June 14, 2023 Employee Forum Minutes
Attending: L.E. Alexander, David Barnette, David Bragg, Shane Brogan, Bonita Brown, Renata Buchanan, Shavon Carey-Hicks, Denise Carter, Tiffany Carver, Elizabeth Dubose, Shayla Evans-Hollingsworth, Stephanie Forman, Adrianne Gibilisco, Leah Hefner, Jessi Hill, Shayna Hill, Keith Hines, James Holman, Linda Holst, Rebecca Howell, Brigitte Ironside, Kira Jones, Sara Kelley, Anthony Lindsey, Amber Meads, Arlene Medder, Mandy Melton, David Michaud, Vanessa Mitchell, Stephanie Morales, Katie Musgrove, Katherine Neer, Monica Okarmus, Joseph Ormond, Lisa Petersen, Laura Pratt, Charlissa Rice, Kelly Scurlock-Cross, Lori Shamblin, Audrey Shore, Theresa Silsby, Heather Skinner, Sarah Smith, James Stamey, Janet Steele, Tyler Steelman, Matthew Teal, Ally Wardell, June Weston, Michael Williams, Tracy Wetherby Williams, Tyrone Williams, Jacob Womack
Excused Absences: Vanessa Blake, Randall Borror, Matthew Chamberlin, Gabriela de la Cruz, Jacob Hurst, Annetta Streater, Julie Theriault
Chair Katie Musgrove called the meeting to order at 9:15 a.m. She began the meeting by opening the floor for nominations for Forum Officer positions, noting that the annual officer elections will take place later that morning. She asked delegates who wish to nominate themselves or others for the election who have not declared their candidacy previously to declare their nominations now. There were no additional nominations, meaning that the elections will take place with the candidates already listed on the agenda.
The Chair noted that Laura Pratt and Matthew Teal will facilitate the election process through electronic means. She moved to the roundtable portion of the agenda and welcomed Provost Chris Clemens to speak. Clemens noted that questions continued regarding the university’s electronic records policy, particularly how key stroke data and other data might be used to surveil and rate employees’ performance. There were also questions about matters that employees may generate or have copyright to, being stored on university servers and thus accessible via public records requests.
George Battle at Institutional Integrity and Risk Management, Charles Marshall at the Office of University Counsel, Mike Barker in ITS, and the faculty institutional technology committee did a lot of work on these questions recently. As a result, Clemens shared the new electronic records policy in the chat feature. Clemens said that the policy had not changed much but had become more clearly stated and transparent about when the university would access electronic records. He said that some of the aforementioned and frequently asked questions are addressed here. This document notes that the university does not use data on UNC servers for surveillance purposes, although the university will look at data retrospectively in response to legitimate requests. The document addresses intellectual property protected by copyright; in that it does not infringe the copyright to have this property on a university server. The degree of accessibility to some people does not change the fact of intellectual property ownership.
Clemens noted that the first document is active, replacing the old policy, while the second document is still a work in progress. Listeners with ideas to improve the second document or with questions are welcome to forward these to Clemens or to Mike Barker. Clemens hoped that this step will put at ease people who wonder about programs capturing keystrokes and their use at the university.
Clemens noted that the university would soon be in the local and national news. The local news relates to the continuing wait for a budget from the state legislature. He said that he and Chancellor Guskiewicz are engaged in advocacy on behalf of UNC and state employees, asking that they be recognized generously in the final budget, which he hoped would be available by early July.
Nationally, Clemens said that the result of the “Students for Fair Admission v UNC” case is expected to be released by the US Supreme Court by the last week of June. Clemens walked the group through the scenarios that could occur and what to expect from campus when that decision is announced. Clemens said that the university has worked on this question for nearly ten years, with university lawyers building the case in defense of our admissions practices.
Clemens did not think that it would be immediately obvious what the Supreme Court’s decision in the case would be. He said that the Office of University Counsel will need to analyze the decision. On the day of the announcement, the Chancellor will issue a communication of general note. Afterwards, the legal team will work on a more substantive response based on its legal analysis in the next few days or a week to follow. He said that the official release will be thoughtful and responsive to the entire decision once it comes out.
From an institutional perspective, a very small group of people will be authorized to speak on behalf of the institution on this case, officially. These people are the Chancellor, the Provost, the Vice Provost for Enrollment and General Counsel. They alone will have authorization to make any kind of official announcements or statements.
