Agenda — July 2, 1997
9:30 a.m.–Meeting, Assembly Room of Wilson Library
I. Call to Order
II. Welcome Guests, Members of the Press
III. Opening Remarks
* To Be Announced
IV. Employee Presentations—Janet Tysinger
* Fiona Bradley on the University Blood Drive: July 30 at the Smith Athletic Center
V. Human Resources Update
* Laurie Charest, Associate Vice Chancellor, Human Resources
VI. Approval of Minutes of the June 4, 1997 meeting
VII. Unfinished Business
* Invitation to Barbara DeLon, Director of Housekeeping, to Give Special Presentation to Forum (Second Reading)
* Invitation to Pete Andrews, Chair-Elect of the Faculty Council, to Give Special Presentation or (Second Reading)
VIII. New Business
* Forum Guidelines Revisions (First Reading) from Forum Officer Election Procedure Task Force
* August Update From Judith Scott on Sexual Harassment Policy
IX. Chair’s Report (Executive Committee): Bob Schreiner
* Joint Staff Council Meeting August 1 at Appalachian State
* Establishment of Delegates-Only Listserv
* Effort to Reach Division 2 Employees: Delegation Letter, June Meeting Comments on Difficulties with TOPS Program, Publicity of In-Range Salary Adjustment Opportunities, and Tar Heel Temp Shift Differential Pay
* Executive Committee Request that University Committee Assignments Committee Study Possible Ways to Choose Forum’s Recommendation for Staff Co-Chair of University Campaign
* Executive Committee Request that Orientation Committee Explore Presentation of Delegates’ Unknown Facts/Biographical Sketches (After Recognition of our “Poet Laureate” Jeffery Beam)
* Forum Rosters Updated
* Loaner Copy of UNC-Chapel Hill Financial Statements Analysis Available from Forum Office
X. Committee/Task Force Reports
* Nominating—Libby Evans
* Orientation—Joyce Dalgleish/Jeffery Beam
=> Orientation/Buddy System Planning
=> Five Year Reunion
* Personnel Policies—Peter Schledorn
=> Exempt Employees Work Schedule (Comp Time) Discussions
* Compensation and Benefits—Tommy Brickhouse
=> Revision of In-Range Salary Adjustment Fact Sheet
* Public Affairs—Ruth Lewter/Anne Montgomery
* Recognition and Awards—Laura Grady/Nancy Klatt
* University Committee Assignments—Anne Montgomery/Tommy Nixon
=> Selections for Long-Range Parking & Transportation Task Force
=> Vacancy on University Athletic Council
* Career Development—Norm Loewenthal
=> New Careers Training Board—George Sharp
* Employee Presentations—Janet Tysinger
=> Recap: Ideas for Fall Community Meeting
* Employee Appreciation Fair Booth Task Force—Janet Tysinger
=> Survey Results
* University Gazette Insert Task Force—Bob Schreiner
* School Volunteerism Task Force—Libby Evans
* Faculty Council Liaisons
* Partner Benefits—Peter Schledorn
* Legislative Affairs—Tom Sullivan
* Transportation and Parking Advisory Committee Representative—Janet Tysinger
* Outsourcing Team Representatives—Bennie Griffin/Ann Hamner
Don’t Forget Our “Relax & Chat” Bag Lunch, Scheduled Right After the Meeting! We’ll Either Eat Out on the Quad, Near the Bynum Fountain or in the Forum/Faculty Council Conference Room, 202 Carr Building if it Rains or Swelters!
Y’all Come & Bring Yer Grub!
July 2, 1997
Archie Phillips, Jr.
Ann Hamner “
” = Ex-Officio
Call to Order, Welcome to Guests
Chair Bob Schreiner called the meeting to order at 9:33 a.m., asking members to sign in and to examine the routing file as it was passed around the room. He was glad to see so many members present two days before the Independence Day weekend. As the Chancellor had been delayed, the Chair proposed that the group move on to the scheduled Employee presentation from Fiona Bradley, who would speak on behalf of the University Blood Drive.
Bradley noted that Employee participation in the University Blood Drive is very prominent, as students and many faculty have left town for the summer. She added that the University holds its drive in the summertime because the summer is typically when blood supplies are at their lowest. Many people schedule surgeries in the summertime, and many accidents occur as vacationers venture onto the highways.
People often do not consider the importance of one pint of blood until they or their loved ones are in need. Then, there is the great appreciation for the one person who took an hour out of their day to donate. Bradley urged listeners to consider this perspective when deciding whether to give blood.
The Blood Drive is predominately run by Employees, staffed by Employee volunteers, and most of the donors are Employees. It takes around an hour to donate. Employees can find out who their departmental recruiter is by calling 962-1422 or accessing http://www.sph.unc.edu/blood. Also, Employees may have seen posters located around their work area with their recruiter’s name listed.
An Employee recruiter’s job is to inform fellow Employees about the Blood Drive and the importance of donating. The recruiter works to make the process of donating easy for the Employee, by making appointments, aiding with transportation details, and providing encouragement to those apprehensive about giving blood. If one does not have a departmental recruiter, it is easy to make an appointment via 962-1422. The Drive will be held July 30 at the Smith Athletic Center.
Bradley asked if listeners had any questions. Tommy Brickhouse jokingly asked if the Drive would serve pizza again this year. Bradley said that there would be pizza, but that she was not at liberty to say when it would be served. There will be refreshments available throughout the day.
Last year, the drive collected 900 pints of blood, and the goal this year is 1,000 pints which will require around 1,300 donors. Two weeks into the recruiting process, around 500 donors have already been scheduled. Bradley encouraged listeners to advocate the drive to their departments and support Employees taking time in the day to donate blood. She emphasized that donating and volunteering for the drive should be considered worktime.
Bradley noted that some Employees cannot donate due to medical reasons. The Drive encourages these Employees to volunteer to help with donor sign-up, aid stations, and donor transport. Once again, she urged supervisors to support their Employees in this matter.
The Chair noted he had been involved with the Blood Drive Planning Committee for a number of years, and considered it a great and useful cause. He also encouraged listeners to donate and volunteer if possible: he and Ann Hamner were co-chairing the drive’s Volunteer Recruitment Committee. The drive particularly needs volunteers for the beginning and ending scheduled slots, at 7 a.m. and 4 p.m. Prospective volunteers should contact the Chair or Hamner. The Chair thanked Bradley for her presentation and for her work on behalf of the Drive.
Human Resources Update
Associate Vice Chancellor for Human Resources Laurie Charest said she had a number of items to update the Forum about, but would defer to Chancellor Hooker a discussion of general legislative issues affecting the University. She would address those legislative items that had been mentioned in previous months that were most related to Human Resources issues.
