Annual Retreat Agenda
Wednesday, July 12th, 2017
8:00am – 4:30pm
Friday Center, Dogwood Room AB
8:00am – 8:15am Delegates arrive and socialize over morning continental breakfast in Atrium
8:15am – 8:25am Welcome and Announcements – Shayna Hill, Employee Forum Chair
8:30am – 9:30am Incentive Based Budget Model and Carolina Services
Matt Fajack, Vice Chancellor, Finance & Administration
Felicia Washington, Vice Chancellor, Workforce Strategy, Equity & Engagement
9:35am – 10:15am Introductions and Team Building
10:15am – 10:30am Morning break in Atrium
10:30am – 11:00am Brainstorming: Employee Forum Goals 2017-2018
11:05am – 11:50pm Break into Committees
Select a committee chair
Set meeting times
Begin discussing issues/activities/speakers for the year
11:50am – 12:00pm SEANC
Laresha Fortson, Member Relations Representative
12:00pm – 1:00pm Lunch – Trillium A
1:00pm – 2:30pm The Abilene Paradox: A Workshop on Individual Responsibility and Group Decision Making
Linc Butler, Associate Vice Chancellor, UNC Office of Human Resources
2:35pm – 3:00pm Parliamentary Procedure
Trey Allen, Assistant Professor of Public Law and Government, UNC School of Government
3:00pm – 3:15pm Afternoon break in Atrium
3:15pm – 4:00pm Committee Reports: Plans for the Upcoming Year
Carolina Blood Drive
Carolina Community Garden Advisory (annual report)
Communications and Public Relations (annual report)
Education and Career Development
Recognition and Awards
Membership and Assignments
Community Service (annual report)
Personnel Issues (annual report)
Compensation and Benefits
Legislative Action
Staff Relations, Policies & Practices
4:05pm – 4:25pm Wrap up
MINUTES
July 12, 2017 Employee Forum Retreat
Chair Shayna Hill introduced Vice Chancellor Matt Fajack and Vice Chancellor Felicia Washington to discuss the incentive based budget model. Fajack said that he could not predict outcomes of the incentive-based budget model. He said that the working group’s role had been to evaluate possible outcomes. He hoped that the University would conclude its discussions by the end of August meaning that the new budget model. He said that the model would hopefully go live next fiscal year.
A question arose as to how the model will distribute tuition. Fajack said that 70% of tuition money would go to school which teaches the course and 30% to the school of the payor’s major. Other universities provide 100% of all tuition money to the payor’s major. Regarding State appropriations which make up 25% of University funding, 40% goes off the top for research efforts and the remaining 60% is distributed according to the State’s 12-cell matrix.
Finance & Administration (F&A) monies have been allocated 100% to overhead receipts. Now, however, all funds will revert to the schools and then will be charged by F&A. These changes will hopefully result in an increased ability to provide strategic raises with remaining funds.
Bryan Andregg asked if F&A monies will change from their current 52-54% of overall dollars. Fajack said that the National Institute of Health specifies a 55.5% rate, with 30% of this 55% devoted to cost support and research. Alan Moran asked if the older funding model advanced funding positions. Fajack said that the State determines these figures and Anna Wu presents the budget needs of Facilities Services. Moran said that positions in Construction are receipt-funded and must compete for work with outside contractors. Fajack said that he did not think this system would change. Moran asked if other Facilities Services units would need to compete with outside contractors. Fajack did not think this would occur as the University must work to maintain its economy of scale in these areas.
Fajack noted that in the new incentive-based budgeting system, universities typically distinguish “base” services from “premium” services in how they handle costs incurred by administrative support units. “Premium” services are typically funded externally or internal chargebacks. Demand control is handled by University governance structures in “base” service functions, as opposed to customer and stakeholder decisions in “premium” oversight. Funding for “base” services relies on model cost pool allocations such as headcount, square footage, or expenditures. “Premium” services rely on external funds (private gifts, government grants, or student fees) or internal recharge (individual usage fees, hourly usage rates, etc.)
Fajack noted that the University’s support units have been grouped into twelve cost pools from which net expenditures will be allocated to each primary unit based on a single metric that best represents the driver of costs. These cost pools include: Facilities Services, Information Technology, Finance, Libraries, Research, Chancellor’s Office, Human Resources, University Counsel, Provost’s Office, Admissions and Scholarships, Student Affairs, and the Graduate School. Facilities Services net expenses are allocated according to weighted square footage of buildings covered, among other items.
Mary Dahlsten asked if certain units will rely on head counts. Fajack said that all employee and student funding will depend on credit hours. Information Technology will depend on total headcount, and other support units will use other allocation metrics.