Clemens emphasized that no matter the decision, the university will not change its core commitments to diversity and inclusion. These ideals will remain a top priority and will feature in messaging to let everyone know that our commitment there remains strong. And while the university will manage its institutional response, faculty, staff, and students will undoubtedly have input. The university will continue discussing the decision, listening to experts, processing, analyzing, and exploring the implications of the case. Clemens said that the university will encourage panel discussions, with experts speaking from their points of view and their scholarship, if not for the institution itself. He looked to the academy of faculty experts to help the broader community digest the decision and understand its impact. Still, official communications will come from the small group of people listed previously.
Clemens added that the university believes it has followed the law governing this question. He said that if the law changes, the university’s new policy will be to follow that law moving forward.
Clemens noted the announcement of the new dean for the Kenan-Flagler Business School, Mary Margaret Frank, occurred yesterday. He said that the university will today announce a new chief innovation officer. With this announcement, the university draws close to having every senior position filled. The Vice Chancellor for Research position search will hopefully finish in the next week. Clemens was proud of this record in hiring, although he was exhausted by the ongoing effort. He welcomed questions, reflections, and complaints from the floor.
The Chair thanked Provost Clemens for his updates, especially regarding the data security update. She anticipated that delegates would be reading this document and would have thoughts later on. The Chair then asked if the Supreme Court case decision does not go the university’s way, has the university put contingency plans in place to build out some of the admissions staffing that would be required to completely upend its current process? She said that our admissions staff employees are amazing, but are already overworked and overburdened.
Clemens said that the university’s response for Undergraduate Admissions will be fairly easy and transparent to address whatever emerges as the final decision. He said that anticipated changes frankly are not that large, as these admissions occur in one central place. The university’s holistic admissions process will allow incorporation of these changes, should they be mandated.
Graduate and Professional programs at the university most often conduct their admissions at the departmental level through a set of processes that are sometimes not all that well documented, and sometimes are a product of custom as much as policy. The university will establish a central one-stop team designated to help graduate and professional programs. University Counsel, the Graduate School Dean and the leadership team will guide the school- and department-based admissions processes in the revision of what they do to comply with the law, which may be complex.
Clemens outlined three possibilities facing campus. First, the university may win outright and everything will remain the same. Second, there could be an in-between stage in which the university must juggle how it uses factors common to admissions. Third, some of these factors could be removed altogether. Clemens cautioned against speculating further on this case until a decision is reached. He said that the university’s response will be to have a team of excellent people work to ensure compliance with whatever changes may occur.
Clemens took a moment to thank everyone present for their work through challenges on campus. He believed that the university is working together in ways that he hoped are effective, transparent, and inclusive. He thought that everyone present in the meeting had been a part of this effort and he thanked everyone for their work. He appreciated this contribution.
Matthew Teal recalled receiving a formal notice last week announcing the creation of a generative A.I. committee that will produce guidance surrounding generative artificial intelligence technologies like ChatGPT. Teal said that the formal notice said that generative A.I. comes with promise and peril, requiring universities to learn about these new capabilities, adapt, and anticipate how work may change over time. Teal thought that this committee was a great idea. However, when studying the committee membership and charter on the Office of the Provost website he noted that committee members are almost entirely faculty members. Furthermore, the committee’s work seems limited to helping faculty and students with the ethical use of A.I. in research and teaching.
Teal added that the formal notice said that the group represents an initial step in soliciting campus input, sponsoring community reflection, and creating tangible and user-friendly resources for students, instructors, and administrators. He asked if the Provost plans to expand the scope of this committee or to set up a parallel committee to look at administrative or back-office campus functions like Human Resources, Finance, Development, and other areas. Teal argued that A.I. will require us all, not solely faculty, to learn about these abilities and anticipate how our work may change over time.
Clemens thought that this was an excellent question and noted that the university is at the very beginning of knowing how to react to generative A.I. The initial committee came about at the request of deans who were hearing from their faculty that they are a bit adrift as other campuses are making policies. He said that UNC-Chapel Hill decided fairly quickly not to address policymaking in an area this fluid.
Clemens asked these deans to submit names for a committee, which started with a fairly narrow charge, seeking input for faculty in the process of writing syllabi. The committee will not stipulate the ground rules for A.I. use, but rather will consider making models that faculty can adapt for their own use. Clemens observed that the central driver of this committee’s genesis is to get this work done quickly so that when faculty return to start class, they can articulate a classroom policy. There were a host of other questions added to the potential charge longer term which may be carried on into this summer’s work.
