March 14, 2024 Vice Chancellor Representatives’ Meeting Minutes
Attending: David Barnette, Linc Butler, Denise Carter, Shayla Evans-Hollingsworth, Leah Hefner, Keith Hines, James Holman, Linda Holst, Brigitte Ironside, Kira Jones, Nate Knuffman, Arlene Medder, Becci Menghini, Katie Musgrove, Charlissa Rice, Lori Shamblin, James Stamey
Katie Musgrove called the meeting to order at 2:00 p.m. She welcomed Arlene Medder to present the meeting’s first question.
- (Medder) What is the status of the attempts to reduce the repair & maintenance backlog?
Nate Knuffman said that he was very interested in making progress in this area, as the backlog continues to be a priority for the university. He said that the state and the UNC System Office have increased their commitment to address this backlog, with increased funding above historic levels for this work. Knuffman noted that the university had about $66 million+ for projects involving replacement of HVAC, electrical building systems, life safety, and other areas. He added that the university is receiving money for newer buildings or replacements of buildings and that money also can go to address R&R (repair & renovation).
Additionally, UNC-Chapel Hill is using its own internal funding sources to help in this area. The Morehead Chemistry Labs and Bingham Hall renovations are being done with internal funding, Knuffman said. Some classroom accessibility projects are also moving forward with the university’s own dollars. Nonetheless, Knuffman was grateful for the legislature earmarking state money for the university’s construction infrastructure fund.
- (Shore) Since the university doesn’t have a formal “hoteling” policy, how can departments get clarification on process and procedure? I understand that “It is up to the department heads” but despite asking for clarification and waiting for guidance, none has come. How can an employee plan, prepare, and be an effective worker if they do not know how they will work within their space in the coming months?
Where will the work phone of a hoteling employee be located?
How does one reserve a hoteling space?
How does a hoteling employee store print and physical materials and samples needed to complete their job?
Can an employee reserve hoteling spaces months in advance if they know their schedule?
What if there isn’t adequate hoteling space on a day when an employee must be physically in the office?
I don’t need an answer today but affirmation that these things are being considered and a timeline for when I know the answers is critical to performance and positive culture.
Katie Musgrove asked this question in the absence of Audrey Shore. She said that this question presents a mix between Human Resources and Facilities responsibilities. Linc Butler said that there is no centralized policy on this subject and not all places have space that needs to be managed in this way. He said that, to his understanding, these questions are instead managed on a unit-by-unit basis. He advised that an employee should reach out to their unit’s leadership about their plans for managing their space, among the other things listed in this question.
Becci Menghini echoed Butler’s point, stating that she did not think that there are more policy efforts scheduled in this area. She said that the Office of Human Resources (OHR) has spoken with unit leads to ensure that they are being responsive to employee requests and needs. Different units will have different hotel spaces available. She noted that this question had come from the Development Office, which is studying different models moving forward. Development may already have a written policy in place, so Menghini would encourage the employee to work with leadership there.
Musgrove thought that these questions will arise more often as departments deal with space allocation issues. She thought that hoteling considerations will become more common in the future. Keith Hines said that the original questioner indicated that they have received a bit more guidance on their concerns.
Musgrove read the third question of the meeting for Rebecca Howell, who hadn’t yet joined the meeting.
- (Howell) Carolina Next includes two strategic initiatives that are closely related. “Build our Community Together” includes Objectives 1.2 and 1.3, both of which emphasize the importance of diversity, equity, and inclusion. The other strategic initiative is “Globalize” and Objective 7.1 stresses the importance of strengthening global partnerships. How do we, as staff, address questions from partners or potential partners, students and applicants, and potential new hires who view DEI as under attack and devalued in the current political climate and with recent actions of the BOG and General Assembly? How do we (or maybe, do we) assure these different groups that DEI is important and that we, as an institution, truly value and follow our strategic initiatives? Not as an individual (because so many of us truly do value DEI), but as an institution?
Becci Menghini thought that this was a fair question and gave her sense that the university’s values around diversity and inclusion have not changed, although certainly the tactics for realizing the inclusive community desired may have changed and need to change in light of the compelled speech policy telling the university how it can manage diversity statements.