Fajack noted that the legacy budget process of the University, the centrally driven model, uses a separate set of conversations for academic planning and financial management, a shorter-term outlook that plans primarily from year to year, a limited formal review of unit-level financial performance, limited scope for stakeholder groups to inform budgetary decisions, and a lack of broad-based communication on the allocation of discretionary funds.
The new budget process, the incentive-based model, will feature a more collaborative approach to resource planning that occurs throughout the year, with integrated conversations for academic planning and financial management, a longer term planning outlook, regular data-driven review of unit-level financial performance, broader scope for stakeholder groups to inform budgetary decisions in a coordinated way, and formal communication to link central investment to University-wide strategic priorities.
Fajack said that at the University of Florida, each support unit submitted data according to metrics to the central budget committee. He said that the first years were rough, but afterwards support units grew to understand the process of where to fund and what to cut.
Ricky Roach asked if the new budget process will affect Energy Services. Fajack said that this area is treated as part of the Auxiliary Services group.
Brian Wrighten asked about allocation for Transportation and Parking. Fajack noted that parking services are mandated to only break even in revenue and charges to overhead. He said that changes to the parking model will likely be pushed out to the next five-year plan. LaToya Taylor asked about the University’s Employee and Management Relations department. Fajack said that this area will not receive a general budget allocation. Taylor asked what incentive exists for departments to support this area. Fajack said that departments will have no choice but to provide these supplements to receive their annual budgets.
Felicia Washington underscored the importance of doing these allocations accurately. She said that units like Workplace Strategy, Equity and Engagement must work together to pick up service to persuade decision-makers that their services have value to the University.
The question arose as to what would happen to administrative staff if a department cannot reach the set goals. Fajack said that oftentimes a department is reluctant to risk in areas in which it can make a profit as it would need to figure out how to meet a deficit should the risk fail. He said that the new budget model would provide a strategic fund to support these risks. Regarding how to stop risk downstream to a department’s administrative group, Fajack said that the administrative group has input but does not have the final say in these matters.
Bryan Andregg asked how the budget model would work for units not supported by tuition receipts. Fajack said that the budget committee had wrestled to find correct metrics for the different areas. He said that there would be inevitable subvention (grant of money) between schools to deal with these differences between units. Ricky Roach followed on Andregg’s question. Fajack said that departments can sometimes be hit under the previous budget model because they are successful. Roach worried that discussion of streamlining services can lead to loss of staff. Fajack thought that any loss of staff would occur through attrition, not layoffs.
Felicia Washington noted her role as Vice Chancellor of Workplace Strategy, Equity and Excellence, which oversees the Equal Opportunity, Title IX, and Human Resources offices, among others. She said that five vice chancellors worked with the Carolina Services Initiative from Research Administration, Finance, Human Resources, Communications, and Information Technology. The overall goal of the Shared Services Initiative is to convert the University into a more nimble organization that can quickly adapt to new technologies and work processes to better support the campus core academic mission and keep the University at the forefront of research and innovation. Washington emphasized the importance of being good stewards of funds entrusted to the University.
Washington said that the decision was made to begin with administrative units mentioned above, with plans that this initial phase will be complete by the end of 2018. Work done thus far includes development of a design plan, process redesign, staffing analysis, and governance design. Washington said that the design of functional areas such as Finance, Human Resources and Research Administration will depend on consolidation of select business support staff into a new share service organization with distinct units for each function. Some changes will be system driven, and some form driven.
Information Technology’s design plan will emphasize centralization of select services into central organization which may result in some staff moving to ITS. Communications will undergo a transition to a central communications organization that provides support to units across campus.
The Executive Leadership Committee (ELC) is composed of the Provost and five functional Vice Chancellors. The ELC met weekly throughout the summer. Design teams had liaisons from each working group. The purpose of the activity surveys which were completed by 700+ Phase I staff was to capture time spent on activities within the five administrative functional areas mentioned above. All of this work is done with a focus on ongoing improvement. Committees have been convened to identify space options, to define funding models and to define infrastructure needs for the new shared services center. There is also a committee focused on change management.
Washington said that there are plans to create a Shared Service Leader at the Associate Vice Chancellor level which will report to her and to Matt Fajack.
A position review process for job titles in the 5 Functional Areas (Finance, HR, Research Administration, IT, and Communications) will be implemented for all requests to reclassify existing positions or to post new and vacant positions within Phase I units. Christine Greenberg confirmed that this process will now apply only to Phase I units. Mary Dahlsten asked about positions which had been posted in June, before the July 1 change. Washington said that the process would not go back and capture postings from the previous fiscal year. Bryan Andregg confirmed that the process does not yet cover information technology positions in academic units.
In the position review process, Human Resources will first review all requests, with any positions that have 10% or more of their responsibilities within the five functional areas will go to the ELC for review and approval. Expectations are that approximately 80-100 positions will be subject to ELC review each month.