Clemens recalled that the Center for Faculty Excellence has done a bit of work previously in this area which was a source of knowledge and personnel for this current effort. Clemens wanted to respond to Teal’s comment that there is cause to create an extension of this work, perhaps in creation of another committee, to study workplace use of A.I. more generally, and to help guide employees who wish to use A.I. to speed up their understanding of the technology’s boundaries. He hoped to speak with Vice Chancellor of Human Resources, Equal Opportunity, and Compliance Becci Menghini about a broader approach to these questions. He pledged to pursue this conversation with Menghini and her team.
Clemens added that his office, the Office of the Provost, is using generative A.I. in the creation of first drafts and structures to speed up some of the things that office must do. Thus, his own folks will eventually wish for guidance at some point on when and how text generated by a machine can be promulgated. Clemens said that the university must know the legality and ethics of this use.
Teal said that IBM has recently announced a freeze on hiring Human Resources officers, looking at what can be done by A.I. Similarly, the State of Connecticut has passed a law signed by the governor looking at a holistic review of how A.I. is being used in their state government generally. Teal observed that the wheels are turning on this question and he would like to see UNC-Chapel Hill keep up with the changing pace of innovation. Clemens agreed and said that the university will work on these questions to figure them out.
The Chair piggybacked on Teal’s comment, noting that all staff did not receive the formal notice on this subject that Teal received. She thought that this situation presents another example of the communication issues which deny staff these formal notices. She thought that this notice would be helpful information for staff, if not all staff, and that excluding staff from these types of communications is not helpful or beneficial.
Clemens replied that he must make a decision when putting out communications. He has typically issued very few campus broadcast communications, as people tend not to read multiple messages. For this item, he judged that it should go out to the deans, directors, and department head (DDD) listserv to inform leaders of this step. The intent is to provide a full campus message on the committee’s output at the end of the summer. He apologized if this choice was a slight to anyone as it was simply a judgment call. The Chair thought that interest in this subject from Forum delegates indicated that employees would want to know more rather than less in this area. She thought that faculty are definitely affected and staff would want to know that this work is starting to take place.
The Chair thanked Provost Clemens for taking the time to speak with the group. She then moved on to what she called her favorite event in the Forum year, the Forum’s Peer Recognition Awards event. She welcomed all awardees and guests here to celebrate this event, and turned to Tiffany Carver and Jessi Hill, co-chairs of the Forum’s Recognition & Awards committee, to preside.
Carver wished attendees well. She thanked all who participated in the Peer Recognition Awards process. She also noted that employees carry heavy loads with many responsibilities, so making time to acknowledge and celebrate peer workers speaks volumes about team-building here. She said that delegates took time to review the 181 nominations submitted without a word limit this year. She thanked these readers for their thorough contributions to this effort.
Jessi Hill began the presentation of the awards and read the award criteria for the Hall of Fame (Staff Member of the Year) Award. Recipients of this award consistently exemplify the university’s mission of integrity, collaboration, respect & high-level customer service, and have been with the university at least 5 years.
The first award winner was Summer Montgomery, an Undergraduate Student Services Coordinator in the Department of Biology, handling course-related issues including registration for over 2,000 students and 70 faculty. Ms. Montgomery was nominated by Lilliam Zwemer, Wendy Webber, Bob Duronio, Ann Matthysse, Amy Maddox, Alaina Garland, Morganne Reid, Bea Phillips and another anonymous peer. Nominations cited Montgomery’s “proactive approach and leadership…[as] she is always looking for ways to make things better, even if this means more work for herself.” Another nominator cited her “solving problems in creative and expedient ways, [with] a commitment to our students and our educational mission [which] is incredible and unwavering.”
The second recipient of this year’s Hall of Fame Award was Kim Spurr, the Director of Communications in the College of Arts & Sciences Dean’s Office. For twenty-five years, Spurr has told the stories of Carolina’s people and programs, first at the Kenan-Flagler Business School and since 2005 for the College of Arts & Sciences. She oversees content for UNC’’s largest academic unit, managing the website of the College and serving as editor of Carolina’s Arts & Sciences, the College’s online and print alumni magazine, which just saw its 36th issue of publication under her. Nominators cited her “dedication [that] shines in all that she does…a wonderful colleague always ready to help with questions or projects.”
