June 6, 2024 Employee Forum Meeting Minutes
Delegates Attending: L. E. Alexander, Caley Allen, David Barnette, Randall Borror, Sharron Bouquin, David Bragg, Shane Brogan, Bonita Brown, Shavon Carey-Hicks, Tiffany Carver, Warren Chui, Kelsey Dillon, Gabriela de La Cruz, Elizabeth DuBose, Paloma Eddowes, Adrianne Gibilisco, Sarah Green, Chrissie Greenberg, Megan Harvell, Leah Hefner, Shayna Hill (ex-officio), Keith Hines, James Holman, Linda Holst, Rebecca Howell, Samara Howell, Todd Hux, Brigitte Ironside, Stacy Keast, Paige Krier, Jennifer Larson, Haydeé Marchese, Daysia Mardré, Torri Mason, Amber Meads, Arlene Medder, Cherie Mellor, Vanessa Mitchell, Vanessa Morris, Katie Musgrove, Natiaya Neal, Katherine Neer, Joseph Ormond, Lisa Petersen, Allana Potts, Charlissa Rice, Drexel Rivers, Janny Sanchez, Kelly Scurlock-Cross, Lori Shamblin, Audrey Shore, Theresa Silsby, Paige Simpson, Heather Skinner, Greg Smith, Sarah Smith, Jake Stallard, James Stamey, Mathew Steadman, Annetta Streater, Charles Streeter (ex-officio), Matthew Teal, Ally Wardell, Michael Williams, Tyrone Williams, Jacob Womack
Excused Absences: Matthew Chamberlin, Chassidy Dixon, Alicea Easthope-Frazer, Laura Pratt, Julie Theriault
Chair Katie Musgrove called the meeting to order at 9:15 a.m., following a brief social in honor of the year’s peer recognition award winners. She asked Parliamentarian Jacob Womack to conduct the Forum’s final call for officer nominations for 2024. Womack said this would be done to accommodate the electronic ballot in use that morning. Delegates would have the opportunity to self-nominate if desired.
There were no nominations for Chair beyond the current nomination of Katie Musgrove. Rebecca Howell, nominee for Chair-Elect, was joined provisionally by Elizabeth Dubose. Keith Hines was the only nominee for Vice Chair, as was Tiffany Carver for Secretary. There were three nominations for Treasurer: Brigitte Ironside, Mathew Steadman, and Annetta Streater.
The Chair invited Recognition & Awards committee co-chairs Charlissa Rice and Gabriela de La Cruz to present the Forum’s peer recognition awards for 2024. Rice thanked all who participated in the peer recognition process, particularly given the heavy loads that employees seem to carry these days. She said that the committee had evaluated 158 nominations for these awards.
Rice and de La Cruz made the following comments in presenting the awards:
“Thank you all for joining us today for this exciting and very special occasion! We want to thank everyone who participated in the 2024 UNC Employee Forum Peer Recognition Awards process. We recognize, especially now, that so many folks are carrying heavier loads and are tasked with more responsibilities, so for you to make time to acknowledge and celebrate your peers speaks volumes. From those who took the time out to nominate their peers, to the UNC Employee Forum delegates who dedicated time to review 158 nominations that we received- you are all greatly appreciated. UNC Staff are top tier, and it shows. Give yourselves and each other a round of applause! Without further ado, we will now present the awards. If any of the recipients are interested in knowing who nominated you, please reach out to Gaby and me. We will review briefly the Award information and bios.
The first award that will be presented this morning is the Staff member of the year – Hall of Famer. A recipient is said to consistently exemplify the University’s mission of integrity, collaboration, respect & high-level customer service and has been with the University at least 5 years.
Our first recipient of the Hall of Famer award is Kyle York. Kyle York is the director of communications for the UNC Hussman School of Journalism and Media where he works with a small and talented team responsible for the school’s internal and external communications to inform and engage its stakeholders while elevating the school’s national reputation for leadership. He also serves on the school’s Dean’s Cabinet and Executive Leadership Team. York is a 1994 UNC Hussman graduate who joined the school’s staff in 2005 after working with the Office of University Development and UNC News Services. A nominator wrote that, ‘Kyle is a master at what he does…he is selfless in giving his time to the school’s endeavors and does everything with a gracious heart.’
Our second recipient of the Hall of Famer award is Philip Spangler. Phillip began working at UNC in April 2012 as the Facility Coordinator at the School of Law for 10 years. In August of 2022 he was selected to become the Facility Manager for the School of Nursing. His role here has been managing their facility team through normal operations of daily facility maintenance and planning, to one of the most challenging and rewarding experiences he has had at UNC. The School of Nursing had to transition everyone out of Carrington Hall for the new renovation over the past two years. He and his team had to pack, move, and purge many years of “collections” to two swing locations at AOB (research and administration), and ITS Manning (Classroom, Labs, and Hospital Simulation classes). A nominator wrote that ‘Philip demonstrates grace under pressure and professionalism during encounters with the understanding that our community members have different ease and expectations.’
The second award that will be presented today is the Staff member of the year Perfect Addition Award, which recognizes consistently exemplifying the University’s mission of integrity, collaboration, respect & high-level customer service and has been with the University less than 2 years.
Our first recipient of the Perfect Addition Award is Gabi Peterson. She is a Research Project Manager with the Renaissance Computing Institute and is responsible for supporting the management and logistical coordination of research and team science projects. A nominator wrote that ‘Gabby has shown commitment to mastering her role on the project from the beginning, displaying passion and determination to make a positive impact.’