The same process will be implemented for the Phase II units when their implementation date draws near.
Felicia Washington said that the ELC will continue to make the implementation process as it progresses. She would try her best to provide answers to questions as they arise. Christine Greenberg said that her area, Study Abroad, has very different concerns about past struggles with Finance representatives turning over so quickly. She said that the repetitive frustrations of working with a representative then losing them, then retraining a new person had made her unit nervous about what would occur with the Shared Services model. Greenberg reported a feeling that if the Finance representative were in the Dean’s Office, this interaction would be consistently easier. Washington said that she had not thought about that instance. She said it was important to hear developments from smaller units.
Bryan Andregg noted that the School of Public Health had moved its Human Resources representatives to a shared services model. He reported that some units have felt lost as a result. How will units communicate to the Shared Services Center about quality of coverage? Washington said that she could not make promises on behalf of the effort but said that feedback and process would be observed through regular meetings. Matt Fajack said that the focus on continual improvement should lead to a focus on best practices in Service Level Partnerships. He said a question remains as to how quickly these changes can turn around for continuous improvement efforts. Ricky Roach reported that Human Resources personnel in his experience have become too tight with management.
Alan Moran noted the prevalence of speculation in the absence of fact. He asked about the Service Center in Carrboro and whether employees will be moved out there. He emphasized communications at the employee level as well as to work managers, supervisors, and directors to eliminate rumors. Washington said that communications theorists have found that messages must be conveyed in three different ways to obtain understanding among those receiving. She said that there is no different plan for the Shared Services Center.
Mary Dahlsten asked about obtaining more support for areas in Phase I that are experiencing holes and backlogs in their work. Fajack said that the process described that morning is meant to make work flow more smoothly. It has taken two years to move from external reporting to process redesign to the Shared Services Center concept at UNC. Dahlsten wondered what the Shared Services model would look like for Human Resources or Finance staff. Would their work look the same or would their work become more broad. Fajack said that affected employees will receive cross-training but also will have a level of specialization in the interest of efficiency.
Jim Potts asked how employees can identify who will do the Shared Services work with their department. Felicia Washington said that employees will not necessary reach the same person each time that they contact a Shared Service Center worker. Matt Fajack said that he would insure University websites will contain this contact information when possible.
At this point the Forum took a break.
Chair Shayna Hill said that she had run for office in order to reflect the passion of University employees and to make the Forum function in the best way possible. She said that the Forum was larger than herself. She pledged to be increasingly engaged and inclusive of other perspectives. She noted similarities between her beginning and the start of life as a baby bird.
The Chair also recognized former Forum Chair Charles Streeter for his attainment of honorary lifetime delegate status. She praised him for his leadership and guidance.
Delegates listed a range of goals for the organization in the upcoming year. These are available here. Committee chairs then made presentations on behalf of their groups, inviting delegates to serve.
Alan Moran noted comments from co-workers that “the Forum has never done anything for me,” absent understanding of work that delegates do behind the scenes. The Chair recalled that ten years ago the Forum had a poor reputation with campus managers. However, she said this reputation had improved recently. She noted her supervisor’s appreciation of her service as Forum Chair, which he described as a “feather in my cap.” She was thankful for the passionate support the School of Dentistry has shown her.
Lori Haight noted that technological advances should make it easier to communicate with campus employees about Forum achievements. Alan Moran noted that University tradespeople typically do not spend much time at their desks reading Forum communications and miss some excellent conversations as a result. The Chair suggested that the Forum work with supervisors to provide updates on its work. Natiaya Neal emphasized the importance of updating divisional listservs so that delegates can communicate with their constituents. Katie Musgrove suggested that the Forum hold office hours to speak with employees.
Ricky Roach commented that the Forum needs more backbone so that matters do not fall through the cracks. The Chair said that she would seek other ideas for partnership to address these needs. Kathy Ramsey noted that there are many things the Forum cannot change due to the issues being beyond its granted authority. Greg Smith said that the Forum should revive its tradition of all-campus community meetings. Jeanna Mccullers said that a goal of the Forum should be to advocate for employees in a concrete manner.
Questions arose about the evolution of the Forum’s electoral divisions. Felicia Washington offered her office’s help in addressing these questions. Alan Moran asked about position title changes in Facilities Services. Matt Banks offered to pull the most recent roster to study changes in these titles over the last several years.
The Forum then heard a presentation from Linc Butler on the Abilene Paradox.
The Forum then heard a presentation from Trey Allen on parliamentary procedure.
At this point, the Forum broke into its various committees to discuss plans for the year. Committee chairs submitted rosters of delegates and prospective meeting times.
In the absence of further discussion, the meeting adjourned at 4:05 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Matt Banks, Recording Secretary