Menghini recalled previous discussions with the Forum that those statements or requirements do not limit the university’s ability to ask or understand how people will bring diverse experiences to the workplace or how a candidate will meet expectations on the job. These expectations will require more specific and targeted questioning on an individualized basis. So again, she thought that the precept of the question was fair but thought that these concerns would not keep the campus from learning about candidates for positions and their ability to do work requiring diverse experiences or the ability to work with diverse populations.
In terms of the university’s student success and other targeted programs, Menghini thought that these areas will require thought about how to ensure under federal rules that they are open to everyone, while still providing experiences that fuel a sense of belonging and inclusion. Providing these experiences will continue to be a challenge and groups like the Employee Forum can help think through these questions and tell these stories.
Menghini said that the effort to build and support a culture that supports all who wish to be here and one that supports people being their fullest, best, and most authentic selves will rely on the contributions of everyone here. Some of this effort will require different language than that used in the past, but she thought that the university will continue building a community and figuring out a way to collectively work together for the good of the institution’s mission. This effort will require all of us and the diversity that we all bring to the table, whether visible or not. She welcomed specific ideas from the Forum if available.
Musgrove thanked Menghini for her summation. She thought that the question was more about when potential future employees ask about Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) concerns and whether or not the institution values these things or shares these concerns in various campus collaborations. She thought perhaps that the question could be better posed to Vice Chancellor Leah Cox, as it seems to be separate from how we hire and more about candidates being concerned about us as an institution.
Lori Shamblin recalled that she had raised the next proposed question about NC State’s Poe Hall at the last Forum general meeting. Katie Musgrove shared that Director of Environment, Health and Safety Catherine Brennan has agreed to provide remarks on this subject to the Forum at its April general meeting. Thus, the meeting was able to skip Question 4.
Arlene Medder asked the fifth question of the meeting.
- (Medder) If enough has been done to do an evaluation, what is the status of the trade apprenticeship program?
Nate Knuffman said that leaders in his area were excited about the apprenticeship program, noting that there were now two approved apprenticeship programs in Building Services, one for Carpentry and one for Fire Alarms. He said that the Carpentry position has been posted and the Fire Alarm Technician position should be posted in April. The goal is to fill both positions by early summer. Knuffman noted the collaborative nature of the apprenticeship between UNC and local area community colleges.
Medder said that she did not know if there had been enough time to evaluate the program’s progress. Knuffman said that the university is on the path of implementing the program and would be able to provide more information evaluating progress later on. Musgrove recalled that the Forum had brought up this idea to former Chancellor Folt in 2015 or 2016. She was pleased that this idea had come to fruition finally, and she appreciated all who have been involved in getting the program started.
Musgrove read the next question in the absence of the original questioner, James Stamey.
- (Stamey) Will EHRA employment be forced upon or extended to employees who exceed a certain salary? Example: $70,000
Linc Butler responded that the answer to this question is ‘no.’ Whether or not employees are offered the opportunity to move to EHRA is based on the fair labor standards act exemption status of their position. Employees who are non-exempt will not have an opportunity to move over to EHRA status. Positions exempt under the FLSA will have the chance to choose either to convert or to remain in SHRA status. As these FLSA exempt positions become vacant, they will convert to EHRA before they post.
Musgrove asked if the university would have details on the new EHRA salary bands that are being developed by the state and UNC System Office when these conversions occur. Butler said that Human Resources officials around the UNC System have been insistent that EHRA ranges be updated in order that employees considering conversion can make a fully informed decision. Butler said that the UNC System Office has been very responsive to this feedback.
Leah Hefner asked the next two questions of the meeting.
- (Hefner) Regarding SHRA pay bands, when a department hires a new employee, do they have to hire them at the minimum rate for their respective Contributing, Journey, or Advanced band? When does the Minimum salary below the Contributing minimum come into play? If an employee is not working a full 40-hour week? If the department does not have the funding to hire someone at the minimum for their band? If the employee does not meet all of the necessary or preferred qualifications for the position? Along the same lines, when Becci mentioned at a recent general Forum meeting that many UNC-CH SHRA employees were earning salaries on the high end of their range (100%-110%), was this mostly a result of annual/biennial raises from the State? Or, do some departments hire employees at the higher end of the ranges from the start? It seems like the only way to get to 110% is through raises from the state, because the University cannot increase pay above the maximum for each range?