The most pressing set of issues—pay raises, retirement incentives and the retirement factor—will all be addressed in the State budget bill. A conference committee has been appointed to consider the bill, but observers do not know what actions that committee will take at this point.
Charest noted there had been a change in the retirement factor revision since her remarks in June. The House had not yet passed its budget bill (containing a 2% cost of living raise plus a 2% career growth for State Employees), but recently moved to change the retirement factor to 1.78 from its present level of 1.76. Charest added that the Senate’s budget proposal shifted the figure even further to 1.81. She was disappointed the factor was not improved even further, but hoped that discussions favoring State Employees would occur in the conference committee.
Charest next discussed of the “State Hires Most Qualified” bill. Observers expect a number of changes in this bill emerging from House Committee recommendations related to the Algie Toomer matter. Governor Hunt has issued an Executive Order on this subject which, while applicable only to Cabinet agencies, offers some guidance to the University on hiring matters, since there is a possibility that the “State Hires Most Qualified” bill will not be approved in the current legislative session.
The Governor’s Executive Order sets out how agencies are to conduct their hiring practices. Most of the provisions of the Order are completely in line with how the University conducts itself, although there are a couple of provisions that would require the University to make some changes. First, the Executive Order requires the screening and selection processes be separated and conducted by different people. In other words, one party must screen the number of applicants while someone different must select from among these final candidates. Here at the University, the Employment Office screens candidates who meet the minimum qualifications for a position, and other offices use separate search and hiring committees separately to fill a position. However, more separation of these functions may soon become required.
In addition, the Executive Order suggests that the State will begin to develop competency tests for specific jobs, recalling the civil service exams in the 1970s and early 1980s. These exams may soon reappear; Charest keep the Forum updated on this area.
The “Grievance Procedure” bill does not look likely to move forward this year. Similarly, the Discipline Disclosure Act seems unlikely to become law in this session.
Regarding Employee benefits, the Office of State Personnel announced recently that the North Carolina Flex program has been expanded to include an accidental death and dismemberment program. A three-year contract has been awarded to UNUM, and the plan will be available during the North Carolina Flex’s enrollment period, from October 20 to November 14, 1997.
Charest noted that the University already has an accidental death and dismemberment program. The University Insurance Committee will need to examine whether the University should continue its plan along with the State plan, similar to its administration of dental insurance, or move strictly to embrace the State plan. The University Insurance Committee will examine a comparison of the rates and coverage options and should make a decision on this subject in the early fall. More information on this subject should be available shortly.
Regarding health insurance, Charest noted that Health Maintenance Organization rates are renegotiated every other year. Human Resources has compiled a document listing the new HMO rates which Charest distributed to the assembly. As there were so many different HMOs, Charest would not attempt to explain the document in any great detail.
At this point, Chancellor Michael Hooker asked leave to present opening remarks as he had a 10 a.m. appointment scheduled. Charest yielded the floor.
Hooker said he wished he could have stayed longer to hear about University HMO options, stating that he had never done anything as confusing as to decide on the right health plan for himself and his family. He commiserated with those struggling to decide among the different plans.
Hooker praised Charest for her fine work as head of the University Human Resources. He had worked with Human Resources directors at many different institutions but had not met one who could compare with Charest. Hooker lauded Charest’s technical competence as “the best I’ve ever seen,” and also praised the humanity she brought to her work. The Forum gave Charest a warm round of applause.
Hooker reiterated Charest’s remarks that the University does not know the progress of activities within the legislative conference committee. He did not anticipate that the committee was considering the status of the University budget as it had matters of much greater consequence to address at this point. Hooker thought the committee would not make public any decisions until the end of July, though the committee may choose to deal separately with the University budget since these items were not likely to become controversial. University officials may or may not hear of something in the interim; otherwise, the University will have to sit tight and hope for the best.
Hooker has been in frequent contact with members of the Legislature urging support for the University budget, particularly the higher salary figure offered by the State House. He also has argued that this is the worst possible time to raise tuition, as the State currently is enjoying a time of economic prosperity. He pointed out that dollars generated from tuition increases go directly into the coffers of the State, not the University. Hooker said that the increases were the moral equivalent of cutting the University budget because the State is withdrawing some of its investment in the University and substituting a cost delivered directly to students and their parents. In a time when the State’s economy is as healthy as it is, the State should reinvest in higher education, rather than disinvest in that area; Hooker has worked to make this point to the Legislature.
This subject intersects with a point that Hooker had observed during his service on the Commission on the Future of the South. It was clear that every state in the South has realized that the world economy is changing and the only thing to save us in the twenty-first century is education. Other southern states are examining increasing their investment in education while North Carolina, ironically, which has been the healthiest of the southern states, has been considering decreasing its investments in education, via the recently discussed tuition increase. Hooker thought this was not the appropriate time to enact this increase and he had made this point to the budget conferees.
Hooker noted that he had completed his 100 County tour of North Carolina. He had first announced this idea before a Forum meeting and had reported to the Forum on its progress several times in the interim. Hooker could not imagine that the tour could have gone any better. He was astonished how warmly he was received, and the degree to which the University was held in esteem across the State. It was as if people across the State were waiting to express their affection to us, and we had not enabled them to do that before.
In every county that Hooker visited, he had encountered examples of how alumni were making a substantial difference in their home counties. He also encountered numerous examples of how faculty and staff were working to benefit county life. These contributions were not just those of the highly visible AHEC (Area Health Education Centers) programs, but composed a list of at least two pages of material describing instance after instance in which the University was benefiting a particular county. A primary example of these benefits was the University’s consultation with rural counties on how best to develop local economies through use of indigenous resources.
Hooker said the trip strengthened his understanding that North Carolina, while a wealthy state, is also a very poor one. The area along the I-85 corridor from east of Raleigh, through the Research Triangle Park, the Triangle, the Triad, Charlotte-Mecklenburg and Rock Hill, South Carolina is very successful economically, currently possessing the nation’s lowest level of unemployment.
However, there is another North Carolina in the rural counties of its coastal plain and mountains. This North Carolina has not reaped the benefits from the economic gains of the I-85 corridor. Hooker was convinced that the State needs to find additional ways to avail these counties of this prosperity. One way to do this is for the University to work with the public schools of North Carolina, beyond its current activities. Hooker praised the work of Learn North Carolina and the Lighthouse Project, and said that the University will double its efforts in these projects this year, to the degree that its legislative budget allows it to do so. The University will also look for other ways to increase level of activity in poorer counties.
