June 29, 2023 Vice Chancellors’ Representatives’ Meeting Minutes
Attending: Shane Brogan, Linc Butler, Adrianne Gibilisco, Leah Hefner, Amy Hertel, Linda Holst, Kira Jones, Sara Kelley, Brett Kenney, Nate Knuffman, Haydee Marchese, Becci Menghini, Katherine Neer, Joe Ormond, Carly Perin, Jacqueline Schwamberger, Tracey Wiley, Tyrone Williams
Leah Hefner called the meeting to order at 9 a.m. in the absence of Forum Chair Katie Musgrove and Forum Vice Chair Keith Hines. Hefner recognized Haydee Marchese to read the meeting’s first question:
(Marchese) Why is the University not yet promoting more internal hiring to boost productivity and morale of existing employees? Hiring internally and promoting from within should be a goal for any organization. It is quicker because the candidates are already familiar with policies, operations, and business methods and it also sends a message to other employees that there are real career opportunities with the University. In addition, it boosts campus-wide productivity, as it creates added incentive for increased productivity.
Becci Menghini said that the university is pursuing these internal hires. Last year, there were a bit over 3,300 hires, with more than 1,700 of those internal hires. So, she thought the argument that the university is not promoting internal candidates did not hold water. She said that there are roles in which the university will automatically work to bring people in, while others are those in which the university tries to provide a path forward internally. Sometimes people go from one unit to another. Menghini said that these are not noted as internal hires, but they do keep people at the university.
Marchese read the second question of the meeting:
(Marchese) When would the University make it mandatory that managers, directors and supervisors attend ULEAD and other leadership trainings to help them master all the management basics (like delegation, conflict management, communication) so they can support faculty and staff?
Linc Butler said that talk about making certain training programs mandatory seems to assume that training is a silver bullet that will make managers do everything correctly. The BEST program, which has been around a couple of years, is the foundational supervisory training program that managers are expected to undertake. The other program mentioned, ULEAD, is not structured the same way as BEST. Instead, it is designed for what are seen as high potential leaders who are looking to develop additional leadership skills beyond what they currently possess.
Butler said that OHR (Office of Human Resources) is working on two additional bodies of training content and resources other than the two aforementioned programs. The first is for mid-level managers and supervisors and will promote and teach skills like delegation of work, conflict management, having difficult conversations, and building effective teams. The other program is still in development and will provide more functional-based training, to help supervisors learn to apply university policies. This training will address unique situations in terms of what is needed to cover the work and support the employee in these circumstances. Butler said this program will probably not be launched until spring or summer of 2024. He said that the mid-level manager program will hopefully begin closer to the fall.
Regarding whether these programs will be mandatory, Butler said that managers will have some courses expected while others are more developmental and elective. He said that the question of implementing mandatory training is not as easy as flipping a switch, noting the impacts of such a change.
Menghini added that OHR went school by school to ensure that all of the supervisors in each unit were trained. She said that as people turn over, OHR does rely on Forum delegates to remind people that this training is available. She noted that OHR relies on its HR officers, supervisors, deans, vice chancellors, unit leads and department chairs to make these reminders as well. She urged all to ensure that people know that training is available and ready to be used.
Menghini noted the concern that faculty often do not know about or are not taking training available. She said that the Faculty Affairs Division in the Provost’s Office is trying to address this concern together with central HR. She said that this effort requires everyone’s help.
Sara Kelley asked the meeting’s next question, which was combined in discussion with another question:
(Kelley) What is being done to ensure that university employment positions are competitive with the private sector, specifically positions within the School of Medicine?
(Teal) What is the status of the request to update/expand our career bands? Any updates on the timeline for implementation? Which bands are being considered?
To begin, Menghini stated that the university will never be entirely competitive with the private sector, given the reality of working in public higher education and state employment. She said that as of right now, Carolina pays more than any other school in the UNC system, as well as the largest percentage of range and market levels. She hoped that SHRA ranges will be evaluated by the fall, with the new ranges most likely in place by the first of the year. EHRA ranges and tier two and tier one ranges will follow.
Menghini emphasized that the adjustment in ranges does not mean that everyone will receive a raise. This type of universal compensation is not the way that ranges work. As of now, Carolina in general pays above the market rate. The university will take this new range information, then figure out where it sits and its overall goals as an institution for being within these ranges.
