recalled that the Bright Horizons Childcare Center (formerly Victory Village) is located near the Friday Center. Bright Horizons took over administration from the Victory Village board a couple of years ago. Bright Horizons is in the business of providing childcare and is actually equipped to provide deeper levels of curriculum. The Childcare Center now has improved facilities, a growing enrollment, and current openings for some ages. Still, Menghini said that there is a shortage of childcare and that the university needs to do more.

Nonetheless, childcare is not as simple to provide as many might imagine. The number of important factors make the subject extremely complicated. Menghini said that the university is delighted to partner with Bright Horizons, in spite of an absence of a drop-in option for care. The company has discussed options for expansion and improvements in the future.

Menghini said that the university has committed significant resources to provide some childcare and has stated that it will do more. There has been other discussion about providing additional facilities and services, with grants available to students and graduate students. She offered to assist in scheduling tours of the Bright Horizons Center for delegates.

The Chair asked about equity concerns in Facilities Services resultant from the recent salary increases for housekeepers and others under the Building Services Technician classification. She appreciated the effort made to obtain the raise for these employees, but she noted concerns from other Facilities employees, including Grounds and other units. She recalled reports of equity problems leading to some situations in which supervisors make less money than people who report directly to them. She cautioned that this situation could create real animosity.

Menghini said that the state adjusted salary ranges for one category of employees (Building Services Technician pay band), notably for most of Housekeeping and some others in Facilities and Grounds units. This adjustment did not include all those who work in these areas, however. A change in one job category band without changing all related job category bands inherently creates a problem. She said that the university wanted this increased salary, particularly for housekeepers, but did not obtain the ability to award increases across all of these other bands. Under current law, the university can only adjust bands specified.

Facilities dealt with specified bands first, and now plans to use any tools available to address resultant compression in further phases of adjustment. Facilities held meetings with supervisors and crew leaders to outline this process. Menghini said that this process is not straightforward, but any changes must occur within the existing bands. OHR did build the adjustment to attempt to work within the structure, anticipating that phase two of these adjustments would emerge. She hoped that OHR will be able to address this situation more broadly in the future.

Menghini noted other concerns about the housekeepers’ increases being only 90 cents an hour more than previous hourly wage in some cases. She said that the university worked to change the ranges to match what the state provided. The university took every last penny that it could and put them in the pockets of employees, within the confines of local authority.

Menghini said that this development has not satisfied everyone, but OHR will continue this conversation with the System Office, the Board of Governors, and with legislative liaisons. She noted that employees in general have outdated salary bands that may encourage them to seek work elsewhere. Still, the university must work within current limits of law and budget. She did not think that the university would ever be able to fully compete with the private sector, but she thought that the campus can do better than it has to this point. OHR will continue its work and hopefully will see these other phases approved to alleviate this compression.

The Chair raised the point that communicating to employees about this process and this next phase could alleviate some concern. She said that she did not believe OHR’s plans to address this issue had been communicated down to frontline employees. Menghini said that Vice Chancellor Knuffman, Associate Vice Chancellor Anna Wu, Director of Housekeeping Darius Dixon, and their staffs met with frontline employees last week with another meeting to occur soon. She said that communication on this issue needs to come from the unit itself. She added that there are lots of complexities related to individual circumstances. The university is doing everything within the rules to address this concern.

The Chair welcomed EHRA Consultants Shayla Evans-Hollingsworth and Ashley Hockaday to speak about the upcoming auditing, business, and finance conversion to EHRA non-faculty. Hockaday said that there have been multiple communications to relevant employees regarding this change, which was part of the 2021 Appropriations Act from the General Assembly. This legislation includes auditing, business, and finance positions, which are currently SHRA exempt now. Under the Act, these positions will become EHRA non-faculty once vacated or as elected during a 90-day conversion window for positions currently occupied.

Hockaday said that the university sought this flexibility because it allows compensation and leave to be more competitive within the context of a highly competitive labor market. This change should make it easier to fill these positions. To be eligible for the changeover, a position must be within a list of SHRA classifications, at contributing, journey, or advance level. These positions must be FLSA exempt. Hourly employees who are subject to overtime pay cannot be part of this election. Finally, a position must have one-third or greater of its job duties (33%) as professional accounting duties to become eligible for conversion.

This conversion is administered by the UNC System Office. EHRA non-faculty employees have a salary structure at the system level. However, UNC-Chapel Hill has its own delegated authority to create its own salary structure for EHRA non-faculty. This structure is very flexible and broad and was recently updated. Only UNC-Chapel Hill and NC State University have authority to create their own salary structure for these employees.

However, this authority will not extend to the auditing, business, and finance positions to be converted soon. These positions will fall under the UNC System salary structure, not the UNC-Chapel Hill structure. This is a required, inflexible, “crosswalk” conversion. Creation of new/vacant positions that meet the conditions raised above were automatically switched to EHRA non-faculty as of September 1st, 2022.

There are around 500 positions that could convert to EHRA non-faculty, but people in these positions will have a choice whether to convert or to remain SHRA employees for as long as they remain in their current positions. If these people leave these positions, the positions will be converted to EHRA non-faculty immediately upon being vacated. The decision to remain an SHRA employee will not transfer if the employee transfers into another position and instead only applies to their current role.

No employee will be compelled or required to change status by anyone. Each employee should look at all factors and decide whether to convert or not. There is no automatic salary increase entitlement with conversion to EHRA non-faculty, unless the person has longevity pay, which would then be added to base EHRA non-faculty pay. Certain units or schools may choose not to add this longevity pay to base salary. In addition, this addition cannot exceed the maximum of the salary band.