Hooker said the Five Day Faculty Bus Tour had also been a great success. The tour was a great opportunity to introduce faculty, many of whom had never visited North Carolina outside of Chapel Hill, to the people of the State. Pete Andrews, Chair of the Faculty, was one of those who conceived the idea for the bus tour. Given its success, Hooker anticipated more faculty tours would take place in the future.
Hooker asked if listeners had any questions. George Sharp had a question of philosophical import that he hoped to ask Hooker to address at another time, given Hooker’s need to leave for another appointment. Hooker said he would happy to hear and discuss Sharp’s questions at another time.
Janet Tysinger said she was glad that the University of Nebraska at Omaha had been unable to hire Executive Vice Chancellor Elson Floyd away from Chapel Hill. Hooker was also happy that the University would retain Floyd for a while longer. However, Hooker was committed to helping Floyd obtain the best presidency possible given his talents and efforts on behalf of the University. While the University will regret losing Floyd, Hooker anticipated that it is a matter of time before Floyd obtains a higher position of his choosing.
Human Resources Update (continued)
Charest continued her presentation on Health Maintenance Organizations. She reiterated that every two years the State rebids its HMO contracts. This bidding process has occurred, and the rates offered were captured in the handout that Charest had distributed. She summarized this spreadsheet by saying that of the 12 HMOs, seven increased their rates, three decreased their rates and two remained unchanged. Increases for the Employee-only portion ran from .4% to 10%; decreases ranged from .01% to 2.2%.
Charest thought the difficulty with the subscription process is that it leaves Employees scrambling every year to determine their best options. This year, as in others, Employees will move from HMOs to the State Health Insurance Plan, and will reverse themselves should rates in the State Plan rise next year. Charest thought these continual reversals created an unhealthy situation for Employees, and hoped that one day rate changes for HMOs and the State Plan would occur concurrently. Scheduling rate changes to occur at the same time would enable Employees to make more rational, informed decisions about their coverage. Human Resources will work to make rate information available to Employees as they make their selections in August for the coming year.
Charest noted a question from a Delegate at the June meeting inquiring why shift premium pay is not available for temporary employees. State Personnel Policy provides for additional compensation for certain permanent employees whose regular work schedule occurs during evening or night hours. Shift premium pay is only available only to permanent employees in certain pay grades and job categories who work regular, recurring hours between 4 p.m. and 8 a.m. These hours must be repeated indefinitely to be eligible for shift premium pay—a temporary substitute into these hours does not receive shift premium pay. Only regular, permanent Employees with a regular assignment in these hours receive such pay.
Temporary employees hired through Tar Heel Temporaries and other temporary agencies by departments are not eligible for shift premium pay. Departments do have the flexibility, if there are serious market and recruitment difficulties, to adjust salaries for temporary employees who work evening hours.
Charest asked if there were any questions on shift premium pay or any other subject. Eddie Capel had a question regarding medical insurance. He thought that Employees were becoming more sophisticated in their understanding of HMO plans and medical insurance. Oftentimes, however, Capel thought that Employees are making decisions simply based on the cost of coverage rather than the benefits provided, and imagined that some providers have lowered their monthly cost factor by reducing benefits. Anticipating the annually distributed catalog describing the benefits of the different health plans, Capel asked if there were a way to derive a more succinct comparison of what benefits have been for each plan versus what they will be following the customary biannual revisions.
Charest said that the spreadsheet distributed contained all of the information that she had regarding HMO coverage. The last page of the handout contains a rather abbreviated section entitled “Benefits Changes” which does not provide a great deal of information. Employees will receive their annual booklet that details plan costs and benefits in extensive, and somewhat confusing, detail.
Charest confirmed that Capel had in mind a summary catalog of this information that would capture this data in a more succinct manner. She thought Human Resources would be happy to compile such information but cautioned that her department does not receive the booklet mentioned until after the enrollment period had already begun. Thus, it is difficult for Human Resources to communicate additional data to Employees before the enrollment deadline. The department will do its best to compose such a summary, with the caveat that the summary may not be timely. Charest said that every year since she had been at the University there had been a similar problem with obtaining materials in advance of the enrollment period.
Capel said that this difficulty was part of the reason he had raised his question. Another reason was that as he had noted his family situation has changed several times as his son has entered and soon will graduate from college. As one s personal situation changes, one does not often think about how this change affects one s benefit plans. For example, Capel wondered if he would receive savings by subscribing to an HMO instead of the State plan because of the change in his family situation? He thought it would be useful for the Forum or human resources to examine benefits from the perspective of someone moving through these changes in age and family situation.
Charest thought Capel’s point was a good one and that Human Resources could address these questions on a general basis before considering information from the different HMOs. She said it is important for Employees to re-examine all benefits when children go off to college and when contemplating retirement. She proposed that Human Resources provide a general summary of these situations, without the specific information of the HMO costs, that Employees could use to think through these questions. Capel thought this would be a very useful document, and proposed that the Forum’s Compensation and Benefits Committee could aid Human Resources in work on this project.
Tommy Brickhouse was perturbed that Blue Cross/Blue Shield seem to increase their premiums by 10% every other year, while State Employees typically receive only a 3-4% salary increase each year. Charest anticipated that there would be a number of changes in enrollment as different Employees decide their comfort level with different HMOs, and the State Comprehensive Plan.
Nancy Atwater thought that a summary of changes would be very useful. She also thought that the listing of coverage for each HMO should note which are their primary doctors and hospitals. She had experienced difficulties in arranging expected coverage at Durham Memorial Hospital because of these coverage issues. A subscriber to North Carolina FlexCare, Atwater’s primary doctor is at the Ambulatory Care Center, which means in turn that she must use Memorial Hospital. Could the summary include a list of which plans are accepted at which hospitals?
Charest replied that not all HMOs designate specific hospitals that subscribers can use. She said Human Resources would see what it could do to compile this information in concert with the summary sheet that Capel had suggested. Not all HMOs designate hospitals, although some do. Some HMOs have their own primary care providers while others maintain designated lists. Charest said that her department annually attempts some type of summary which is usually reported in the University Gazette, because this is the fastest way to communicate to Employees. The department may attempt to compose another document as well.
The Chair thanked Charest for her comments. Libby Evans reported that Charest had recently won Mary Turner Lane Award for in honor of outstanding contributions to female students, faculty, staff and administrators at the University. The Forum gave Charest a round of applause.
Approval of Minutes
The Chair called for a motion to approve the minutes of the June 4, 1997 meeting. Jerry Hall made this motion, with Diana Saxon seconding. There was no discussion, and the minutes were approved unanimously.