The good news is that private consultant Buck, who is working for the UNC System Office, will consider higher education peers as well as local markets in arriving at ranges. Again, Menghini said that the university will not be exactly competitive with private industry in most comparisons, but numbers will be factored in differently in employees’ favor as a result of these changes. Thus, Menghini was optimistic concerning these changes.
Menghini noted a further question on where the university is regarding SHRA ranges. She said at the last Forum meeting that the first level of comparison is taking university and system-wide rates and comparing them to OSHR (Office of State Human Resources) for career banding because OSHR has updated its ranges over the course of the last several years, although this information is a couple of years stale now. Buck is now working on around 76 different classifications and their market data. Other classifications will either adopt the state ranges or some unit-specific adaptations will occur.
Menghini added that the EHRA ranges will be a bit different because the university will not have to do a comparison to OSHR ranges. She expected that OSHR will use university data because of the expected favorable difference in university EHRA ranges.
Menghini took a moment to thank her colleagues at the UNC System Office, whom she said have done a remarkable job of managing the SHRA range project. She said that these officers understood the urgency and have sought feedback while moving the project forward as quickly as possible. She commended this group’s work on this issue.
Leah Hefner asked when the next update would be available regarding the career banding revision. Menghini said that UNC OHR is now responding to UNC System Office questions regarding the university’s biggest pain points by relying on employee feedback on these questions. These responses are due this afternoon to the UNC System Office and will inform the priority of the 76 classifications in getting to market.
Menghini recalled questions regarding university peer institutions and whether the university competes only within the state. She recalled that some in the School of Medicine have said that positions are so difficult to recruit for that the school might be better off recruiting nationally. This need leads to consideration of market data from a national as well as a statewide perspective.
The UNC System Office hopes to respond to feedback by providing numbers at the end of the summer, which must then be approved by the Office of State Human Resources. She said that the aim is that new ranges are installed at the start of the 2024 calendar year.
Hefner asked if Menghini could share the list of positions under consideration. Menghini said that OHR submitted areas of particular concern, like research environments, housekeeping, building, and facilities spaces. She said that sometimes the issue is that OHR does not have the authority to move a position from journey to contributing. So, some of these questions involve not changing the range but changing the position. She would provide what she could find regarding a list of classifications considered.
Hefner asked how cost of living and geographical differentials factor into this analysis. Menghini once again reminded delegates to keep sharing this information with others, to avoid repetition of the same questions in meetings. She said that cost of living is not an automatic factor in considering ranges and is in fact a national standard that is not considered. On the other hand, ranges are generally built to be large enough to accommodate cost of living considerations, with Chapel Hill, Raleigh, and Durham having higher costs of living than perhaps other parts of the State. Ranges for the UNC System have historically been built so that Chapel Hill can pay at the top end of the range and some other institutions pay at the lower end or mid-level of the range.
Menghini said that the university has been very ardent in asking for enough range capacity to accommodate cost-of-living adjustments. This task presents a challenge because cost-of-living and state employment will not always fall in sync. However, the idea is that ranges are deep enough to accommodate the cost-of-living differences.
Hefner read the meeting’s next question:
(Williams) Are there any new or more comprehensive sustainability plans (more recycling options, better access to composting, etc.) for the university community?
Carly Perin responded that this question crosses a couple of functional areas, from a Facilities Services perspective. Sustainable Carolina reports to the Institute for the Environment and the Office of Waste Reduction & Recycling (OWRR) report to Facilities Services, which is hiring a new director reshaped for perhaps a broader role to represent sustainability efforts. Perin said that Carolina’s OWRR recycling is top-notch compared to peers. The unit is looking to a new director to help lead in a strategic direction.
The university contracts with a vendor called Compost Now on areas like dining halls. This service can be made available to the rest of campus to expand composting efforts. She noted public composting sites near Lenoir and Chase Halls. OWRR partners closely with residential life to grow their compositing programs also.
Hefner asked the next question:
(Williams) When will employee longevity recognition ceremonies resume?
Menghini was pleased to note that these ceremonies have already resumed, with the 25-year event taking place three weeks ago and the 20-year event two weeks ago. The university recognized several hundred employees in these events, including one staff member who recently reached their 60-year anniversary with the university.