Our second recipient of the Perfect Addition Award is Lidia Colato-Raez. Lidia is a Career Services Coordinator at the School of Public Health and assists students in achieving their career goals through personalized counseling, organizing career education workshops, and coordinating career events & programs. She is also a UNC alum. Outside of work, Lidia loves finding new plants to add to her plant collection and spending time with her family and puppy, Flan. Lydia’s nominator wrote that this academic year she has conducted over 480 individual student career advising appointments with consistent positive feedback indicated in the student surveys.
The next award that will be presented today is the Professional Excellence Award. This award recognizes four deserving staff members for exceptional execution above and beyond assigned duties; supportive interactions within their department; supportive interactions between campus departments; and/or exemplary interaction with the outside community. Our first recipient of the Professional Excellence Award is Kelly Dockham. Dockham is the Director of Federal Affairs for the University of North Carolina, at Chapel Hill. As Director of Federal Affairs. She represents the University in advocacy before the Federal Government regulatory agencies and key policy maker. We wanted to highlight a comment from Kelly’s nomination. ‘Despite her important and very demanding role, Kelly never overlooks the importance of ensuring that the UNC Public Affairs team and the greater campus community is aware of important developments at the Federal level.’
Our next recipient of the Professional Excellence Award is Ken Whitt. Ken Whitt is a technical support for the Time Information Management (TIM) application for UNC. A nominator wrote that ‘Ken provides great customer support day to day and resolves TIM issues and still finds some time to continue his volunteer work outside of his current job responsibilities. Ken is a great employee, but a better person, and someone who I am very fortunate to get to work.’
Our next recipient of the Professional Excellence Award is Megan FinCannon. Megan FinCannon works as the Associate Director of Residential Living in Carolina Housing where they provide leadership to the Residential Education Team, manages operational processes, runs professional staff hiring, and works in student care and crisis response. They moved to Chapel Hill 2 years ago from Washington State and enjoy reading, gardening, and just being outdoors here in North Carolina! Megan’s nominator stated that ‘with everything Megan brings to their job the most valuable part is their enthusiasm for positive and impactful change their desire to work with and empower others, and their consistent encouragement through some of the hardest work we do.’
Our final recipient of the Professional Excellence Award is Tara Carr. Tara Carr is a Research Program Manager at Abacus Evaluation, Center for Health Equity Research in the Department of Social Medicine. Tara provides evaluation leadership for health initiatives like the NIH-funded Rapid Acceleration of Diagnostics – Underserved Populations and HEAL Initiative. She is passionate about improving the health of communities with her colleagues. One nominator stated: ‘Tara supports those she supervises by offering time, guidance, and support…supporting their professional development goals and success and helps them problem solve. Tara advocates for not only those she directly supervises, but other colleagues of hers and graduate students across campus.’
The next award that will be presented today is the Overton Leadership Award, which honors
the memory of Jackie Overton, a beloved Forum Chair whose contributions made the Forum a permanent group on campus. The purpose of the award is to recognize and reward individuals who have provided outstanding leadership to their office/department/unit and the university as a whole through involvement in staff issues, committee work, teamwork, professional development of peers. Nominees should be individuals who demonstrate outstanding leadership qualities, inspire and involve others, and work to assure that the impact of their efforts in the community campus is lasting. Nominee does not have to be a supervisor to be awarded.
Our first recipient of the Overton Leadership Award is Yana Biblin. Yana Biblin serves
as director of the VCR Research Administration Service Center that helps faculty and principal investigators focus on their research efforts by providing customized administrative and management support for research proposals, grants, awards, and contracts. A nominator wrote that ‘. Yana has empowered multiple other team members under our ASC to also have campus wide impact by including staff and initiatives to improve and for and for Port Connect Carolina finance systems, human resource processes and research administration.’
Our second recipient of the Overton Leadership Award is Sandra Barnhart. Cassandra (Sandy) Barnhart is a Senior Research Administration Manager in the UNC Institute for Global Health and Infectious Diseases. She has been with UNC for 24 years and was the UNC NRP Education Chair from 2020-2024. She manages all grant and contract submissions in IGHID, as well as administrative aspects of award management. She has a true passion for mentoring, education, and training, and passing on skills for success to future UNC employees. On a personal note, she is the oldest of her siblings and cousins, and always enjoyed playing “school” when they were children.
The next award that will be presented is the Pinnacle Award. This prestigious award recognizes an individual who has demonstrated leadership, vision and commitment to excellence. Nominees should be individuals who are on a path of continuous learning through professional development. Nominees should also have proposed a new idea and moved the idea toward implementation and is constantly creating a supportive and inclusive environment.
Our first recipient of the Pinnacle Award is Katherine O’Brian. As the GIS Coordinator
in the Facilities Technology Group for nearly 22 years, Katherine is committed to leveraging geospatial technology to enhance campus operations in support of UNC’s mission. Her work transforms data into action and helps improve decision making. Katherine’s nominator states that ‘Katherine has a vision that never rests…. She stays abreast of all the latest technologies and explores ways we can benefit from implementing them. Her vision not only pushes technology but also collaboration.’