Hill then read the criteria for the Perfect Addition (Staff Member of the Year) Award. Winners are said to exemplify the university’s mission of integrity, collaboration, respect & high-level customer service, and have been with the university for less than two years.
The first winner of the Perfect Addition Award was Becca Gillison, the Assistant Director for Student Staff Recruitment and Selection for Carolina Housing. Her responsibilities include recruitment, selection, onboarding, and management of all student employees in Carolina Housing, upwards of 300 people. Gillison was nominated by Sarah Leger, who wrote, “what sets Becca apart is her commitment to diversity, equity, and inclusion…she consistently innovates processes to be mindful of best practices in these areas, and her efforts have resulted in a more inclusive and welcoming environment for students and staff.”
The second winner of the Perfect Addition Award was Julianne Hall, a Pedagogy Coordinator in the Department of Chemistry where she provides leadership and direction to faculty teams in large format, multi-section courses to ensure they run smoothly. She manages graduate teaching assistants and undergraduate learning assistants for each course. Hall was nominated by Danielle Zurcher, Anna Curtis, and an anonymous peer. Nominators said that she has been “the perfect addition…integrated into our team seamlessly and within a year of starting, I can’t imagine doing what we do without her. Her expertise in chemistry, in pedagogy and in knowing what our students need are invaluable to our teaching.”
Hill then read the criteria for the Professional Excellence Award. Winners are said to perform with exceptional execution above & beyond assigned duties; to display supportive interactions within their department and between campus departments; and to promote exemplary interaction with the outside community. This year, the committee presents five of these awards.
Tiffany Carver noted with sadness that the first recipient of this award, Vaughn Booker, received this award posthumously, as he had recently passed away. Carver said that the Forum is grateful to his family, friends, and colleagues who are in attendance today. She extended her deepest sympathy and condolences to all.
The Forum is honored to acknowledge how deserving he is of this award, noting Booker’s qualities as a wonderful colleague. Booker worked as a Tier III Classroom Consultant at Information Technology Services and was an expert in classroom technology, supporting faculty, students, and staff.
Nominators noted that Booker worked as a “full-time employee and worked for ITS as a student while he earned his undergraduate degree…he developed the first use of the in-house computer (and how to effectively manage it and give the instructors every option they needed to successfully teach) and in later years learned how to design the classroom spaces…incorporating all the technology needs as well as active learning initiatives that have become popular…he became the campus go-to support person for all things Zoom…an invaluable source of guidance and support for students with disabilities who have assistive technology needs in class…his support…in navigating the often complex and daunting challenges posed by assistive technologies has been instrumental in enabling UNC to meet its legal and moral obligations and its ambitions in providing for students with disabilities needing the use of assistive technology….” Carver wished congratulations once again to Booker and thanked all for being present to recognize him for this award.
The next recipient of the Professional Excellence award was Judy Owen, a Social Research Assistant at the Frank Porter Graham Child Development Institute where she performs many duties including participant recruitment, recordkeeping, data collection and management, reporting, and passing on knowledge gained over her 17 years at the Institute. Jada Walker noted in her nomination that “Judy has fostered the camaraderie of research teams, and a culture of learning, sharing, teaching, and researching to contribute to the betterment of early childhood education in the USA. She has been especially dedicated to equity, diversity, and inclusion efforts throughout the Institute and University.”
The third recipient of this award was Chris Pendergrass, the Artistic Planning Manager for Carolina Performing Arts. Pendergrass works throughout the year in various stages of research, planning, and booking process for the Carolina Performing Arts series performances and is also the point of contact for artists and their representatives. Amy Russell and Morgan Parpan shared these remarks about Pendergrass: “went far and above his usual duties in order to take on the role of producer for our presentation of the opera ‘Omar.’…[He] grew as an arts administrator and leader by leaps and bounds through this experience, and was an engine for our communal morale and our institutional partnerships…we could not have succeeded without his incredible dedication and spirit…maintained calm and composure throughout very trying circumstances, often bearing the brunt of frustrations expressed by external partners who were unaware of the internal constraints we were facing …and represented the organization and University well through it all.”
Michelle Song was the next recipient of the Professional Excellence Award and is the Associate Director of Data Science and Analytics at the Center for Health Equity Research in the Department of Social Medicine. Song works to lead and expand data services from basic processing and management to advanced analytics and statistical expertise to support a growing portfolio of projects within and beyond UNC. Marlena Kuhn wrote of Song that she “exceeds professional expectations and truly embodies the award…she has gained a formidable reputation at Abacus Evaluation…as the lead of the data analytics team…seeks meaningful change, values learning, manages conflict brilliantly, values mentorship and cares deeply for people.”