Adrianne Gibilisco asked the meeting’s next question:
(Gibilisco) At the last Employee Forum meeting, Becci Menghini shared that if a bill goes forward that would allow the university to convert SHRA non-exempt positions to EHRA, it would provide an opt-out option to SHRA employees who do not wish to undergo this change and they would not be locked into their current roles absent a college degree. Would this mean that they could not even be considered for a higher position without a degree? How does that balance with equal opportunity compliance and the phrase “or equivalent experience” that is (rightfully) used in many job postings? Do we have any updates on this yet?
Menghini clarified that this bill applies to exempt SHRA positions, not to non-exempt positions, and the bill is not yet law. However, she understood that the bill has bipartisan support, with others asking similar questions as those Gibilisco had raised. If employees who do not have a degree choose to move, will they have the opportunity for upward mobility? Menghini recalled that the Governor signed an executive order for state agencies opening up work experience as a greater marker for progression a while back. She said that the university has urged the expanded use of work experience, with job descriptions written with an experience equivalent with education. The university awaits more information on the bill’s eventual passage and its implementation guidance.
Leah Hefner asked this related question listed later on the agenda:
(Hefner) It seems from current hiring in the School of Medicine and text embedded in Senate Bill 743-, that there is a migration in process from being a university employee to being employed by the Health System/State for SHRA employees. What are the consequences of this shift for me as an individual, all the staff that it affects, and the employees I supervise? Why would the School of Medicine and Health System be encouraging this shift in employment status? It is creating a disparity amongst the staff and staff is feeling scared and unsteady in their positions. Do you have a position on this change?
Menghini understood that this proposal is intended to address clinical services staff providing services in areas that have been difficult to fill. She said that the idea behind this legislation is that some of these people could be transitioned to UNC Health employees, which would provide some leverage in hiring and access to research infrastructure. However, the university has not yet received guidance regarding the potential transition. Again, she said that all SHRA employees are not subject to this bill as it is intended to be very narrowly focused on the clinical enterprise.
Leah Hefner asked when there would be new information on developments in this area. Menghini said that her office would share this news as it becomes available. Linc Butler noted that the university has a process in place in which a position is more than 50% focused on clinical work, the position is reviewed, allowing the School of Medicine to possibly transition the role from the university side to the UNC Health side. He said that use of this process has been rare, but he thought that the bill is designed to create a more streamlined way to think about how this is done.
Leah Hefner read the meeting’s next question:
(Holman) The Housekeeping department’s staff were interviewed by University Ombuds Office and Anna Wu. Will there be a public report? If so, when can we expect this report to be completed? Will there be any changes made to address any issues and concerns?
Carly Perin responded that the University Ombuds office has captured major themes from this meeting and from other housekeeping listening sessions. Each session began with a commitment to share these things with Chancellor Guskiewicz and Vice Chancellor Knuffman. Thus, the first step is to honor that commitment and then respond to the housekeeping team who voiced their concerns regarding themes and action items in question.
Hefner asked if a timeline has been created for these steps. Perin said that the Facilities Services team is working on action items now and communication regarding this process.
Leah Hefner read the meeting’s next two questions:
(Stamey) How is the Vice Chancellor for Facilities Services search coming along? Are we at a point in the search where finalists are being considered? Is there a tentative schedule for meeting the finalists for this position?
(Stamey) Are zone managers in Housekeeping and other Facilities departments eligible for a retention bonus?
Nate Knuffman said that the search for the Associate Vice Chancellor was coming along very well, with three very highly qualified candidates identified by the search committee. On-site interviews began this week. He thanked campus representatives for their involvement in this process. He also noted the positive feedback on the quality of the candidates and the thoroughness of the search process.
Hefner asked when it is expected the position will be filled. Knuffman thought that the decision would emerge relatively quickly after the conclusion of on-campus interviews next week. The likely start date will be sometime this fall to provide transition time for the new official.
Regarding the other question, Menghini said that zone managers in Housekeeping and other Facilities departments are indeed eligible for a retention bonus, both in SHRA and EHRA programs. Menghini cautioned that eligibility does not mean that the unit in question has the resources to provide these bonuses. Hefner asked if managers in these units can request funding each new year for these bonuses. Menghini said that these requests are allowed, but the university does not have an enormous pool of funding dedicated for this purpose.