Our second recipient of the Pinnacle Award is Kim Capri. As Director of the Office of Student Services in the Department of Health Sciences, Kim oversees the employees and office environment for the Office of Student Services. All student-related issues funnel through this office, and most activities that involve students, including Orientation, Semester Welcome-Back Events, and Graduation are organized here. A nominator commented that Kim ‘possesses a clear and forward-thinking vision, anticipated challenges and identifies opportunities, to lead our Student Services Team towards success. She is a great listener, a quick learner, dependable, invested and extremely enjoyable to work with.’
Next up we have the 3-Legged Stool Award. The 3-Legged Stool Award also known as The Community Service Award is awarded to mark distinguished contributions by an individual who works to promote cooperation and collaboration among faculty, staff and students. Nominees should be individuals who inspire creativity; promote harmony and partnerships within the University community; inspire teamwork, cooperation and participation; demonstrate new approaches to current processes; encourage, mentor and build bridges; form alliances to work collectively; or demonstrate any other significant community building activities.
The winner of the three-legged stool award is Dr. Lori Haight. Dr. Lori Haight has over 25 years of higher education experience being an advocate for students. In her current role as Director of Student Services at the School of Information and Library Science (SILS), Lori builds relationships with faculty, staff, and alumni to create systems and programs to help students succeed in reaching their personal and professional goals. She came to UNC Chapel Hill in 2012 after receiving her Ed.D. in Higher Education Administration from North Carolina State University. Lori enjoyed her time on the Employee Forum from 2015-2019, and currently serves as the SILS Wellness Champion since 2019. A nominator wrote that ‘Lori is a connector. When introducing you to a new person, she’ll take the time to explain the way she thinks you might work together. She is the bridge that connects people with their goal.’
This year we have two new Awards that were previously awarded through the University Managers Association. The Manager of the Year Award is given to a manager who has distinguished accomplishments throughout their university career, both within and beyond their normal job responsibilities, or has accomplished something specifically within the past twelve months that has been of major significance. The winner of this award is Taylor King, the Research Operations Manager at Comparative Medicine. In her current role she manages 20-23 people and is heavily involved in mentoring them all in one way or another.
Taylor’s nominator stated that Taylor ‘has been able to keep a positive attitude through it all…has been known to work beside her people with a positive attitude …is always willing to tell a joke or two…and bring snacks for her people. She always has a yes attitude when it comes to her employees and her place of business.’
Last, but definitely not least, the final award that will be presented today is the Outstanding Encouragement of Learning and Development (OELD Award). This award is given annually to a supervisor or manager who actively facilitates the participation of staff member in learning activities. The recipient of this award is Brian Lackman. A nominator wrote, ‘Brian Lackman demonstrates genuine concern for the coordinators within his team. Not only has he provided me with opportunities for professional growth, but he has consistently introduced innovative methods to enhance our learning and redefine our approach to leadership.’
On behalf of the entire Employee Forum, Charlissa and I extend our gratitude to the other Forum delegates listed here who reviewed nominations. This is a labor of love and we truly appreciate the time and effort you put in to help us acknowledge our peers and the wonderful sentiments that were shared by their colleagues! Many thanks to Matt Banks who helps streamline this process. We couldn’t do it without you!
Thank you again to all of those who participated in the Peer Recognition Awards process and all of you who attended our ceremony today! This will conclude the awards ceremony for the UNC Employee Forum Peer Recognition Awards for 2024 but we have one more group of dedicated folks that we’d like to acknowledge so we’ll turn it over to our Chair, Katie Musgrove! Have a great day and GO HEELS!”
The Chair moved to the bestowal of the Forum’s Kay Wijnberg Hovious Outstanding Delegate Awards, presented to three delegates each year for outstanding service to the Forum. Rebecca Howell, Charlissa Rice, and Theresa Silsby were this year’s recipients of the Hovious Award.
The Chair moved to the presentation by Nathan Knuffman, Vice Chancellor for Finance and Operations on the university’s all-funds budget and other Finance and Operations updates. Knuffman congratulated all of the award winners from that morning, stating that the work of each deserves recognition. Knuffman shared three updates, the first regarding the university’s budget approval and the content of that budget. He outlined what the university’s top priorities are and how the university allocates resources within its budget. Finally, he sought to provide a scorecard on the university’s financial performance and reasons for undergoing a budgetary effort every year.
To begin, Knuffman said that the university has a series of meetings related to budget development at which decisionmakers express institutional needs across campus. Finance and Operations has worked hard to reconcile these requests with top priorities and to develop a recommendation to the Board of Trustees for review and approval at its March meeting.
At that meeting, the Board requested follow-up on a couple of items, committing to holding a special meeting to take up the budget for approval this past May. The Board approved the university budget with two amendments, the first of which shifted $2.3 million from areas identified in the university’s DEI report as diversity, equity, and inclusion spending to public safety efforts. The second amendment carved out Athletics as part of the approval process.
The Board of Governors reviewed that budget May 20th, after which the UNC System President clarified that the Board of Governors and the UNC System Office approved the university’s original proposed budget, not the budget with amendments from the Board of Trustees. Knuffman expected that approval will be solidified in a forthcoming letter from the UNC System Office clarifying the situation.
Knuffman said that the university’s process included many meetings pouring over information towards arriving at its $125 million request. Ultimately, a $4.2 billion budget was approved. He said that this was the third year in which the university has undertaken this process and has begun to develop comparisons and trend lines depicting relevant data. He said that the university has advanced in its management of this process.