The final recipient of the Professional Excellence award was Sloan Thompson, a Violence Prevention Coordinator with Violence Prevention and Advocacy Services within Student Affairs. This area provides free, confidential advocacy services for those who experience sexual- or gender-based violence, working to prevent violence in the community. Thompson facilitates trainings and workshops, develops outreach campaigns to educate students on violence prevention, and collaborates with the community to create safer spaces in and around UNC’s campus. She helps oversee a robust team of student staff and volunteers. Mary Collins, Dean Blackburn, and David Obergfell stated in their nominations that Thompson “exemplifies the many characteristics noted in the professional excellence category. Her constant “can do” attitude, willingness to always be a team player, creativity, relationship, and bridge building style all contribute to making Carolina better than she found it…always seeking to find ways [to] cross communication hurdles and join in a common cause to promote well-being and prevent violence.”
Jessi Hill read the criteria for the Overton Leadership Award, which reflects the leadership and honors the memory of longstanding Forum Chair Jackie Overton. Award-winners lead their unit and the university through involvement in staff issues, committee work, teamwork, and professional development of peers; demonstrate outstanding leadership qualities, inspire, and involve others, and work to create a long-lasting impact. Nominees need not be supervisors to win this award.
The first recipient of the Overton Leadership award was Jamila Lunsford, a Cage Processing Specialist in the Division of Comparative Medicine. Cage Processing Specialists are responsible for ensuring safety for all personnel and the health and safety of the animals under the Division. This position oversees provision of special diets, bedding and equipment, recordkeeping and documentation associated with federal regulatory requirements, the decontamination and disposal of biohazardous waste, staff training and facility repair reporting. Lunsford was nominated by Taylor King, Morgan Farmer, Davetta Pulley, Vanessa Blake, Juliette French, Diamont Arnette, and Angela Westbrook. They wrote that Lunsford “rose to the occasion to be a team leader who has great effective communication skills when getting the job done…with a smile and positive attitude to motivate all employees who work in the lower basement of the Genetic Medicine building…is determined to keep the facility running efficiently and understands the bigger picture of its operations….”
The second recipient of the Overton Leadership award was Cathy “Coop” Roberts-Cooper, the Associate Director for Carolina Housing Residential Learning. In this position, she is responsible for establishing a strategic vision for all academic, education, and leadership development initiatives within the residential communities of Carolina Housing. She develops learning outcomes and evaluation processes for all full-time and student staff training, oversees areas related to residential learning, and helps lead a team of 22 professional staff and 250+ student staff. Nominator Ashley Gray wrote these things in Roberts’ nomination: “humble, steady, and quiet leadership style…prioritized the health of staff while creating and explaining protocols that helped…serve residential students…makes space for others to lead…invests immensely in the professional development of staff…a wonderful colleague and a phenomenal leader.”
Carver then outlined the criteria for the Pinnacle Award. Recipients of the Pinnacle Award exhibit demonstrated leadership, vision, and commitment to excellence on a path of continuous learning through professional development. Nominees should also have proposed a new idea and moved the idea towards implementation and worked to create a supportive and inclusive environment.
The first recipient of the Pinnacle Award was Jane McDaniel, the Assistant Director for Curricular Affairs at the Offices of Medical Student Education. McDaniel provides consultation on operational and logistical aspects of the curriculum redesign, interfacing with administration, faculty, and the School of Medicine IT team, and proudly leads and supports a group of amazing, innovative course coordinators. McDaniel’s nominator wrote, “Jane is deeply committed to excellence…gives great thought to onboarding and supporting her team…led through a period of great transition in the curricular affairs staff and does so with skill and thoughtfulness…deeply committed to her own personal growth…has developed a number of innovations that are now in use across the curricular affairs teams…a consummate professional…always thoughtful and detailed in her approach to problems and opportunities…treats students and faculty alike with great respect and compassion.”
The second recipient of the Pinnacle Award was Adam Shirey, the Assistant Director of Finance for the Department of Health Sciences, where he leads the Business Office, and works closely with the Associate Chair for Administration and division directors to analyze spending patterns and various financial needs. Valerie Tan nominated Shirey, praising his “vision, leadership and commitment to excellence in this role…He has helped organize over 80 scholarships…across 14 academic programs…always looking to expand his role and learn new things…he recently completed a master’s degree in business…does it all…exemplifies team play.”