The Chair called for a motion to invite Barbara DeLon, Director of Housekeeping Services, to make a presentation to the Forum at her convenience, on second reading. George Sharp made this motion, with Beverly Williams seconding. There was no discussion, and the motion was approved unanimously.
The Chair called for a motion to invite Pete Andrews, Chair of the Faculty, to make a presentation to the Forum at his convenience, on second reading. Libby Evans made this motion, with Tricia Mitchell seconding. There was no discussion, and the motion was approved unanimously. The Chair anticipated that these presentations would occur in September and November, as the Forum had scheduled Senator Eleanor Kinnaird and Representative Verla Insko to present in August and October, respectively.
The Chair directed members’ attention to the proposed Guidelines revisions, submitted by the Executive Committee for first reading. He thanked the Forum Officer Election Procedure Task Force for their contributions to the proposed revisions. The Chair asked that Delegates raise questions and offer changes at this point so that the Forum could move to approve by consensus the revised Guidelines at its August meeting.
The Chair would read the proposed revisions in the order presented. (Proposed additions are underlined and deletions are crossed through.) The first revision, to Section IV. Committee Service: “Only Forum Delegates and First Alternates may serve as Chair or Co-Chair of these committees.” The Forum had no comment on this proposal.
In Section V. Membership B. Delegates 1. b. Term in Office—“Each elected Delegate shall be elected to serve a two-year term a twenty-five month term, from the December meeting of the year of their election to the December meeting two years hence inclusive.” The Chair noted that this proposal was associated with the plan of the Officer Election Procedure Task Force to have candidates for office make their presentations to the Forum at the group’s December meeting. The terms of incoming Delegates would begin with the December meeting so that these members would have an opportunity to hear directly from officer candidates.
Within Section VI. Quorum and Voting: “Other measures requiring a two-thirds vote include the installation of Honorary Delegates, motions to suspend the rules, and other parliamentary motions requiring a two-thirds vote within the most recent edition of Robert’s Rules of Order.”
The next revision of the Guidelines was proposed for Section VII. Election Procedure D. Election of Officers: “The December Forum meeting will be mandatory for new Delagates as well as outgoing Delegates. The meeting shall include time for 3 minute presentations by each candidate and one of his or her supporters (a total of 6 minutes per candidate.)” Tommy Brickhouse recalled a point that Beverly Williams had raised concerning this clause in the Forum’s June Executive Committee meeting. He asked the purpose of the first sentence of this clause concerning outgoing Delegates; Williams asked if any sanction is in store for outgoing Delegates who miss the final meeting of their term. The Chair thought that the Forum relied on the responsibility and commitment of Delegates to attend every meeting. Williams concluded that there was thus no need of a special mention of this moral obligation in the Guidelines.
George Sharp thought that the sentence was intended to emphasize that incoming Delegates’ terms were to begin in December, not that outgoing Delegates were compelled to attend their final meeting. There is no change in obligation for outgoing members. Sharp hoped that Delegates would rely on the same sense of commitment used when attending every Forum meeting.
Tysinger thought the issue could be resolved by removing the sentence in question and substituting: “The December meeting will be the first official meeting for new Delegates.” The Chair also thought that the clause was meant to address only the beginning of new Delegates’ terms in office, so that these new members could hear from Forum Officer candidates.
George Sharp raised a question regarding the percentage of members required to constitute a quorum. He felt that the current figure of 35% of the Forum to constitute a quorum was remarkably low. (Section VI. Quorum and Voting) He opined that the Forum had never approached a level below 2/3 attendance in his year and a half of service. Other members thought that attendance averaged at least 75-80% of the membership. The Chair asked if Laurie Charest or other members who participated in the original writing of the Guidelines had any perspective on why the quorum was set at 35%. Charest said that the 35% figure was not included in the original draft of the Guidelines, but was added in later revisions. The Chair asked if a percentage was specified in the original version; Charest did not think so, but was not positive.
The Chair asked how other members felt about this issue. Eddie Capel thought that the Forum had exceeded 35% at every meeting, and the quorum requirement should not change general attendance levels, which he felt hovered around 80% at every meeting. Charest was uncertain whether the attendance requirement for Delegates preceded the addition of the quorum figure for the Forum. Libby Evans thought the provision regarding quorums was added fairly soon after the addition of the attendance requirement.
George Sharp said the source of his concern was that outsiders reading the Forum’s Guidelines and seeing that the Forum required only 35% of its membership to establish a quorum might conclude that the Forum enjoys only a bare minimum of support. He thought this would be an incorrect conclusion, but one that would be easy to draw given this unusually low figure. Peter Schledorn added that the votes of only 8 Delagates would be enough to set policy for the Forum under the quorum requirement as written. He and Tommy Brickhouse thought this number was a dangerously low number for the group to rely upon.
The Chair asked in what manner Sharp wished to change this clause. Sharp thought that 50% was the customary number required to establish a quorum. The Chair asked if members were in general agreement with the suggestion that the first sentence of Section VI. Read: “Fifty percent (50%) Thirty-five percent (35%) of the Forum Delagates shall constitute a quorum, excluding ex-officio members.“
Janet Tysinger asked if the 35% figure might be related to the powers of the Executive Committee to make decisions for the entire Forum in emergency situations. Tysinger noted that the number of Executive Committee members, ten, was close to the number currently required for a quorum (16 Delegates in attendance). She offered this idea as a possible explanation for the lower number. Evans did not suspect this was the reason for the unusually low quorum requirement, as the Executive Committee is mentioned separately within the Guidelines.
The Forum agreed to add the proposed change to its set of revisions to be considered on second reading at its August meeting.
Concerning Section VII. D. Election of Officers, the Chair noted that the Forum Officer Election Procedure Task Force had drafted a number of recommendations which had been incorporated into the proposed revisions presented by the Executive Committee. He wondered if a member of the Task Force would be willing to lead discussion on this part of the revisions. George Sharp, convenor of the Task Force, agreed to moderate these discussions.
Sharp noted that the first clause added to D. Election of Officers, “The December Forum meeting will be mandatory for new Delegates as well as outgoing Delegates. The meeting shall include time for 3 minute presentations by each candidate and one of his or her supporters (a total of 6 minutes per candidate.) and” was established by the Task Force as a presentation session for Forum Officer candidates. Libby Evans added that the general purpose of the Task Force recommendations was to increase Delegates’ knowledge about whom they were voting to lead them into their next term.
Eddie Capel recalled Beverly Williams’ preference that the word “mandatory” be struck from this clause. The Chair thought that the entire sentence could be removed as superfluous, as it had been referred to earlier in provisions dealing with term length, or could be retained for emphasis. Tommy Brickhouse thought the clause could be construed as arrogant.