Regarding decisions about allocation of resources, Knuffman noted the slide depicting the university’s priorities and areas of focus. Beginning in October, his office will kick off its process of looking at investments that address priorities supporting Carolina’s excellence, safety, and accessibility. Underscoring the first two of these priorities are the School of Data, Science, and Society and the School of Civic Life and Leadership. The university has invested in starting these institutions, solidifying their curricula, and providing resources to move these institutions forward.
Knuffman said that whatever effort the university is funding, there is a complementary process at the state level to support this effort. He mentioned that the university is receiving funding for the first-time related to the new allocation model for tuition and appropriation, which will attempt to better align how these dollars match activities that generate tuition and appropriation dollars on campus. Finance and Operations will speak with the Provost and the Deans regarding student credit hours and their location throughout campus through the fall to arrive at this point. A great deal of work must occur within new academic programs before this new allocation model can kick in. The university has recognized the need for bridge funding to launch activity in areas where funding is not coming in.
Knuffman mentioned an emphasis on supporting graduate students through the last couple of budgets, with the current budget continuing this work to ensure dollars are set aside on the research side. The university also faces challenges with having sufficient resources available to make investments in large scale equipment and the need to maintain a relevant pool of funds for this purpose.
Knuffman noted the Chancellor’s work groups on AI and the need to reserve funds to advance that priority. Similarly, security and after-action review recommendations following the August 2023 incidents will require funding. For example, campus security cameras were part of the university’s UNC System Office and legislative request. The university hopes to supplement the $4 million needed with additional funds to implement after-action review recommendations. Additional needs for cybersecurity improvements and accessibility continue to receive support. Knuffman expects some reorganization and restructuring will generate some savings as a part of this budget.
The university also has needs related to start-up efforts for various initiatives and new schools to provide dollars to make these schools competitive. Knuffman said that these funds will not be enough, but some dollars have been reserved for this purpose.
Knuffman noted the evolution in budgetary process over the past few years in comparison to the absence of information which typified this process previously. He thought that the university has moved a long way in terms of transparency, enabling more thoughtful conversations on this subject. Still, he said that improvements remain to be made in forecasting and analytics governing fiscal decisions. He anticipated that the university’s process will see a continued shift to understand fully what resources are generated in terms of performance. In other words, what is the university getting for its money?
Knuffman said that a recent broader comparison with other universities by Fitch found that UNC-Chapel Hill’s fundamentals in this area remain incredibly strong and compelling. He observed that student demand is incredible while state support has remained strong and consistent. The university has been strong in its fundraising and its endowment is very healthy. Research continues to grow through the university’s incredible research enterprise.
Knuffman said that the effort to depict its internal budgetary process has paid off as rating agencies have consistently noted the university’s robust financial situation and cited a confidence in Carolina’s stronger fiscal performance. He thanked all on campus who have collectively invested their time in producing this budget.
Knuffman offered to respond to questions from delegates. Elizabeth Dubose thanked Knuffman for his presentation and his work. She noted discussions in the research manager area which have noted a change in the grading and classification of research-specific personnel positions, accompanied with an increase in expected salaries. However, smaller departments like her own may not have the funding to meet these expected increases for staff. She said that commentators often remark about the university’s abundant research and accompanying resources. However, the element of staffing is often not cited in this equation.
Dubose thought that the most robust research comes from well-grounded research personnel groups, meaning that good core research personnel are required for this effort. She asserted that the goal should be to represent the duties of these positions, even as some positions overlap in responsibilities. She asked what the university could do to support departments that want to meet these goals.
Knuffman appreciated the question and noted that the entire institution is struggling with these financial challenges. He said that salary ranges have been out of date but have been updated, which in turn has led to the gap Dubose cited. He said that the dollars needed to support these updated ranges have not yet become available.
Knuffman said that the university will continue to make its case to the state to fund state-supported positions, at least in keeping pace between the state and its universities. Additionally, the university must ensure that it remains efficient and maximizes its dollars for areas of the highest need. Dubose agreed and noted that the state’s pay bands have received adjustments through a slow process. She added that research units and leadership have worked to re-represent the research personnel roles and responsibilities. She clarified that these are not the same as state job classifications and granted that this work has made some progress.
Dubose said that descriptions of these staff positions had fallen out of date even as the university’s research systems have been upgraded so many times and so effectively. She bemoaned the lack of attention among researchers to this subject when the question of finding funding for these areas arises. As the university has rightfully highlighted the quality and quantity of research here, Dubose thought it necessary to represent the people who actually do this research.
Knuffman thanked Dubose for her comments. He said that the research enterprise is one of the strongest aspects of this institution, a fact appreciated by various rating agencies. He thought that conversations will turn to how the university can support personnel undergirding this work, particularly if emerging personnel needs exceed what have commonly existed.
Matthew Teal brought forward the next question, stating that he was a little surprised not to see investments in the people that staff various campus efforts depicted in the university’s budgetary materials. He said that the university’s AAA rating might not long remain if the university cannot support the world class talent to keep it running.
Teal understood that salaries are outside of local control as they are set up by the state for many staff employees. Still, he asked for at least an acknowledgement of these challenges in terms of the university’s budget priorities to state this need outright and make the case for its relief. He asked if Knuffman could speak to this point.