Linc Butler said that the minimum of the range is considered the actual minimum for all positions in a particular classification. So, the goal is to not hire someone below that minimum. He recalled discussions of a handful of employees who, because of the recent range updates, are now below the minimum. Departments are not compelled to move these employees up to the minimum, but OHR is asking that they treat them as priority to get at least to that level and perhaps even higher into the salary band if possible.
So, there are no separate minimums or hard minimums for each of the levels of contributing, journey, or advance level. Butler said that OHR strongly advises units not to pay below the next lowest competency market rate. So, if a department has a prospective employee being hired into a journey-level position, OHR is telling units to not offer a salary below the contributing market rate.
Hefner asked when the minimum salary below the contributing minimum comes into play. He said that no employee may be hired below the minimum for their salary range. However, an employee not working a full 40 hours a week has their salary calculated for a full-time employee salary for that position. For example, a 20 hours/week position will receive .5 FTE.
Butler said that an administrative support specialist journey making $22,000/year as an annual base salary at 20 hours/week would earn $44,000/year at their full-time equivalent. This figure would be above the minimum of their range. In these cases, OHR uses these figures to calculate their market index or percent of market rate as well as whether or not they actually are above the minimum of their range.
If a department does not have the funding to hire someone at the minimum for their band (a very rare situation), OHR will work with that department to modify the position to the level of job that they can support with their budget. This process usually occurs prior to posting. Usually, a department has worked out their funding before posting a position, to ensure that department can pay competitively within the market rate that is assigned to that classification. If a position does not meet all of the necessary preferred qualifications from the position, required competency level is one of the pay factors involved. (Appropriate market rate and internal equity are the other two factors.)
Thus, when an employee applies for a posting, there are usually required and preferred qualifications. ‘Required’ qualifications mean what must be met in order to minimally qualify for a job. ‘Preferred’ qualifications are usually what are reviewed to determine the most qualified pool for the hire.
Hefner asked how OHR calculates the percentage of market index. Butler said that is found by taking the salary of an individual and dividing it by the position’s assigned market rate. A journey position would have their base salary divided by the journey market rate to calculate a percentage that is their market rate index.
Hefner asked how often a market rate may change. Butler recalled that this recent effort had led to changes, but the last time these rates changed was ten years or so ago. Butler said that the UNC System Office is committing to a much more regular schedule of reviewing market rates, doing more regular market surveys to ensure that these rates do not go stale for ten years again.
Hefner asked if the market rate number is at the highest number in the range or in the middle of the range. Butler said that for SHRA positions, there are essentially three market reference rates. A minimum, which is a hard minimum; a maximum which is a hard maximum, but with the exception that a legislative increase could typically allow salaries to exceed the maximum in that case; and then within the range, there are three market points: contributing, journey, and advanced. Much depends on the classification of the position.
Musgrove observed that the range of these market points is plus or minus 10% of the reference rate. Butler said that this guideline is called the ‘halo,’ which is exactly what Musgrove described plus or minus 10% around the market rate. He said that area is where the university should pay in. Still, funding has a role to play in this determination as well.
Hefner recalled the second half of her question, referring to employees earning at the higher end of their ranges, perhaps 100% or even 110%. She asked if this occurrence is mostly the result of annual raises from the state, or departments hiring employees at the higher end of the ranges from the start. She understood that the only way to earn 110% of market range is through raises from the state, as the university cannot increase pay above the maximum for each range.
Butler said that annual state increases are not the only factor in these higher salary ranges. He said that usually a combination between legislative increases and unit-initiated salary improvement efforts through which a unit could request additional duties or other reasons could impact salary resulting in these higher rates. Universities have a lot of discretion to make these kinds of decisions. When a position goes above 110% of the market rate that is typically when the decision goes to the UNC System Office for additional approvals, with typically very strong justifications required. Some departments hire at the higher end of the ranges from the start sometimes, depending on what the job is and their funding sources are. In these cases, OHR might see this position only occasionally and the only way for it to get to 110% is to raise it from the state. So, these salaries are a combination of unit-driven increases plus legislative increases.
Hefner restated her understanding that one could go above the maximum for a position’s salary range, pending additional approval from the state that is very difficult to accomplish. Butler added that additional approval is needed to earn above 110% of the market rate, which he would not call the maximum rate for that position. Again, this step would require significant justification to accomplish, and with the new ranges, this justification will be harder to claim.
