Skip to main content


March 3, 1999

Delagates Present Forrest Aiken Brenda Ambrose-Fortune Betty Averette
Martha Barbour Terry Barker Maxcine Barnes Linwood Blalock
Connie Boyce Mary Braxton Denise Childress Jean Coble
Linda Drake Kathy Dutton James Evans Monisia Farrington
Linda Ford Linwood Futrelle Karen Geer Sherry Graham
Dorothy Grant LaEula Joyner Joanne Kucharski Ruthie Lawson
Bobbie Lesane Denise Mabe Jill Mayer Eileen McGrath
Ken Perry Vicki Pineles Lynn Ray Rickey Robinson
Jane Stine Cindy Stone Diane Strong Robert Thoma
Verdell Williams Carol Worrell Laurie Charest = Ex-Officio

Delagates Absent Peggy Berryhill Kim Gardner Lorrie Hall
Michael Hawkins Charlotte Kilpatrick Janice Lee Ken Litowsky
Dee Dee Massey Terry Teer

Alternates Present

Peter Landstrom

Guests Pete Andrews Eric Ferreri Jackie Overton
Scott Ragland Nora Robbins Cheryl Stout Jim Ramsey
Joe Wall


Call to Order, Welcome to Guests

Chair Jane Stine called the meeting to order at 9:30 a.m. She welcomed special guests Laurie Charest, Cheryl Stout, and Jackie Overton, among others, and members of the press. She then introduced Vice Chancellor of Administration Jim Ramsey to make opening remarks.

Ramsey reported that Governor Hunt had released his budget recommendations within a day or two of the Forum’s February 3 meeting. While there had been a lot of press coverage on the recommendations, Ramsey would take a moment to review the items that concern the University.

First, the recommendations designate a .5% base budget cut for higher education. Many observers had foreseen a much larger base budget cut, of up to five percent. This smaller cut still represents a $1.7 million loss for this campus, equal to the cuts that the University had already experienced in the span of control study. Ramsey said that the University would need to consider carefully how to deal with these cuts if they are approved by the General Assembly. In addition, the General Assembly might find it necessary to recommend cuts to the University’s continuation budget as well as the base budget.

The continuation budget allows the University to keep its doors open; it funds utilities, fringe benefits, and workers’ compensation. As the weather this winter has been unseasonably warm, the University has saved some money from its utilities lie item, which typically is reallocated to other areas. (Ramsey noted that the University co-generation plant compares price quotes with Duke Power to decide whether to produce electricity.) However, projected continuation cuts might hit the University for over $1 million, which will affect the University’s room to maneuver if enacted. Associate Vice Chancellor Roger Patterson has put together a statement for General Assembly on this subject.

The third item for concern are the proposed cuts in the repair and renovation budget. As a result of various State liabilities such as the Bailey case, in addition to other one-time expenditures, the State has been forced to outline several different options to achieve a balanced budget. One option put forth by the Governor was to reallocate some of the $13 million appropriated for buildings repairs and renovations. However, Jeff Davies of General Administration has been to Raleigh to talk about the importance of this year’s repair and renovation budget to the teaching of classes. The University has also sent a letter to President Broad noting the importance of this budget to its operations. Happily, the Governor’s Office has recent reconsidered this action, and will not cut the repair and renovation budget for University buildings.

The Governor’s expansion budget proposes a 3% recurring increase for SPA Employees, with an additional .5% non-recurring bonus. Ramsey said that this raise was not as much as is needed for the University to remain competitive for workers. The EPA non-faculty and faculty budget will present a 3% recurring increase and a 2% recurring reward for teaching excellence. Ramsey emphasized that increasing staff salaries is a priority for the University.

Ramsey suggested that the Forum invite Evelyn Hawthorne from Matt Kupec’s office to talk about the legislative process. He praised Hawthorne’s work with the General Assembly to get the repair and renovation monies distributed to campus.