Knuffman said that he had been encouraged by the state’s provision of a 3% salary increase for state employees last year, which represents a sizable increase, larger than those which have been implemented previously. Secondly, Knuffman noted that the single largest source of funding is the new tuition and appropriation model, which is specifically designated to keep pace with the campus’ enrollment increase. These dollars inevitably will go to people, Knuffman said, to increase faculty salaries which either help support either administrative or other components of academic units or expand the number of faculty or provide increases for faculty.
This is the largest request on this list that will go to people support for new academic programs. Again, Knuffman said that upon launch of a new program, the largest cost driver for anything to do with the institution is always people. In fact, more than half of the dollars in the university’s spending base will inevitably go to its people. He added as one example that graduate student support represents people who will receive these dollars.
Knuffman noted that the startup fund side of these requests is aimed at new people coming in but also at expanding Carolina’s excellence. He reiterated the four cited priorities in his report, particularly supporting Carolina’s excellence, which is aimed internally at the campus workforce, as the university understands this is critical to its success. Thus, he said that the university did prioritize this need as part of its process.
Teal was encouraged to know that the university is investing in that area particularly. He recalled Dean Weber’s presentation at the most recent Board of Trustees meeting looking at the university’s top five enterprise management risks. He thought about how the university could align not only with its stated mission, but also respond to risks in managing talent and retention rates, the number one identified risk outlined. Teal said that these challenges will likely increase as employers like Apple move to the area and compete for existing talent. Teal inquired about the university’s plan to address these needs for its people over the next five to ten years.
Teal was encouraged that the university is investing in its faculty but noted that needs for staff are not explicitly addressed. Still, he felt encouraged to see this need cited as a foundational part of several of these other priorities.
Arlene Medder asked a question regarding an abbreviation cited in the slides. Knuffman said that this abbreviation represents scalable funds to debt, a metric that rating agencies and others use when considering an institution’s ability to service its debt with its resource base. He said that a decline in available resources or an increase in debts place pressure on that metric. Knuffman said that rating agencies are flagging that metric more often in institutional evaluations. He said that the metric is also relative to where an institution is rated, with the university’s metric a little higher and more aggressive due to its AAA rating. He said that the university’s higher performance in this area is comparable only to a few peer institutions.
Rebecca Howell raised a point of semantics related to Matthew Teal’s point regarding the staff who cut the grass and do the work of the university. She observed that Knuffman had responded to his question citing an investment in graduate student support and faculty. She did not hear Knuffman clearly address the need for staff support, those that the Forum represents. Howell thought that it is essential to hear these words of support in all communications from the university, because staff do not hear themselves represented in these communications as often as is necessary to imply that they are an important consideration.
Knuffman appreciated Howell’s question and clarified that when he identified supporting Carolina’s excellence as an institutional priority, that this support is not confined to graduate students or faculty. He said that this support also extends to staff and everyone who works at this institution. He said that the larger buckets of funding outlined here will inevitably flow to supporting staff.
Knuffman did not want anyone to walk away from the day’s conversation believing that staff are not a university priority. He cited a general appreciation of staff efforts. He absolutely believed that this appreciation is captured as part of that priority, and that funds will flow there accordingly. Howell thanked Knuffman for his remarks and asked that the university make this statement explicit in its communications, as staff feel this lack of an explicit mention.
Annetta Streater asked if Knuffman could speak again regarding the approved budget versus the final budget approved by the Board of Governors, noting a question as to how that relates to Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) funding. Knuffman was glad to do so, citing an additional point providing context about what is occurring in higher education. He said that several higher education institutions are facing substantial fiscal challenges with budgets very different than UNC-Chapel Hill’s. He observed that some of these institutions have become a bit too reliant on one-time funding and have fallen out of balance structurally, leading to big challenges even within the UNC System.
Some enrollment challenges require decisions based on allocation, Knuffman said. Yet, the university is in a position in which it has the dollars allowing it to expand. He did not want to lose sight that the university is in a relatively strong fiscal position, which is a credit to the great work done collectively here and the great institution that UNC-Chapel Hill represents.
Regarding clarification of what budget was approved, Knuffman said that the Board of Trustees approved a budget on May 13 with two amendments, one shifting $2.3 million from DEI to Public Safety, and one to fence off the university’s athletics budget. The clarification that the UNC System Office and the UNC System President provided was that this budget was not approved. In other words, the university’s budget without these amendments was what has been approved and is what the university will plan to implement and move forward with into the next fiscal year.
Meghan Harvell appreciated this explanation and delegate comments regarding issues with staff funding. She said that as a literal boots-on-the-ground perspective, she has seen Facilities Services contracting various efforts out. She thought that might explain why there is not a lot of movement on the budget for those particular departments. She asked Knuffman if that was indeed the case?
Knuffman said that he was not aware of a broad-based contracting out process within Facilities or in other areas of the university. He said that the university has studied expanding some of its contracting just to manage repair and renovation projects (R&R) as some of these projects have undergone increased scrutiny from the state as to how quickly the university was spending these dollars.
This increased scrutiny represented a risk point on whether the university would continue to attract these funds, which are very necessary to overall operations. Knuffman said that some of the challenge for the university came from having the staffing to move some of these projects forward. So, the university moved forward in this capacity.
Nonetheless, Knuffman was not aware of a broad-based outsourcing effort within Facilities or other parts of the university. He was unaware of any larger conversation along these lines. Harvell responded that she knew that her department specifically has requested to expand and take over projects at the university that are already contracted out. She said that her department has received reviews stating that it needs to expand as four employees are not enough to facilitate all of the university’s recycling and trash needs.