Hill then spoke about the Employee Forum’s Community Award (3-Legged Stool). The winner of this award, historically the Forum’s highest honor, is awarded to recognize distinguished contributions by an individual who inspires creativity; promotes harmony and partnerships within the university community; inspires teamwork, cooperation, and participation; demonstrates new approaches to current processes; encourages, mentors, and builds bridges; forms alliances to work collectively; or any other significant community building activities.
This year’s recipient of the Community Award was Patrick Preudhomme, the Assistant Director of Student Learning Initiatives in Carolina Housing. Preudhomme oversees residential learning programs in the residence halls, is in charge of the resident scholar program, supervises four full-time community directors, and oversees the partnership between Carolina Housing and BeAM, which resulted in the establishment of a makerspace within the residence halls. Sarah Ledger and an anonymous colleague nominated Preudhomme for this award, writing, “Patrick is a shining star of Carolina Housing…a constant source of positive, collaborative, and passionate energy…great at bringing students, staff, and faculty together and making them feel valued…” as a personification of Carolina Housing’s mission of student engagement, enjoyment, learning, and belonging. “Dedicated…also to the larger student affairs community…involved in regional and national organizations designed to promote excellence…commitment to promoting cooperation and collaboration…is truly exceptional…leadership, dedication, and passion for student success make him a deserving candidate for the award.”
Carver noted that each award winner receives recognition on the UNC Employee Forum website, will be featured in the monthly newsletter, and will receive a $100 stipend in their June paycheck. Recipients will also receive a certificate from the Forum sent via campus mail. In addition, the 3-Legged Stool winner will receive a miniature wooden stool commemorating the award when it becomes available.
Carver thanked delegates who reviewed nominations: Randall Borror, Sharron Bouquin, Rebecca Buchanan, Shayla Evans-Hollingsworth, Keith Hines, Arlene Medder, Katie Musgrove, and Matt Banks (non-voting member). She said that the peer recognition event represents a labor of love and she thanked again all who participated in the process and attended today’s ceremony.
The Chair noted her great pleasure and honor to read through the nominations for these awards. She praised the amazing work of UNC staff and congratulated all for their accomplishments. She also took a moment to acknowledge the contributions of delegates rolling off the Forum this year.
The Chair then recognized the Kay Wijnberg Hovious Outstanding Delegate Award winners. This award recognizes the work of outstanding Forum delegates who go above and beyond the call of duty performing work on behalf of the Forum. Hovious was the first Forum Chair who, along with Chancellor Paul Hardin, established the Forum as an official organization for staff employees at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in March 1992. This year’s winners were Elizabeth Dubose, Adrianne Gibilisco, and Leah Hefner. The Chair thanked all three for their amazing service on the Employee Forum.
The Chair welcomed Vice Chancellor Becci Menghini to present the Forum’s customary Human Resources update. Menghini said it was her delight and joy to follow the peer recognition session, and she congratulated all of the day’s winners. She hoped that employees are able to schedule some time off, or at least some time in the sun during daily lunches.
Menghini said that the budget conferencing groups are now meeting in the State legislature. State Relations personnel have told her that both the House and Senate side feel “pretty good” about state employee adjustments. Much speculation remains as to the eventual amount of raises for employees, and Menghini was happy that the university is not a sticking point in these discussions. She hoped that the legislature would vote on a budget soon.
Menghini also noted that the Board of Governors at last month’s meeting moved to grant the UNC System Office authority to draft the ARP guidelines once the budget is passed, in order to move quickly in this area. Language will be generated for guidance in this area, with all changes presumably retroactive to July 1st regardless of when the budget is approved.
Menghini was optimistic that the university could obtain reinstatement of some of the direct allocations recently taken from UNC-Chapel Hill, following work in Raleigh by Chancellor Guskiewicz and Provost Clemens, among others.
In response to questions about the progress of salary range updates, Menghini recalled that the System Office has received authority to work with an outside consultant, Buck, to upgrade these ranges. Buck produced tentative updates in this area in May which enabled the university to identify where ranges are compared to existing state ranges. The agreement was to compare the current ranges for the UNC System against those for the same jobs in the Office of State Human Resources (OSHR).