Campus projects continue to move forward. Adam Gross has acted to move the campus precinct studies full speed ahead. Ramsey had met with Gross the previous day and found that Gross’ plans have moved from conceptual to the very detailed, such as the placement of various buildings and parking garages. Gross has met with as many people as possible, and Ramsey encouraged Forum members to take an active role in discussions.

Concerning the Horace Williams tract, not much has occurred since the planning stages. The Chancellor continues to receive campus input, and the planning committee will start its review of comments in the next weeks. Forum Chair Jane Stine has been appointed to the committee as well as two students.

The Board of Governors held a workshop in February in which several options were discussed to deal with enrollment growth. The Board elected to discuss these options with campuses and put them on the table for its March 18-19 meeting in Raleigh. Ramsey recalled that the UNC-Chapel Hill Board of Trustees had endorsed a plan to grow by 6,000 students over the next ten years, provided the University receives the funding necessary to permit such growth. Another option is for the University to grow by 3,200 students. The Board of Governors will discuss these options at its March meeting.

Ramsey noted that there had been some new issues raised concerning campus parking and transportation. He had asked Cheryl Stout of Public Safety to clarify some items recently reported in the University Gazette.

Stout said that there had been some concern on the use of bus transit passes for park and ride users. She said that bus transit passes were free for park and ride users, and had been distributed as new users signed up for the park and ride lots. However, given the number of commuters who want to use the park and ride lots, the University has had to limit the number of free bus passes so that enough are available for the returning student population.

Public Safety brought a plan to deal with this problem to the Transportation and Parking Advisory Committee (TPAC), a group composed of faculty, staff and student representatives. In order to preserve equity, Stout’s recommendation was to distribute the free bus passes based on the overall population of campus commuters. Stout’s figures showed that 82% of all campus commuters are staff and faculty, and 18% are students.

Furthermore, Employees have had 442 ‘P’ permits printed for their use, but have only used between 150-200 of these permits. Finally, there should be less demand for park & ride permits among Employees in the coming year as the 500 spaces in the Health Affairs 2 parking lot will soon come on line. These spaces, added with the spaces recouped when the construction sites are cleared, mean that there will be around 900 additional spaces in the coming year. All of these reasons contributed to the decision to change the distribution of free bus passes for the park and ride lots.

Stout noted that the only price increases for campus parking are those fixed from the previous year. These will be used to bring up maintenance on the surface lots.

Linwood Futrelle asked for how much longer the University will be able to rely on the park and ride spaces in the Carrboro Plaza. Stout said that the University is investigating building a lot on land behind the Plaza. Carrboro Plaza owners have made it clear that they want the commuter population out of their parking lots. The University has had 125 free bus passes to distribute among the 200 commuters using the Carrboro Plaza lot, which abuts a very high demand area (Highway 54 West). Public Safety hopes to gradually move commuters into a University-owned lot across from Carrboro Plaza.

Robert Thoma said that he had been denied a free bus permit while parking in the R1 lot. Stout clarified that the free bus passes are meant to subsidize park and ride expenses for those needing to use park and ride to get to work. The University will not pay for a permit for those parking in the lot adjacent to their workplace.

LaEula Joyner said that she often has difficulty finding a spot in her gated lot near Swain Hall. She said that students often park overnight in the lot, and she wondered how often officers come through the lot to ticket latecomers. Stout said that she would find out this information through parking enforcement managers. She added that if Joyner or any other Employee is unable to find a spot in their gated lot, they can find an enforcement dispatch number that will allow them to park in a campus overflow area. Usually, Public Safety designates when special days are when Employees can anticipate problems finding parking, such as student moving day. However, Joyner said that she had experienced this problem up to twice a week.

An Employee asked how the waiting list for parking permits worked. Dee Dee Massey said that Public Safety reissues passes based on permit cancellations. Stout said that there had been very few bus pass cancellations, probably because there was no monetary value for canceling these passes.

Mary Braxton recalled a question about the use of the UNC One Cards to enter certain gated lots versus gate cards. She asked whether anyone will be able to use a UNC One Card to get into a gated lot. Stout said that only those One Cards that have information downloaded into the appropriate gate will have access to the lot; all others will not have access.