Harvell said that OWRR has tried for six to seven years to communicate this point but have not moved the point forward with upper-level management. She said that indications have been that expansion will involve contracting out. She concluded that perhaps communication is lacking between upper-level management in her area and central Finance and Operations.
Knuffman offered that he would be happy to follow up with his team. He clarified that Harvell’s general request is to expand current staffing instead of outsourcing to meet existing responsibilities. He asked if Harvell intended to say that the university should expand its staffing in this area. Harvell said that this was the case, as currently only four employees service all the campus’ buildings trash and recycling needs. It was added that there are only two generator employees for the whole University now, and staffing in HVAC is also severely lacking.
Jacob Womack noted a concern regarding Knuffman’s slides about priorities about efficiency efforts which he understood to mean that people are doing more work and being paid less. Referring to the last delegate’s point, he noted it may be cheaper to outsource recycling. He asserted that at first outsourcing may seem cheaper, but the service is of lesser quality while it increases burnout among staff. He worried that efficiency and savings considerations can miss the importance of quality of work and quality of employee work life. He thought that this focus could result in the university saving a fair amount of money at the expense of quality and retention, which results in a slow but overall degradation.
Womack added that he has seen Facilities shops shrink over the past five years because the university cannot compensate talent enough to keep up with private enterprise. He said that opportunities for lower-paid employees simply are not as appealing as elsewhere, leaving work to be done, nonetheless. He concluded that units must find a way around this situation and have generally chosen to outsource functions. Overall, this situation is resulting in fewer and fewer staffed positions, creating a compounding recursive problem. He worried that sometimes from a budgetary standpoint this situation might appeal when it should be discouraged because outsourcing is a cheaper, but not a better solution.
Knuffman appreciated Womack’s comments. He clarified that the savings and efficiencies item on the priority list before the Forum is driven principally by lease savings and the ability to leverage additional existing resources within the budget to self-fund investments in cyber security. He said that this is the primary subject of discussion in this budget priority.
Nonetheless, he said that Womack was absolutely right to suggest that decision-makers must be mindful of the burden placed on an increasingly few people in certain areas. He said that this burden does not exist the same way across the entire enterprise. Still, the university relies on its process and its ability to evaluate engagements like this through venues like the Employee Forum. He said that discussions as part of the budget process would really create understanding of this burden and its appearance across the enterprise. Moreover, he hoped that as a result of these discussions, the university would work to be mindful of these situations as it considers resource allocation.
Sarah Green asked about the investment in security cameras and its function as part of the state requirement. She asked what precisely the state requirement of these cameras is and further, is the state investing just as heavily in access to affordable housing, food, and health services, including mental health and parking, as she said it is generally known that these later factors contribute more to general safety and security than surveillance measures.
Knuffman said that there is not a state requirement regarding the camera request or the university’s effort to expand the use of cameras. The university had done some benchmarking against peer institutions and other UNC System schools and found that this measure should help with public safety. Again, he noted that there was a request for the state legislature to fund that initiative.
Regarding affordable housing and parking, Knuffman said that the university is prioritizing affordable housing efforts. He said that the university had done a large study this past year which it had reported out some of these results. Knuffman said that the university has not stopped its work on parcels of land under its control and how it might expand the amount of affordable housing available in partnership with the Town of Chapel Hill.
With regard to parking, Knuffman said that the university has just completed a five-year planning effort which the Board of Trustees has just adopted. He said that the largest change in this effort was a reduction in parking costs for the university’s lowest paid employees. Employees earning under $70,000 will mostly see a reduction in cost, and the effort also simplifies pricing points as part of that process. In sum, he thought that the university has tried to focus on these other areas to make improvements.
The Chair thanked Knuffman for his extensive remarks and for his quarterly updates regarding Finance and Operations and the university budget. She presented Knuffman with a Forum pin and said that she would have one for him the next time she saw him in person.
The Chair moved to the Human Resources part of the agenda, welcoming Vice Chancellor for Human Resources, Equal Opportunity, and Enforcement Becci Menghini to present the customary report. The Chair presented Menghini with a pin as well. Menghini wished everyone present well and encouraged all to take leave time this summer if practicable. She noted that not all work situations will allow this break, but she encouraged employees to take the time to rest if is at all possible. She said that one of the few remaining perks of being a state employee is that we still get quite a significant amount of leave time, which is only valuable if it is taken.
Menghini granted that stepping away can be difficult, and sometimes that being away feels more like more work than relief. Still, she noted research that people are better employees when they get a chance to step away from the office. She hoped that listeners feel supported by their leadership in taking this time away. She furthermore hoped that people will have the chance to spend time with family or those whom they care about most deeply, be it through a vacation, a staycation, or even walking out of the office for a bit in the afternoon. She urged people to take that time.
Menghini noted the numerous recent updates on salary ranges she had provided the Forum recently. She did not have a lot to say further on this subject but said that her office is expecting new numbers on the EHRA side in the next couple of weeks. Following this release, the Office of Human Resources (OHR) will have more of an opportunity to study these numbers in comparison to existing ranges and how they work or do not work. She recalled that UNC-Chapel Hill has had delegated authority to set its own ranges based on research, asking that the university go out and do a market assessment.