Menghini recalled that OSHR has seen adjustments in their salary ranges while the UNC System has not. She said that in some cases, a transition into those new ranges at the state level would make sense, while in other cases the university is already well over the state ranges. In other positions the university still falls under the state ranges. In the comparison, the university did outline 76 specific ranges about which there were concerns. These ranges are now out to market for further study.
Buck will now do market work on these ranges, almost three weeks ahead of schedule. Further work will begin on EHRA ranges continuing where the university left off prior to work on SHRA ranges. Once the EHRA ranges are complete the process will address Tier 2 and then Tier 1 ranges. Menghini noted that a separate project on faculty ranges, a whole different sort of task, has not gotten as far as of now.
Menghini said that this was probably the most confident that she has felt in a process undergone with the UNC System Office that really applies to all UNC System campuses. She thought that the UNC System Office had done a remarkable job of working with UNC-Chapel Hill and its peer institutions to identify what is different about us and what is different about other campuses. She was impressed by the System Office’s ability to keep this project on time despite the significant turnover in their staffing. She was really hopeful but wanted to temper expectations, recalling that the recalibration of ranges does not mean that everyone will receive a raise from this process. She reiterated that these ranges are not set up to provide 100% of market level to all employees.
Menghini said that the university will do its best to take care of those most impacted first. She reminded listeners that the university dedicated another $3 million in staff salaries in the last several months, under the tentative knowledge that the university will have another two years of salary adjustments going forward. She hoped that the university is getting to a place in which employees can count on some level of adjustment in these areas, not falling quite as far behind as before.
The Office of Human Resources has made a lot of progress in implementing sign-on bonuses, retention bonuses, and performance-based bonuses for EHRA employees. Moving forward, Menghini said that having administrative tools is important, but tools without money are just tools. The university is now trying to both work on balancing having the tool and having the dollars to do this work. Menghini cited the importance of university leadership support in accomplishing these market adjustments. She looked forward to continuing the good progress made in this area.
Menghini noted continuing questions as to the status of the SHRA/EHRA conversion for non-exempt employees. She said that all accounts cite bipartisan support for this idea, and she thought that it would receive legislative approval soon. The change will impact around 1,000 university employees in an optional move from SHRA to EHRA classification. Menghini did not have specifics about the timeline but thought that these changes were soon coming. OHR will provide people affected options based on guidance as soon as it becomes available.
Menghini shared that progress has been made in the university’s Carolina Next Strategic Initiative: Enabling Career Development. She hoped to provide more of an update in this area in a future meeting. She praised the work of Associate Vice Chancellor for Human Resources Linc Butler among many other key players in the process to enable career development initiatives on campus.
Menghini said that Butler and Senior Work/Life Manager Jessica Pyjas were on vacation that week. She pledged to share Pyjas’ list of wellness and well-being activities with the Chair so that these could be distributed. She thanked all on the Forum and wished all a wonderful summer, looking forward to working with the Forum in the year ahead.
Keith Hines asked if the SHRA/EHRA optional transfer would take place for all employees. Menghini said that the transition mentioned would only be for SHRA exempt, excluding non-exempt employees. She granted that the number of people affected could be less than 1,000 depending on the eventual content of the legislation. She understood that the legislation had not yet been approved, but had support from both sides. She awaited guidance from the UNC System Office on specific details about the changeover. The Chair said that SHRA exempt employees may have different views on transitioning depending on their number of years worked. Reposted and new positions would automatically become EHRA Non-Faculty as in other such conversions.
The Chair thanked Menghini for her remarks. She moved the agenda around to begin the election process first, then the consent agenda. She thus turned the meeting over to Laura Pratt and Matt Teal to run this portion of the meeting.
Pratt gave each nominee the chance to make brief remarks regarding their candidacy. Katie Musgrove, nominee for Chair, said that her goal for this year would be to implement Bylaws revisions and enact a Chair-Elect system for the Forum, to ensure a smooth transition between leaders. She alluded to similar systems in place for the UNC System Staff Assembly and UNC-Chapel Hill Faculty Council. She thought having a Chair-Elect would ease worries by exposing that person to the workings of the Forum on a daily basis. She invited delegates interested in serving as Chair or Chair-Elect to step forward. She hoped to continue as the Forum’s leader next year.
Keith Hines was the only nominee for the position of Forum Vice Chair. Hines said that he was glad to serve and jump in and help where he could. Tiffany Carver was similarly the only candidate for the position of Secretary. Carver thanked the Forum for its confidence and she appreciated being able to support the Forum, the Chair, and the Vice Chair in their efforts as well.