Peter Schledorn offered an alternative to replace the contested sentence: “The December Forum meeting will be mandatory for new Delegates on the same basis as current Delegates,” striking out the remainder of the sentence. Steve Jones suggested that the words “attended by” could be substituted for the words “mandatory for.” The Chair thought this was an elegant change as it phrased the clause as a matter of fact, rather than an issuance of command. Brickhouse, Sharp and others were pleased by this suggestion as well. The Forum agreed to add the proposed change to its set of revisions to be considered on second reading at its August meeting.
Reading further: “Nominees must agree to accept their nomination.” Sharp inquired if this clause meant that nominees must accept their nomination before or after the fact. Libby Evans recalled that a person nominated from the floor has the option to decline their nomination on the spot. There had been a precedent for this refusal in the 1994 officer elections.
Sharp continued: Any candidate nominated from the floor may speak for 2 minutes and may have someone else (a nominator or supporter) speak for 2 minutes in his or her behalf (a total of 4 minutes per candidate.) If anyone nominated from the floor at the January meeting chooses to speak, any previously nominated candidate for the same office may also speak for 2 minutes. This is in addition to the time at the December meeting so that Delegates are reminded equally of all candidates. The Forum Assistant shall keep time during presentations and will notify the Chair when a speaker has run out of time.
Sharp commented that this clause was intended to insure that all candidates have an equal opportunity to speak. There should not be a situation where one candidate or candidate’s supporter is allowed to speak before voters and the other is not allowed. Ruth Lewter asked what the Task Force’s rationale was for limiting candidates nominated from the floor to two minutes of time, whereas candidates running in December were allotted three minutes to address the Forum. Evans replied that this provision was meant to reward candidates declaring their candidacy early.
The Chair noted concerns from the Executive Committee that time allotted for officer election procedures could consume the major portion of the December and January meetings. Sharp recalled that the Task Force envisioned the majority of introductions to candidates would take place at the December meeting, with the January meeting devoted solely to the elections process.
Sharp continued: Candidates who are nominated in advance and those who are nominated from the floor shall all be encouraged to make the same amount of information available to voters. That is, nominees from the floor may make an information sheet available at the January meeting, but it should conform to the same format as the information sheets used for prior-named nominees. If candidates want to mail additional information about themselves to members of the Forum, they may do so. However, each candidate should make only one mailing.
With regard to the last sentence of this paragraph, Sharp noted that there is no way to prevent candidates from making more than one mailing to Delegates. However, it was hoped that the Forum’s tradition of civility would encourage candidates to adhere to this rule. In addition, the Task Force felt that the Forum’s monthly agenda packets were the best means to convey candidate information.
Moving on within D. Election of Officers: “Candidates and their supporters are encouraged to follow the spirit of these precepts in their verbal presentations and other campaigning. Sharp noted this clause referred to the precepts of ethical campaigning contained in the preceding paragraph.
Each candidate will be encouraged to make a photograph of himself or herself available. The Forum will arrange and pay to have B&W photographs made so they are all similar. Since many Employees know other Employees by face but not by name, photographs may help Delagates choose a candidate with whom they are familiar. Candidates shall not be required to have a photograph available. If photographs are available, photocopies shall be included on the candidate information sheet mailed to Forum Delagates. Nominees from the floor may include a photograph on information they distribute at the January meeting.
All sketches shall be forwarded to the Forum Office for inclusion in the agenda packet preceding either the December or the January meeting.”
The Chair noted that this photograph was likely to be a photocopy of a Polaroid, not a studio shot, given the limitations of the Forum budget. He suggested that the sentence beginning “Since many Employees…” be struck since the sentence seems not to add substance and implies that face recognition is a criteria for decision making. Sharp thought that the clause was meant to address concerns of Employees who were not familiar with the names or positions of different candidates. Evans added that the clause seemed more of a justification of the Guidelines than a necessary addition to the Guidelines. Sharp did not object to removing this clause. The Forum agreed to remove the clause from its set of revisions to be considered on second reading at its August meeting.
As a clarification Peter Schledorn suggested removing the phrase, “at the January meeting” from the sentence beginning, “If anyone nominated from the floor…” in the third paragraph of VII. D. 2. Nominations. The phrase would be added to the first paragraph of that sentence to read “Any candidate nominated from the floor at the January meeting may speak for 2 minutes….” This clause was intended to denote that previously nominated candidates could speak at the January meeting only if candidates nominated from the floor at that meeting choose to speak. Sharp felt this revision was very helpful. The Forum agreed to change the clauses mentioned within its set of revisions to be considered on second reading at its August meeting.
Sharp continued: 4a. Election– Elections shall be by written ballot at the January meeting. A candidate must win a majority vote to gain election; in cases when no candidate gains a majority, the two candidates with the most votes in the first round of balloting shall participate in a run-off election, with the candidate winning the majority of votes in the run-off gaining office. Each candidate shall be given the opportunity should they choose to make a few remarks not to exceed three minutes on their own behalf.”
It was noted that the Chair shall abstain from voting except in case of a tie, but that a tie vote implies necessarily that no candidate has a majority (a majority greater than 50% of ballots cast). Rosa Nolen asked whether a Chair would vote when running for reelection. Dail White thought it implicit in the Guidelines that the Vice-Chair conducts any election in which the Chair takes place, so that the Chair would thus have an opportunity to vote for him or herself. George Sharp asked whether this point should be made explicit within the Guidelines. Steve Jones noted this point had already been made in VII. D. 1. Election of Officers—When and By Whom: “In the event the Chair is nominated for re-election, the responsibility [for conducting the election of officers] shall pass to the Vice-Chair or Secretary.” Members felt this clause resolved the question.
Sharp continued: “b. Absentee Ballots—Absentee ballots will be accepted for Forum Officer elections if received by 4:00 p.m. the day before the Forum meeting when voting will be conducted. It is the responsibility of the voter to ensure delivery of an absentee ballot by 4:00 p.m. The Forum Assistant will be responsible for accepting absentee ballots and for noting who has received them. On the day of voting, each Delegate will be handed a ballot after they are seated. The Forum Assistant will ensure that anyone who received an absentee ballot and is at the meeting on the day of voting will have his or her absentee ballot returned unopened and will vote on the regular ballot. Absentee ballots by electronic mail, or on paper are acceptable. The Forum Assistant will try to call each absentee voter to verify that his or her ballot has been received, but is not required to do so.” Members pointed out a spelling error in this paragraph for correction.
Sharp noted that the Election Procedure Task Force had also allowed Delegates to cast an absentee ballot via telephone, but the Executive Committee had not included this option in its version. Libby Evans stated that this subject had elicited a good amount of discussion within the Executive Committee. The Committee harbored a concern about identification and verification of absentee ballots cast via telephone.