The university’s last market assessment occurred in 2019 for EPS employees. This delegated authority has been pulled back to the UNC System in exchange for more latitude, a step Menghini saw as a good thing. The UNC System now has authority to set these ranges for every constituent institution, but UNC-Chapel Hill now has in exchange more latitude to take more actions locally, which should help speed things up along the way.
Menghini emphasized that whatever these new ranges are, they will not set the university back from where we were. She shared the good news that UNC-Chapel Hill has a seat at the table with the UNC System Office, which is helpful in understanding the needs of this institution and how it differs from other UNC System institutions. These differences range from the university research space to the size of the place, to the fact that the campus runs based on the work of its staff. Certainly, faculty drive the instructional and research mission of the institution. However, the university needs the full complement of staff to make the organization really work. She was thus confident in the future of budget numbers to reflect staff concerns.
Menghini noted numerous conversations she has held with Knuffman regarding how the financial interest of our employees fits into the university’s longer-range planning. So, she understood that comments about how the budget was portrayed have been conveyed in campus leadership meetings.
She added that the university expects to see an early draft version of legislative increase guidance. The university would not have the authority to roll out a legislative increase until it receives permission from the Legislature, the Office of State Budget Management, and the UNC System Office. Still, Menghini thought it good news that legislative increase guidance is being prepared, although she was not yet privy to the details of this guidance.
Menghini had not heard any further updates with regards to the state’s budget surplus and the possibility of directing this money into state employee salaries. She recalled that this is one-time money, not base money, so raising salaries with this money was less likely than other uses of the surplus. She said that the UNC System Office continues to ask both for salary increases and bonuses in the short term.
Menghini added that OHR is also working on SHRA hiring improvements and how to make faculty hiring a bit faster and more efficient in a positive way, to get the right people here before they accept an offer elsewhere. Menghini also congratulated the ULEAD professional development program participants for their work through the year. She said that the ULEAD program will accept new nominations for its upcoming class later in the year.
Menghini noted that the university celebrated the employees who have hit the 20-year or greater milestone in a recent banquet. She said that the event featured around 230 employees joining the university’s 20-Year Society, a number that seems to grow every year. OHR plans to connect and engage with those who hit milestones in years of service to the university and the state.
Menghini also noted conversations tracking the trajectory of the Board of Trustees’ DEI resolution over the last several months. She believed that the relevant policy is indeed changing. The university awaits guidance on implementation requirements dealing with units to communicate what is done under the title of DEI. She was pleased that the resolution on this subject voiced continued support for student success and employee wellbeing, which are encouraged as part of this effort.
The university is working through a process that identifies what is done in equity and inclusion work falling under student support, under employee engagement, and under other categories. These determinations will position the university to receive guidance and better understand how and in which ways it might adjust to accommodate requirements.
Menghini noted that the UNC-Chapel Hill campus has carried out a great deal of this work already, with recent requirements that change the way that the university accepts and responds to diversity statements. She argued that this change has made the university better as officials are forced to ask better, more articulate questions as opposed to just phrasing general questions like “how do you feel about diversity?” She praised the fact that questions inquiring about specific duties in a candidate’s range of responsibilities and how these skills apply in support of a diverse community relates to diverse experiences and backgrounds.
Menghini said that she and others have initial concerns about the language associated with these changes. However, she noted tremendous opportunities for the campus to identify the things that are most important to the university’s mission and find ways to build community, do the work, and talk about it in ways that align with that mission. She hoped that this process would ensure a cohesive community that honors, respects, and really brings together people of diverse backgrounds and experiences.
She thought that this effort will continue to result in shifts in the way work is done here in the wake of previous changes like the recent Supreme Court case and she expected more of these changes following recent events.
A listener raised a question regarding the employee recognition events which were recently downsized in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic. She asked if Menghini could speak to efforts related to these employee recognition events. Menghini said that OHR is looking to schedule in-person events again. She added that the gift aspect of these events is more challenging. OHR has recently received a quote for food purchases related to the October Employee Appreciation Day which will exceed the total cost for last year’s event, requiring some budgetary decisions.
Menghini said that the general point about employee recognition is well-taken. She said that this recognition is an important part of building community in the organization, particularly here where so many people do such different work in support of a very broad mission. However, looming decisions will require more work in this area.
Another delegate observed that Human Resources does not seem very accessible to staff employees. She reported that others have found Human Resources difficult to navigate and lacking transparency, with a lack of good communication between OHR and upper management. She granted that OHR was probably hurting as much as everyone else as far as staffing goes, but she still said that it is difficult to find anyone to talk with or to get a straight answer on a topic.
Menghini was sorry to hear of these difficulties. She was happy to discuss the specifics of this situation with the questioner. She added that work with Human Resources needs to begin at one’s local level, as central HR is not in a position to manage most of the issues that employees will face.
Menghini realized that the answer that employees receive locally from their HR officials is not always the answer that they want to hear. Still, she encouraged employees to start with either their supervisor, their supervisor’s supervisor, or the Human Resources representative for their unit. When these folks do not know an answer, or they think that one exists that is not as obvious, then they can work with central HR. Menghini said that most of central HR’s work is on transactions moving large processes that are initiated locally, then checked and managed through the central office. Most of HR’s processes are linear, meaning that they start in the unit, are handed off to the central office and then may go up to the UNC System Office, then back down to central HR and eventually the unit.