Pratt noted that there were two candidates on the ballot for the position of Forum Treasurer. She welcomed the first candidate for the position, Brigitte Ironside, to make remarks. Ironside cited her time as Financial Analyst for the Chair of Financial Services, responsible for tracking all of the budget and accounting functions for all campus safety units as well as the Chancellor’s Office. She envisioned being able to track budget and expenditures for the Forum if elected to the Treasurer position.
Pratt welcomed the second candidate for Treasurer, Tracy Wetherby Williams, to make remarks. Williams noted that she had been Forum Treasurer the past two years. She also serves as Treasurer of her SEANC district, and also has been a business officer previously in other roles. She appreciated the chance to support everyone here, especially those on the Forum Executive Committee.
Pratt next introduced the Forum Parliamentarian position, which as a two-year position is different from the other one-year officer roles. Jacob Womack was the only candidate for that position. Womack thanked all who put in time for this work on the Forum.
Pratt finally noted the election of the UNC System Staff Assembly delegate. She said that three people are on the ballot for this role. The candidate who receives the second-most votes will be elected as the alternate to the Staff Assembly. James Holman was the first candidate for that position. He emphasized his length of service to the university and the Forum, his leadership of SEANC District 25, and the need for Facilities workers on the Staff Assembly.
Lisa Petersen was the second candidate for this position. Petersen said this was her first year on the Forum. She had relocated from Wisconsin a few months ago and is a social worker by trade with 20 years’ experience. She works to stand up for important issues in working with people. Drexel Rivers, the third candidate for this position, was unable to be present that morning.
At this point, Laura Pratt and Matthew Teal explained how the Forum’s electronic voting process would work. All incoming, outgoing, and continuing delegates are eligible to vote in this year’s elections. North Carolina law requires that all persons voting in these elections to sign their name to the Qualtrics ballot. Each delegate may vote only once, and if more than one ballot is received with the same name, all of those ballots will be removed from the total vote count. Delegates can vote for any and all open officer positions. The Forum underwent the electronic voting process following this explanation.
Keith Hines noted an error with the ballot. Laura Pratt then republished the ballot link to amend the error. While the votes were being counted, Charles Streeter said that the rescheduled June Vice Chancellors’ representatives’ meeting will take place June 29th.
The Chair noted the next item on the agenda was the approval of the Forum’s Standing Rules document, located at https://employeeforum.unc.edu/standing-rules/. This was the first reading of that document, the second reading of which would occur at the Forum’s Annual Retreat. Jacob Womack led the Forum through its first reading of this document. There was no further discussion of the document following Womack’s reading. The Chair encouraged people with questions or thoughts about the document to reach out to Womack. Arlene Medder moved that the document be approved on first reading, seconded by Elizabeth Dubose. The motion passed, with Laura Pratt abstaining from the motion.
Laura Pratt and Matthew Teal were ready to announce the results of the officer elections. Pratt recalled that Teal had instructed the body that delegates could only vote once in this election, with duplicate ballots deleted. Additionally, voters are required to place their first and last name in the first text box on the ballot. Voters who submitted only one name had their ballot deleted as well. Pratt thanked all those who did follow the instructions in this process.
Pratt announced the winners in the Forum officer elections: Katie Musgrove was elected Chair, Keith Hines was elected Vice Chair, Tiffany Carver was elected Secretary, Tracy Wetherby Williams was elected Treasurer, and Jacob Womack was elected Parliamentarian. Matthew Teal announced that James Holman had been elected to the two-year Staff Assembly delegate position, with Lisa Pedersen being elected to the alternate position. Teal led the Forum in a round of applause for the winners and those who ran.
The Chair turned to the consent agenda, which considers minutes from the previous meeting and committee reports as one item. The Chair and committee chairs have the option to pull a particular committee report from the consent agenda for special consideration. The Chair said that she had collected annual reports from several committees towards completion of the Forum’s overall annual report. Tiffany Carver moved to approve the consent agenda, seconded by David Bragg. The motion was approved unanimously.
The Chair took a moment to ask if delegates have any news or other questions. She noted that the July retreat will take place on half-days July 12th and 13th. She will send a Qualtrics poll to inquire as to delegates’ plans to attend and other preferences regarding this event.
In the absence of further discussion, Elizabeth Dubose moved that the meeting adjourn, seconded by Arlene Medder. The motion carried and the meeting adjourned at 11:13 a.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Matt Banks, Recording Secretary