Stout confirmed that the Health Affairs 1 lot will hopefully open around March 22, and the Health Affairs 2 lot should open with luck in early April. She said that the changeover will present some difficulty as it occurs in midyear, but Public Safety will let subscribers know a date as soon as possible. She acknowledged that the construction had been very difficult for everyone involved. Robert Thoma asked if the white cards for service staff will still be able to access gated lots. Stout said that she understood that the white cards will still work until the cards are all transferred out. Thoma should contact Ruth Williams of Public Safety for more information on the status of these cards.

Mary Braxton noted that Employees parking in the SG gated lot will not go into the deck like the S7 Employees will. Stout said that the reason that S7 Employees will use the deck this year is that these Employees were displaced during the deck’s construction. S7 permit holders have faced a hassle all year in the wake of construction, and Public Safety will allow them deck parking for the remainder of the year as compensation. However, next year Public Safety will allocate these spaces out as ‘PD’ permits. Stout said that the SG lot was taken out of circulation the year before, but the S7 lot was removed only this year.

The Chair thanked Stout for her time and responses. Ramsey noted that Laurie Charest will address health insurance concerns and the automatic check deposit policy in her Human Resources Update. The Chair thanked Ramsey for his comments.

There were no Employee presentations or special presentations. The Chair asked members with ideas to share these with her.

Human Resources Update

The Chair introduced Associate Vice Chancellor for Human Resources Laurie Charest to present the customary Human Resources update. Charest recalled an item forwarded from the Forum Office concerning the tuition waiver program and its use for on-line courses. She noted that the tuition waiver program allows Employees to take one course during the year for free, but that this benefit does not extend to summer school or on-line courses. Charest said that the reason that on-line courses are not subject to the tuition exemption is because of the method which these courses are funded. Charest has discussed this issue with General Administration, and understood that General Administration will re-explore the issue. She would let the Forum know if there were any changes in the policy.

Another Employee question is whether the University will ever match 403(b) contributions in the same way that it matches State Retirement contributions. Charest said that only the Legislature has the authority to enact this proposal, as it is responsible for Employee compensation matters. She noted that only teachers and University Employees are eligible for 403(b) plans, while other State Employees use 401(k) plans. She said that the State provides matches with the State retirement plan which offers a sound retirement program. The State allows its Employees to participate in these other plans because they provide retirement savings to Employees with tax benefits. However, the State retirement plan is usually the primary retirement vehicle and any change in the plan would need to be done Statewide. In sum, Charest did not think it would be likely that the University would match the 403(b) program, as the State plan is seen as the primary engine for State retirement savings.

On the subject of 403(b) plans, Charest said that there had been changes which should have a minimal effect on most Employees. 403(b) plans are very highly regulated to make sure that they are in compliance with federal statues, and the University has asked its vendors to sign a contract stating that it business practices are in compliance with federal regulations on 403(b) plans. Of the 44 contracts sent to vendors giving them the opportunity to review in advance, twelve companies have signed the contract, nine have asked to modify it, and only one has refused to sign the contract. The University has not heard back from twenty-two of its vendors. Employees are affected by this change only if their present company refuse to sign the contract, and then only future contributions will be affected. No one will be asked to move their money that is already placed with a vendor. What this change means is that the University will not make future contributions to those Employees which have refused to sign the contract. Most Employees will not be affected at all, and in fact, should be careful when moving funds from a 403(b) program, since such movement can be costly to do.

The Forum will receive word when these communications are complete. In addition, the University places no limit of the number of agents working across campus, and only asks companies to designate agents and insure that their agents follow the University’s solicitation guidelines. Charest said that she and Nora Robbins would be happy to answer any questions on this subject.

With regard to health insurance costs, Charest noted that the Governor’s budgetary proposal specifies a 35% increase in costs on top of another 35% increase next year. It is not known how the State will cover this increase, but thought that the State will cover the Employee share of these increases. (Currently, the State covers 100% of the Employee share of coverage under the State plan). However, it is not know what the General Assembly will do concerning individual coverage.