Menghini added that there must be rules with regard to local authority, so that individual complaints do not go immediately to the UNC System Office. Such a system would not be efficient or in the best interest of people working here. The questioning employee said that she did start out with the supervisor, then went up to the director, then sought to involve the departmental HR manager but said that the process seemed to stop there without any further progress. Menghini said that any complaint emailed to central Human Resources is directed to the right people. She said that what may be occurring is a possible conflict involving the unit not wanting to elevate the complaint. She offered to follow up on the progress of the questioner’s issue through the Human Resources system.
The employee added that her co-workers in Grounds and other Facilities units do not have ready access to computers. Menghini said that Human Resources has worked to ensure that surveys, for example, are translated and are in printed form, and that Facilities employees can obtain one-on-one meetings with Human Resources representatives. She added that if these efforts are not working, a different conversation needs to take place.
Menghini noted that the Administrative Office Building (AOB) is not an open access office whereby one can pop in to discuss a particular question. She said that most of the central Human Resources staff works a hybrid schedule, with a particular process used to determine if a position could work remotely or not. She said that Human Resources tracks how long documents sit with each individual person in an effort to measure productivity of positions, with the possibility of moving a position back into the office.
Menghini said that much of AOB is intentionally under lock and key, as it administers confidential personnel data. Thus, the telephone is the best way to set up meeting times with central HR officials, via appointments. She said that Human Resources would work harder to communicate these meetings and the methods of contact with officials to line employees.
Senior Associate Vice Chancellor for Human Resources Linc Butler added that some specific units are staffed for walk-ins, like the benefits and leave unit, for example. Personnel in this unit are scheduled on a rotational basis so that someone is available to meet with an employee who may walk in. Nonetheless, scheduling an appointment in advance works better than walk-in meetings. Butler added that HR has a representative from the Employee Management Relations team on site every day to address walk-in meetings. I-9 staff also are available for walk-in meetings as well as scheduled appointments. Butler said that the AOB features a reception suite whereby employees can report for appointments there. Still, these areas are generally locked for very good reasons.
The Chair announced that former LGBTQ Director Terri Phoenix had received recognition as an honorary lifetime delegate of the Employee Forum due to work done in service of the university and its employees. Phoenix, on the Zoom call, thanked the Forum for this recognition and felt a bit speechless at the honor. The Chair took a moment to read Phoenix the resolution which the Forum had approved in a recent closed session. https://employeeforum.unc.edu/ef-resolution/resolution-24-03/
The Chair then moved to the election of Forum officers for 2024-25. Matthew Teal and Jacob Womack administered the election, which was held via Qualtrics for Zoom and in-person attendee delegates. Teal generated a QR code for this purpose for delegate use following the speeches from candidates.
As Katie Musgrove was running unopposed for the Chair’s position, she ceded her time to Elizabeth Dubose and Rebecca Howell, who spoke as nominees for the Chair-Elect position. Dubose said that she was thrilled to serve if elected and was always up for challenges in representing staff employees. Howell said that she was very excited to run for this position and had worked to pursue difficult questions with university leadership during her time with the Forum.
Unopposed candidate for Vice Chair Keith Hines said that this would be his last year on the Forum. Moving to the office of Treasurer, Womack asked the candidates to speak in the alphabetical order of first names. Annetta Streater said that she was the Director of Patient Relations at the Adams School of Dentistry, retiring from her dental hygienist clinical position some years ago. Streater cited her work with different organizations, most of which came with fiscal responsibilities like reviewing of financial reports and managing finance campaigns. She appreciated everyone’s support for her candidacy.
Bridget Ironside, the Forum’s current interim Treasurer appointed following the departure of the previous Treasurer, said that she was thrilled to be nominated. She works as an accountant and budget analyst for the Chancellor’s Office and the Office of University Counsel. She has done financial reporting, accounting, and budgetary support for these offices for around seven years. Ironside was pleased to work with Katie Musgrove on the Forum’s budget for the last couple of months, tracking and vetting all of the forms, budgets, expenditures and other Forum initiatives. She appreciated the chance to continue this work.
Mathew Steadman works as a laboratory manager in the behavioral lab core in the School of Nursing. He has been with the university for around seven years in some combination of teaching or research as well as laboratory management. He noted the financial responsibilities of his position, which is revenue supported. He has served as treasurer of the PTA of his children’s school. He would be happy to help if selected.
Matthew Teal described the logistics of voting in the officer elections, noting membership and signature requirements for the ballot. Should no candidate gain a majority of votes in the first round of voting, a run-off election will occur between the two highest vote-getters. Teal then opened the ballots for delegate voting.
While voting was taking place, the Chair called for a vote to approve the meeting’s consent agenda, which included minutes from the May 8th and May 21st meetings. She asked committee chairs to submit their reports via email in the interest of time. This motion was made and approved by acclamation.
The Chair noted that the 2024-25 edition of the Staff Advisory Committee to the Chancellor will meet with Interim Chancellor Roberts on June 12th. The Vice Chancellors’ representatives’ meeting will occur July 11th. The Forum’s annual retreat will take place over two days on July 9th and 10th. The agenda for these meetings would go out soon.
Matthew Teal announced that Katie Musgrove was elected Forum Chair, Keith Hines Forum Vice Chair, Tiffany Carver Forum Secretary. The position of Forum Treasurer would go to a run-off election between Annetta Streater and Mathew Steadman, to occur later that month.
There was a motion to adjourn which was approved by acclamation at 11:37 a.m.
Respectfully submitted, Matt Banks, Recording Secretary