Sharp asked if the Forum Assistant could call absentee voters immediately back after receiving a ballot via telephone in an effort to confirm their identity. Evans pointed out that the Forum Assistant might not always be in the office when a telephone ballot is received (and would therefore be recorded as voice mail) and therefore might not always have time to verify the telephone ballot before the voting took place.
Stephanie Stadler thought that the burden of responsibility should lie with the absent Delegate to submit and verify their ballot, rather than the Forum Assistant. She did not think the purpose of this clause was to encourage Delegates to vote via absentee ballot. Eddie Capel reiterated the importance of Delegate attendance at the officer elections in January.
Lucille Brooks asked why voting via e-mail was allowed if telephone absentee ballots were disallowed. She thought this clause unduly disadvantaged those who do not have access to computers at home or at work. Libby Evans replied that these ballots submitted via e-mail offered a fair amount of verification as part of the message. Mail messages include information which indicates the login name the sender was using and from which computer the message was sent. Although it is technically possible to forge e-mail, it is not as simple as calling on the telephone and giving a wrong name to identify yourself.
Peter Schledorn thought that the assumption of the Task Force was that Delegates not capable of attending the meeting may have no practical way to submit their ballot to the Forum Office except via telephone. Sharp was also concerned that this difference unfairly favored those with access to computers. He thought it would be relatively easy for someone with the necessary knowledge to falsify a number of absentee ballots without immediate detection.
Stephanie Stadler thought that this precept was included as part of a compromise reflecting the interests of those who do not approve of allowing absentee ballots in any case.
The Chair asked hypothetically if the Forum would accept absentee ballots from a Delegate absent from the December meeting, or the December and January meetings. Libby Evans thought that the Forum would accept such ballots. Schledorn thought this problem could be averted by providing absent members with a copy of candidates’ statements from the December meeting, presumably to be included in the December minutes.
Sharp proposed that members indicate by a show of hands their positions for or against using telephone absentee ballots. A majority of members indicated they opposed the submission of absentee ballots via telephone. In another show of hands, a majority of members indicated they were in favor of allowing submission of absentee ballots via e-mail. Sharp said that he had reservations about this course, but agreed to follow the Forum’s judgment.
Sharp thought there was some ambiguity within the final sentence of this paragraph: The Forum Assistant will try to call each absentee voter to verify that his or her ballot has been received, but is not required to do so.” He thought the Task Force’s intention was to state that the Forum Assistant would not be required to make contact with each absentee voter, given probable logistical difficulties. Libby Evans again thought that these logistical difficulties might preclude the Forum Assistant from making verification calls. The morning of the Forum meeting, particularly the January officer election meeting, can become rather hectic.
Eddie Capel added that governmental elections place the onus of verification upon the absentee voter. He thought that it was incumbent upon the absentee member wishing to vote to insure that their ballot is received in the Forum Office by 4 p.m. the Tuesday before the election. He thought making this process any easier would create an unwelcome opportunity for absenteeism, as Forum members presumably all agree that it would be best for all Delegates to attend the December and January meetings. While there are circumstances when absentee ballots are necessary, Capel hoped that the Forum would not place too much emphasis on the subject.
Sharp added that the Task Force had considered proposals to allow absentee ballots to be included in possible run-off elections, either by a weighted selection of multiple candidates (in case an absentee voter’s primary candidate is eliminated before the run-off, the ballot would count for their second choice) or simply considering an absentee vote for a candidate to apply to any subsequent run-off election. Sharp anticipated the Forum would choose among these two options at the August meeting.
The Chair asked if the Forum could state its preferences at the present meeting to avoid undue confusion in August. Schledorn pointed out that the purpose of absentee ballots was to enfranchise those unable to be present for an election. He thought it made sense to extend this franchise to any following run-off elections. Tommy Brickhouse was uncertain whether absentee voters would indeed wish for their votes to be counted in a second ballot.
Libby Evans asked if absentee ballots will have the name of the Delegate voting on the ballot. Schledorn thought that the ballot would be enclosed in an envelope for either the Forum Assistant or a person designated by the Nominating Committee. Once open, the absent ballots would simply be identified as such and added to the pile for subsequent run-offs. Stephanie Stadler thought that absentee ballots should be identified in some way. Ruth Lewter thought that every absentee ballot should have some sort of identification of the Delegate voting.
The Chair thought that this identification could be realized by a procedural agreement, without formal inclusion in the Guidelines themselves. Sharp agreed with Schledorn that if a person goes to the trouble to vote for a candidate via absentee ballot, they feel strongly enough to support that candidate in any subsequent run-off. It seems natural to assume they will continue to vote for the same person. Schledorn noted that absentees will not miss additional presentations occurring between the first election and the run-off. Stadler pointed out that absentees would miss presentations from the run-off candidates, but Schledorn thought these situations were nearly identical.
Libby Evans moved for a show of hands on the two alternatives: that an absentee ballot be only counted once per race, or be counted for each run-off vote. Fourteen Delegates voted for the first alternative, counting an absentee ballot only once per race. Fourteen Delegates also voted for the second alternative. George Sharp noted that there were more absences than normal at the day’s meeting, but the Chair pointed out that the Forum had achieved a quorum. The Chair broke the tie in favor of having ballots count for each vote per race. Stadler noted that it takes a 2/3 majority to approve a Guidelines change. The Chair pointed out that his vote signified that the text of the revisions on second reading will be that absentee ballots will count for each vote and any subsequent run-offs. The Forum may have to vote on all changes paragraph by paragraph.
Sharp read a further addition to Section VII. D. 6. Information for Prospective Candidates—Outgoing officers should be asked to make annual reports on their office at the annual Orientation session for new Delegates (held in October or November). This is done to provide potential candidates thorough information about the duties of Forum Offices and have sufficient information about past and ongoing projects to continue to further the goals of the office and the Forum.
In addition, outgoing officers should make reports at the October or November Forum meeting. The reports should include information about projects (completed and ongoing) and workload (time involved) as well as a brief statement about the personal value or benefit from having taken this office.
Schledorn thought that the first sentence of the first paragraph should read: “Outgoing officers shall make annual reports on their office at the annual Orientation session for new Delagates (held in October or November). Evans thought that the first sentence of the second paragraph also should read: “In addition, outgoing officers shall make reports at the October or November Forum meeting.” The Forum agreed to change the clauses mentioned within its set of revisions to be considered on second reading at its August meeting.