Hefner read the meeting’s next question:
(Teal) What is the current total number of Housekeeping vacancies, and how many vacancies are there by shift? What is the trend in Housekeeping vacancies this calendar year? The Employee Forum is hearing that staffing issues in Housekeeping are getting worse, not better, particularly for 3rd shift.
Carly Perin reported 98 current Housekeeping vacancies, 59 of which are on third shift. This vacancy rate has held steady. The department is using all available tools to recruit candidates, through job boards and other resources. Vacancies are posted and extended. Facilities HR has studied the potential of advertising with TV and radio, working with WRAL, Fox 50, and the CBS job board, among other approaches to expand its candidate pool.
Hefner asked about internal job changes in Housekeeping which have led to moves out of third shift. Perin said that she has heard this anecdotally, but has not seen this assertion backed up with data. Perin said that she would also investigate whether third shift housekeepers have had to work more hours, but she was not aware of this discrepancy.
Nate Knuffman added that beyond marketing and recruitment efforts, he thought that new leadership will have the opportunity to make Carolina a destination of choice and preference in terms of work environment for these positions.
Hefner asked if Housekeeping is relying more on temporary employees to fill these vacancies. Perin thought that the department has worked to prioritize its work, using temporary positions as one tool in their toolbox.
Hefner read the next question:
(Hefner) According to the new U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) income limits released in May 2023, $56,650 is 80% of the Area Median Income (AMI) for the Durham-Chapel Hill Metro–or the salary at which a person would be considered low income and eligible for certain affordable housing programs. How many (or what percentage of) positions at UNC pay a salary at or below 80% AMI?
Menghini said that her staff had pulled numbers on this question and found it a bit challenging. Many employees here are in multiple income homes, which does not correlate with area median income numbers. She said that using individual salaries does not address the question of eligibility for affordable housing.
Hefner clarified her question by stating that the $56,650 figure is for a one-person household, with approximately $80,000 for a four-person household and approximately $60,000 for a two-person household. Menghini summed up that approximately 3,500 positions of the 20,000 permanent and temporary employees would fall under the AMI.
Hefner raised the next question:
(Hefner) How many (or what percentage of) UNC employees are registered with the university as having secondary employment? What is the average number of hours these employees work at another job? How many employees who have secondary employment earn at or below 80% AMI?
Menghini said that about one hundred-forty-five employees have self-reported their secondary employment over the past two years. Sixty-three of the 145 employees mentioned were reported this year alone. Of these 63 employees, their average salary is $44,000. Hefner thanked Menghini for this information and noted that it was less than expected. Butler confirmed that employees self-report only, and the university does not track the average number of hours worked in the secondary position.
Hefner shared the next question:
(Teal) Gordon Merklein, the Associate Vice Chancellor for Real Estate and Campus Enterprises, recently stated that the results and recommendations from the affordable housing survey conducted in January 2023 were presented to the Chancellor in May. What were the results of the January 2023 affordable housing survey?
Nate Knuffman said that the answer to this question is related to two previous questions as one considers salary levels and the other the ability to afford housing and live in this area. The survey was conducted to get a better understanding of this challenge. Survey results were shared with university leadership in early June, with a current plan to present the results at the August Employee Forum meeting during Knuffman’s next scheduled update.
Hefner shared the next questions regarding the Women’s Center:
(Teal) How much funding did the University allocate for the Women’s Center in the All-Funds Budget the Board of Trustees approved on April 27, 2023? The publicly available budget information posted on the Board of Trustees’ website does not provide any information beyond a high-level overview of “Academic Affairs,” of which the Women’s Center is a part.
(Teal) What is the University’s plan/vision (both short-term and long-term) for the Women’s Center? How does that plan/vision align with the Employee Forum’s request in Resolution 23-01 (“Concerning Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment”) that the University “recommit to developing the Carolina Women’s Center, including a potential redesign, increased funding, and additional staffing that meets the needs of the campus community”?
Knuffman said that one of the downsides of the all-funds budget model is that while the university is much more transparent with its information and resource allocation, it does include limitations on individual program level data, as that still requires manual processing. He would follow up on that piece. He thought the next stage of all-funds budget evolution will involve making potentially more granular information at the program level more broadly accessible.