Hefner shared the last written question of the meeting.
- (Hefner) At the December general Forum meeting, Becci mentioned that when EHRA employees become EPS, they will have to “use or lose” their annual/vacation leave. Does this mean their unused leave at the end of the year will no longer roll over to sick leave? Or, just that they will not be paid out for annual/vacation leave when they retire from, or leave, the University?
Butler said that this depiction of the system was essentially correct, however in this understanding it would only apply to newly hired employees into EPS positions. There is yet to be a date established when that will occur, however the UNC System Office will likely control this schedule. Anyone hired on or after that date would be subject to the new policy. Everyone hired before that date would still be subject to the current policies in place. Those people would still have the option to roll over vacation and sick leave and still receive payoffs upon separation from the university. However, it is likely that these employees will also receive the chance to convert into the new policy if they choose. Butler confessed that he was a bit baffled why someone would choose to do that, but these are the current rules.
Thus, vacation will not roll over into sick leave for the newly hired EPS employees. If these employees have unused leave at the end of the year, there will be no rollover option. Becci Menghini clarified that there is a small rollover option in the current version, but one cannot receive pay for this option. Six or twelve days maximum are simply days that can roll over into a second vacation option, but none of this will be paid out in sick leave. Again, Menghini said, this new system will apply only for new hires, an era which she understood would begin in early 2025.
Rebecca Howell noted the challenges for the state in remaining competitive with private salaries and thought this new policy provides yet another hurdle in the university’s ability to recruit and retain employees. To her, it seems like one more reason not to work as a state employee. Butler appreciated the feedback, and said that OHR has shared its own concerns. Butler thought that this policy does seem to be a cost-saving measure at the end of the day. He thought that the university has a little over $8 million in leave liability on the books. Menghini shared that she had concerns about the way this policy was rolled out and its impact, although many people starting work do not think about a payout option for when they leave. She thought that the idea that this payout option is a driver in hiring is overstated, but she wondered about what it will take to implement this new system and what it means to have more people touching the various parts of this process.
Menghini worried that the new system represents one more differentiation between employee types doing the same type of work. This situation runs the risk of the campus communicating bad information on this subject to newly hired employees. She said that UNC OHR communicated to the UNC System Office that the cost savings resulting from this change represents little more than a movement of expenses over to internal HR shops as opposed to the core. She would keep the Forum apprised as to a final confirmed date of the new policy’s implementation and would continue to pass on feedback.
Howell said that while hiring may not be as big a factor as previously thought, she said that retention issues remain She said that the new payroll system represents one less reason to stick with the system in tough times. She noted the 5-7 years without a pay raise in the late 90s and early 2000s that she could endure because of having something to look forward to in the long term. She also thought that claims of cost savings were a little short-sighted. She thought that the new procedure diminishes the value of the individual employee, saying that she is not as valuable as perhaps she was upon hiring in 1998. She saw herself as contributing to the functioning of the UNC system and looked forward to the benefits of this service. She thought that the cost savings model devalues the significant contributions that employees make to the state. She was concerned in terms of how to move forward and convey the importance of state employees given this new policy.
Musgrove added that $8 million in leave liability is only a drop in the bucket compared to the surplus of the state as a whole. She saw this process as another example of finding cost savings at the expense of the state’s staff employees.
Arlene Medder asked about a rumor that there are serious problems with tree roots in the drains surrounding the Pit. She asked if anyone could confirm this and asked if anyone knew of the plans to replace the drains, if damaged.
Nate Knuffman said that he would look into this question. He said that the university does have a project looking at addressing some water issues in the Pit in which water will sit for long periods of time, creating safety and appearance concerns. He said that this has been a longstanding issue.
Medder asked that any plans to resolve this issue include plans for shading the Pit, because the bricks there grow very hot in the summertime. Knuffman said that this point was helpful and he would mention it to the team. He understood that the team is trying to be really thoughtful about this concern as the Pit area is such a valuable space, almost the heartbeat of campus.
Musgrove thanked all of the Vice Chancellors and their representatives, as well as the Forum delegates present, for their work and partnership in advocating for staff and addressing some of the campus’ pain points.
In the absence of further discussion, the meeting adjourned by acclamation at 2:36 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Matt Banks, Recording Secretary