Sharp continued with IX. Officers “D. Succession—In the event that the Chair cannot continue with the duties of office, the Vice-Chair shall succeed to serve in that office. The succeeding Chair then shall have the authority to designate a new Vice-Chair to serve in his or her place subject to ratification by the entire Forum. Should the Vice-Chair be unable to assume this new post, the Forum shall hold a special election for the position of Chair at the next monthly meeting following abdication, in accordance with the established procedures for electing Forum Officers. Until a successor is found, the Executive Committee shall work in coordination with the Forum Assistant to fulfill this position’s duties.
In the event that the Vice-Chair cannot continue with the duties of office, the Secretary shall succeed to serve in that office. The Chair then shall have the authority to designate a new Secretary to serve in his or her place, subject to ratification of the entire Forum. Should the Secretary be unable to assume this new post, the Forum shall hold a special election for the position of Vice-Chair at the next monthly meeting following abdication, in accordance with the established procedures for electing Forum Officers. Until a successor is found, the Executive Committee shall work in coordination with the Forum Assistant to fulfill this position’s duties.
In the event that the Secretary cannot continue with the duties of office, the Chair shall have the authority to designate a new Secretary, subject to ratification of the entire Forum.. Until an successor is found, the Executive Committee shall work in coordination with the Forum Assistant to fulfill this position’s duties.”
Schledorn thought that the word “abdication” in this passage should be replaced by the word “resignation.” Sharp pointed out two grammatical changes. The Forum agreed to change the clauses mentioned within its set of revisions to be considered on second reading at its August meeting.
Schledorn noted a need for an editorial change in Section V. B. c. Re-election. He proposed the first sentence of this section read: “Elected Delegates who complete twelve (12) months or more of their terms are not eligible for re-election until they have been off the Forum for a full term (two years). the second annual Delegate election after the completion of their term.” The Forum agreed to change the clause mentioned within its set of revisions to be considered on second reading at its August meeting.
The Chair thanked the Forum for its patience in considering these important changes. He also thanked the Forum Office Elections Procedures Task Force for its hard work, composed of George Sharp (convenor), Eddie Capel, Libby Evans, Peter Schledorn, and Stephanie Stadler. He thanked Ruth Lewter for her contribution of a number of ideas on this process.
Judith Scott, the University’s Sexual Harassment Officer, had requested to make a special presentation to the Forum at its August meeting on changes within the University policy. The Forum moved to approve this presentation by acclamation.
As time was rather short, the Chair would move as quickly as possible through his report to allow time for Forum Committee reports. He reminded members that the UNC Staff Assembly would meet August 1 on the campus of Appalachian State University. The Chair had established a listserv for the ten campuses that have attended organizational meetings. Representatives to the Assembly were drafting a Constitution, Bylaws, and a Charter for consideration by the new group. The Chair himself would draft frequently asked questions (FAQ) document providing advice to employees on campuses without staff organizations.
The Chair reported that the Forum Office had recently created a closed Delegates list. This listserver is accessible by current Delegates and First Alternates only; its address is firstname.lastname@example.org. Members desiring to address current Delegates only may use this address.
Concerning efforts to reach Division 2 Employees, the Chair reported that these efforts were continuing.
The Chair elected to defer discussion of the staff representative to the University Campaign until the University Committee Assignments Committee’s report.
The Chair noted that the Forum Office would work with the Orientation Committee to capture “unknown facts” about current and incoming members, as per George Sharp’s suggestion at a past Forum meeting.
The Forum Office had updated member rosters for the July packet. Updated Forum Committee rosters will be included in the August packet.
Associate Vice Chancellor of Finance Roger Patterson has graciously provided the Forum Office with a loaner copy of the University financial statements analysis. Employees desiring to see this document should contact the Forum Office (962-3779 or email@example.com).
Libby Evans, Chair of the Nominating Committee, asked members of that group to see her at the meeting’s conclusion to receive copies of a Committee calendar through the end of the year. Solicitation letters for nominations to the Forum will go out toward the end of July.
The Chair noted that Jeffery Beam and Joyce Dalgleish, Co-Chairs of the Orientation Committee, were not available to present a report. Stephanie Stadler reported the group had not met this month but would meet again July 17.
Peter Schledorn, Chair of the Personnel Policies Committee, had nothing to report. The group will meet again on July 18 to discuss several issues, including comments forwarded to that group regarding the University reclassification process.
Tommy Brickhouse, Chair of the Compensation and Benefits Committee said the group had not met recently, as members have been on vacation and he had been absent from work due to an injury. He had met with Senior Director of Human Resources Administration Drake Maynard a couple of weeks ago concerning revisions to the proposed In-Range Salary Adjustment document. Maynard has incorporated a number of the comparisons requested at the June Forum meeting into this document. He has also provided other wording describing how the policy has been implemented on campus, particularly the number of departments involved in these plans.
Brickhouse has a copy of this document, and asked the Forum how best to distribute it for consideration. Should he mail copies to all Forum members, or request the Executive Committee to examine it further. He recalled that the Forum intended to distribute this document to all Employees on campus, and so it should receive careful review. Schledorn said he would be interested in a copy. The Chair proposed the Executive Committee look over the document at its July 15 meeting, then include it in the August agenda packet. Brickhouse, a member of the Executive Committee, would bring a copy to the July 15 meeting after the Compensation and Benefits Committee met July 10.
Ruth Lewter, Co-Chair of the Public Affairs Committee, reported the group met July 20 at Meadowmont. She noted a feeling among that group that the Forum was not getting the word out about its activities to other Employees as well as it might. The Committee was exploring several ideas to alleviate this problem, and had planned a fact-finding mission. The Committee had received a brief update on legislative issues and would meet again towards the end of the month.
Laura Grady, the Co-Chair of the Recognition and Awards Committee, reported the group had not met in June but would meet again July 16.
Tommy Nixon, Co-Chair of the University Committee Assignments Committee, reported the group had met and acted on several issues this month. First, the Executive Committee had requested the Committee to provide a final recommendation concerning how to choose the Employee representative designated as co-chair of the University Campaign. The University Committee Assignments Committee decided to recommend that the previous year’s Forum Chair serve in that capacity. He noted that the past two Chairs of Faculty have served as faculty representatives on that campaign, and thought it appropriate that the Forum recommend the Forum Chair as the Employee representative.