Becci Menghini added that many Forum delegates participated in listening sessions with Beth Posner around the future of the Women’s Center. This report was given to the Chancellor and the Provost, prior to several meetings with these leaders and Vice Chancellor Knuffman. University leaders are now in the process of evaluating the report and identifying what the next phase of the Center will be based on the report. Menghini noted a general desire to continue with some form of the Women’s Center and leaders are looking at data about how these centers are structured elsewhere. How this initiative intersects with findings from the pending admissions lawsuit and the university’s Title VI obligations remains to be seen. She hoped to have good news to share on that front going forward.
Hefner brought forward two questions related to mental health:
(Teal) The UNC System recently awarded $1.7 million in grant funds for nine mental health programs on campuses across the UNC System. Available media reports do not mention UNC-Chapel Hill as a recipient of any of that grant money. Given the documented need for mental health resources at UNC-Chapel Hill, did UNC-Chapel Hill apply for any of that grant funding? If not, why not?
(Teal) How much funding is allocated for mental health resources for students, faculty, and staff in the 2023-2024 all-funds budget that the Board of Trustees approved on April 27, 2023? Is that amount sufficient to provide the levels of support needed? If not, what is the difference between the amount of funding we need and the amount of funding the Board of Trustees approved?
Knuffman noted that mental health concerns cut across the entire university in a number of ways that are not captured by one central conduit or request system. He said that UNC’s peer support group had won a grant for $268,000 in this area to expand the Heels Care network hub, develop strategies recommended through the JED campus partnership, and integrate the peer and mutual support activities developed here at UNC-Chapel Hill with current UNC System support.
Knuffman said that the university also received more than $12,000 in grant funding to support QPR, i.e., “question, persuade, refer” suicide prevention and intervention training. He recalled that the university had recently submitted a proposal with the UNC System Office to put on an approximately 14-show run of the play “Every Brilliant Thing” on campus, in partnership with Playmakers Theater. This one-person performance provides a thoughtful, humorous, and provocative account of one individual’s experience with mental illness in his family. Following the performances there would be a facilitated discussion and training by professionals about mental health and well-being. Additionally, the campus health CAPS team recently shared news from the UNC System Office regarding an opportunity for additional funding to provide financial assistance to students to pursue external counselor therapist referrals.
Regarding the second question, Knuffman noted the range of mental health resources throughout campus in clinical and non-clinical resources, schools, and centers. Thus, it can become involved to get a comprehensive number for these efforts. Knuffman offered that people interested in viewing the array of resources available for community members can check out the mental resource hub featured on the Heels Care network website.
Hefner brought forward the final question for the day:
(Teal) In the 2022 Employee Engagement Survey, only 41 percent of respondents “strongly agreed” or “agreed” with the statement in Question # 20 that “This institution’s policies and practices ensure fair treatment for faculty, administration and staff.” That is down 13 percent since the 2018 survey. Similarly, only 39 percent of respondents “strongly agreed” or “agreed” with the statement in Question # 19 that “There’s a sense that we’re all on the same team at this institution.” That is down 7 points since the 2018 survey. Both responses are in the bottom tier (“Acute”) of the UNC System’s Response Guidelines. It has now been a year since the 2022 survey results were published. What has the University done to improve its “policies and practices” and the sense among employees that “we’re all on the same team” since the 2022 results were published? What is the plan for 2023-2024 in preparation for the 2024 survey?
Menghini recalled that the 2022 survey obtained results while community members were suffering through the COVID pandemic, with many employees feeling like there was a level of disparate treatment, in that some employees could work remotely, while others had childcare or eldercare responsibilities (or both). Menghini argued that this was not the best year for UNC employees and that this was reflected in the engagement survey and in other parts of our lives.
That said, she did not want to overlook results and she thought that the university could continue to look at ways to ensure policies and procedures apply with more equity across campus. Menghini recalled that the Future of Work program was put into place with the expectation that it would be applied equally across campus and to every position. Decisions on hybrid or remote work were made based on the duties of the job in the local area instead of personal characteristics. This process relies on the university ensuring that people follow institutional rules but also that individual units are working to build engagement in their individual spaces. She noted the importance of improved campus communication as a group effort.
In the absence of further discussion, the meeting adjourned at 10 a.m.
Respectfully submitted, Matt Banks, Recording Secretary