The affected 500 employees will have only one opportunity to choose to convert to EHRA non-faculty status. The election period will run from January 16th-April 16th, with an electronic election done through ConnectCarolina self-service. Forms can be submitted as many times as desired, but only the last submission will count as of April 16th. If an employee does not make a submission, they will automatically remain as an SHRA employee.

Affected employees were emailed in December and will receive another email January 13th, before the election period opens. The election form will show their current position, their proposed new EHRA non-faculty position, and their current and proposed new EHRA non-faculty salary. In-person and Zoom informational sessions will be held throughout the election period. Employees can watch the recorded Zoom presentation or can contact Hockaday or Evans-Hollingsworth for more information.

The Chair noted a chat question regarding the definition of professional accounting duties. Hockaday said that there was no definition from the UNC System Office. The Associate Vice Chancellor for OHR gave a wonderful rundown of everything that could be considered professional accounting duties. There is no short answer to this question. All involve independent skill and thought.

The Chair relayed another chat question: have schools already made the longevity decision and done the pre-conversion offer work? Hockaday said that November 1st was the stop date to compile this information. If anyone becomes eligible for conversion during the election period, there will be a special one-off mini-conversion.

Another questioner asking if an accounting job is posted as EHRA non-faculty and an applicant wishes it were SHRA, could this point be negotiated? Hockaday said that the designation is hard-set going forward as soon as the position vacates. Reclassification of positions could occur automatically if a position moves from 25% to 50% of accounting duties, for example. The opposite would follow if the position were vacant.

The Chair asked if Hockaday could share the professional accounting duties list. Hockaday said that if the work is more than transactional, if it involves a level of independence, or if it is advisory on budgeting, the work is probably considered a professional accounting duty. She said that a review process of current positions had occurred in November.

The Chair asked about the departments that chose not to add longevity pay to base salary for converts. Hockaday thought that the School of Journalism had refused to do this, affecting a couple of employees there. The Chair noted that many position descriptions have not been updated in many years and are probably not completely accurate. She asked if descriptions would be updated. Hockaday said that the descriptions have been entered into ConnectCarolina but have not been updated or changed in any way. She said that HR officers should work to update position descriptions once a year ideally.

The Chair asked when this position management process is supposed to be complete. Hockaday said that campus security authority positions are all supposed to have been logged by the end of 2022. She thought that the others would be complete by June 2023. The Chair noted chat questions that state many job descriptions have been uploaded without consultation, with many having no idea of employees’ current responsibilities. She understood that management is not updating positions but rather is taking a paper version of the description and entering it into ConnectCarolina, so that there is no change. Hockaday anticipated that departments will update these descriptions in the future.

The Chair thought that the goal should be that these descriptions be accurate before the conversion process. However, she understood about the external deadline imposed by the UNC System Office. Evans-Hollingsworth commented that while departments were swamped, she thought that many descriptions were indeed updated. Hockaday said that OHR is allowing leeway for informal current depictions of responsibilities in classifying positions.

An employee asked if additional vacation days will accompany conversion to EHRA non-faculty. Hockaday said that EHRA non-faculty all earn 24 days of vacation a year, as opposed to SHRA employees’ tiered rate. Long-time SHRA employees earning 26 days’ vacation who convert will go down to 24 days as an EHRA non-faculty employee. SHRA employees earning less than 24 days’ vacation will have their rates increase to 24 days upon conversion to EHRA non-faculty.

Another question asked about the choice of TSERS retirement plan. Hockaday said that employees hired before January 1, 2013 were only given the option to choose TSERS, but after that date could choose between TSERS and the Optional Retirement Plan (ORP). Employees hired after 1/1/13 who accepted a new position had a one-time qualifying event whereby they could opt into ORP. Hockaday said that a few of the 500 employees eligible for conversion may fall into this category. She would refer them to Benefits with questions.

The Chair thanked Evans-Hollingsworth and Hockaday for their presentation. She welcomed Senior Work/Life Manager Jessica Pyjas to present the month’s wellness updates. She congratulated all 350 participants who participated in the Fall Miles for Wellness event, contributing over 80,000 miles to the overall competition. She said that the Spring challenge will begin in March.

Pyjas described the wellness opportunities and workshops to come in January. She also noted revisions to the university’s Employee Assistance Program website that deemphasize the initial phone call to a counselor. Pyjas noted that the Helping Heels list is seeking more participation from students and employees.

Pyjas noted the Total Well-Being Expo that will occur in-person on Wednesday, March 15th from 12-2 p.m. in the Student Recreational Center. She described prospective offerings for that event. Finally, she described discounts that employees can receive on purchases.

Arlene Medder asked if the EAP site will track on-line submissions or will these be confidential. Pyjas said that this information is not sent back to campus in any identifying format. Campus analysts receive only numbers without specifics of an entrant’s background.

The Chair asked delegates to complete and to share the affordable housing survey which was released last week. She recalled that the Forum’s Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion committee will provide feedback regarding the new Carolina Women’s Center (CWC). Staff in general will also have the opportunity to provide anonymous feedback on the future of the CWC.

The Chair asked delegates to be aware of coming Forum Bylaws revisions discussions. She reiterated that delegates could attend as many Vice Chancellors’ representatives’ meetings as desired. The Forum Book Club will meet Thursday, January 26th.

Arlene Medder suggested that the Forum begin thinking about updating its resolution on sexual assault awareness to enable passage in April.

The Chair urged employees to look over their paychecks to ensure their benefits deductions are correct.

In the absence of further discussion, Rebecca Howell moved that the meeting adjourn, seconded by Arlene Medder. The motion was approved by acclamation at 11:30 a.m.

Respectfully submitted,

 

Matt Banks, Recording Secretary

Comments are closed.