Nixon had distributed minutes from the group’s meeting on the 25th. The main task of this meeting was to select Employee representatives to serve on the Long-Range Parking and Transportation Task Force. The Forum received 30 volunteers to serve on the Task Force, composing a very diverse group of Employees. The University Committee Assignments Committee chose five representatives and two alternates to serve on the Task Force: Gwen Burston (5 yrs. service, SPA, Human Resources, gets to work by car), Elizabeth Evans (14.5 yrs., EPA, Population Center, gets to work by bike), Dianne Hill (7 yrs.., SPA, Biostatistics, drives), Herman Huang (1.5 yrs., EPA, Hwy. Safety, walks to work) and Eric Plow (24 yrs., SPA, Dentistry, drives). Alternates named were Priscilla Fulcher (3 yrs., SPA, Law Library, drives) and Linwood Futrelle (21 yrs., EPA, ATN, drives). Nixon felt the group had come up with good mix of representatives.
The University Committee Assignments Committee considered a number of important University Committee vacancies, as Joe Bray recently left Athletic Council after a three year appointment. Susan Warren of University Athletics has furnished the Committee a copy of the Athletic Council’s mission statement for use in filling this position. Also, the Forum needs to recommend at least two Delegate nominees to serve on the University Buildings & Grounds Committee. Nixon said the group was in the process of finding nominees for both vacancies. The Chair thanked Nixon and the University Committee Assignments Committee for their hard work this month.
George Sharp, reporting for the Career Development Committee, recalled that Janet Tysinger had attended the group’s last meeting to speak on Employee computer access. Sharp felt the last meeting had been a very good one, with good discussion of a number of different issues. Tysinger demonstrated some of the learning tools and programs that people at University can use to improve their computer literacy. The Committee broadened these discussions into a general statement urging University Administration to include all staff in the effort to facilitate computer literacy, and make certain staff at lower pay grades not left out of rush. Eddie Capel thought the group was doing a lot of good work.
Sharp also gave his report as Forum Liaison to the New Careers Training Board. He said that these discussions had not gone as smoothly. In May the Board voted on a number of projects, from a base budget of $100,000 year. The Board had vigorous discussions on what projects it made the most sense to invest in per person to improve career advancement. The Board had considered fairly obvious programs as well as more controversial ones. For example, in June, the Board discussed internship programs, which are very expensive, costing between $15-18,000 a year per intern. Since the Board only has $100,000 to spend to benefit all Employees in salary grades 50-54, some Board members have question the wisdom of such large investments in projects benefiting relatively few people. These issues have been difficult to resolve. The Board’s next meeting will take place July 8, at 725 Airport Road.
Janet Tysinger, Chair of the Employee Presentations Committee, reported the Spring Community Meeting had been attended by around 300 people. Attendees heard presentations from Angela Carmon, Laurie Charest, Elson Floyd, Ann Hamner, and Donald Gold. Tysinger thought each of these presentations was excellent, and she was particularly pleased that speakers were willing to answer questions on the spot at the end of the Meeting. The Committee had also heard a great deal of positive feedback about the format.
The Employee Presentations Committee will soon begin examining options for the Fall Community Meeting. Tysinger encouraged members to submit ideas for the content of the Meeting to her group. Tysinger recalled that the Fall Meeting has traditionally been reserved for an open mike session. She felt that some combination of presentation and open microphone would work better than only having an open microphone session. Tysinger was interested in members’ ideas for the format and content for the Fall Meeting.
Also reporting for the Employee Appreciation Fair Booth Task Force, Tysinger noted that summary information from Forum’s drawing questionnaire was included in the July agenda packet, in table and visual form.
The Chair reported that the University Gazette Insert Task Force had met with Gazette Editor Mike Hobbs to determine deadline schedules, layout expectations and costs. The Task Force will assign stories for members to write in July. Ruth Lewter asked whether the insert would be a one time occurrence or an ongoing endeavor. The Chair thought that this question was not yet settled. He had heard from some members of the Public Affairs Committee that that group was considering similar, overlapping projects. The Committee might wish to pursue further inserts or create a periodic newsletter. The Chair thought that the marginal cost of the Gazette insert was very reasonable in comparison to creating a formal newsletter. He was open to members’ wishes to take this project forward, if willing.
Libby Evans, convenor of the School Volunteerism Task Force, reported the group had a very good discussion over lunch. Rosa Nolen, Eddie Capel and Nancy Guagagno were in attendance, and Mike Hobbs will also work with the group. Evans was happy to send notes from that meeting to anyone who wants them, or would be willing to send these to the Forum list. She was glad that the group was moving ahead.
Forum liaisons to Faculty Council Committees had nothing to report.
Janet Tysinger of the Transportation and Parking Advisory Committee had nothing to report. Peter Schledorn noted concern of his personal experience about which the Committee should be informed. He had come across campus groups inappropriately assuming parking enforcement duties.
Schledorn recalled that he had been told if he parked in a space in his lot that he risked being ticketed or towed, as he was trying to park when Carolina TOPS move-in/move-out was scheduled. Schledorn moved his car, then called Parking Enforcement to complain about the lack of notice. Parking Enforcement answered that the restriction was completely illegitimate, and that the people doing this were not associated with Public Safety. Instead, Schledorn said, these people worked for a University department. Schledorn said the dispatcher he spoke with was very helpful but he thought that the Transportation and Parking Advisory Committee should know about this problem. Schledorn thought that this problem, if uncorrected, would wreck the credibility of Parking Enforcement, and may place those unaware in danger of ignoring an official parking officer. The dispatcher had given tips on recognizing a “real” parking control officer (wearing a real uniform and/or carrying a radio). Janet Tysinger said she would speak with Director of Public Safety Don Gold, since the Committee would not meet until the fall. Connie McPherson added that some Delagates employed with Public Safety may be able to respond directly to this problem.
Bennie Griffin of the University Outsourcing Team reported the group’s July 7 meeting had been cancelled.
Libby Evans offered dessert to those who could stay for the bag lunch following the meeting.
Ruth Lewter reported that the Departmental Accounting System Team had completed its work. The Team had reached a decision that, while still confidential, has been presented to the Executive Business and Finance Group which includes Elson Floyd and Laurie Charest. The Team will continue to work on negotiations and improvements, and should make an announcement soon.
Stephanie Stadler wondered if the Forum should invite someone to make a special presentation on the new person identification system. She recalled that the new system will involve doing away of all the UNC One Cards on campus. She thought that it would be helpful for the Forum to know the rationale for the changeover and activities in this area so that Delegates will be able to provide accurate information to their fellow Employees. The changeover will effect application tracking, databases, and may have other unforeseen impacts. Stadler proposed that Floyd or one of his representatives speak on this topic, as Floyd has appointed the Team working on this project. The Chair would work to find someone to address this concern.
In the absence of further discussion, the Chair called for a motion to adjourn. Jackie Overton so moved, seconded by Bettye Jones. There was no discussion, and the meeting adjourned at 11:29 a.m.
Matt Banks, Recording Secretary