Employee dependent coverage will almost certainly rise, by as much as $75 a month for families. This increase will become an issue for Employees who already cannot afford to cover families with health insurance.

Charest passed out a data sheet depicting the average Employee salaries at each of the 16 System institutions, and the average percentage at or below the midpoint of their salary range. In compensation theory, the midpoint is seen as what an Employee should earn if they have fully learned and are fully performing their job. The traditional problem in the University salary structure has been the lack of in-range movement. However, in recent years, the University has been able to produce in-range movement through the aggressive use of the in-range salary adjustment program.

As a result of this program, 35% of all Employees are at or below the midpoint of their salary range, compared to 65% two years ago. Charest thought that this figure represented a great commitment to staff salaries on the part of the University. Furthermore, she thought that the comparative data make a great argument for geographic pay, as the same salary ranges do not seem to apply across the State. Charest offered to discuss this information further when the Forum had time.


Campus mediation training is underway, and the University is now training panel chairs and grievance procedures as well. There are a few additional slots available for these positions, and interested Employees should contact the Counseling Service if interested in attending. Five slots remain in the Support Training Workshop.

Human Resources is in the process of wrapping up training for the Human Resources Information System (HRIS) in AIS, Arts & Sciences Office, ATN, Dermatology, Epidemiology, Facilities Services, Physiology, and Medical School Administration These pilot departments will begin parallel training of the system later in March. Kathy Dutton has coordinated this training, which will soon start in its second round of departments.

The Office of State Personnel (OSP) in its presentation to the Legislature outlined its priorities for the year. Ron Penny, director of OSP, said that the Office will seek to fund the comprehensive compensation pay plan and to eliminate the sunset on the North Carolina Flex plan. The North Carolina Flex plan authorization runs out this year. Charest was encouraged that OSP had emphasized to the Legislature the need to recognize performance in State pay schemes.

The Carolina Kids’ Camp placement lottery will take place Friday, March 3 at 5:30 p.m. Human Resources plans to send out letters of notification to applicants by March 27.

Charest will be one of the judges in the HEELS for Health healthy recipe contest. She hoped that Employees would enter their recipes in the contest.

Employees will receive their benefits statements in early April. Charest stressed the importance of knowing and understanding their benefits statements, and to make changes and corrections. Employees who need clarifications or to make corrections in their benefits statement should contact the Benefits Office.

The Benefits department, along with TIAA-Cref, will present a financial education seminar for women March 25 at 2-3 p.m. in 1301 McGavarn-Greenberg. No pre-registration is required. In addition, Benefits will hold the 1.5 hour class, “A Baby, What to do about Benefits” Monday, March 15 from 12-1:30 p.m. in Room 102, 725 Airport Road.

TIAA-Cref representatives continue to be available to Employees for individual meetings who are participating in the optional retirement plan, who contribute to a 403(b) supplemental plan, or wish to start such a plan. Representatives will be in the Benefits Office March 16-17. Employees can schedule an appointment at 1-800-842-2003.

Betty Averette noted the new law which has created a health insurance program for lower-income families with children. She thought it would be a good idea to promote this program to Employees who might qualify due to their limited income. Charest noted that the University does not have records stating which Employees have children, and recalled that the new law is based on household, not individual income. The University had held workshops on this program last fall, and has informed new Employees of this plan at their initial orientation. More information is available at Employee services and benefits. Charest said that the program had drawn a lot of interest from Employees and the University had done its best to encourage this interest. She encouraged Employees who believe they might be eligible to obtain more information about the program.

Employees desiring more information about the University’s elder caregiver series should contact Nora Robbins.

Charest noted a memorandum from University Controller Dennis Press stating that all new Employees will need to receive their paychecks via direct deposit as of July 1. While this proposal will affect new Employees only, the University encourages all Employees to use the direct deposit feature if desired.

The new policy will apply to working students and temporary Employees. The Chair reported that she had received some questions about the new proposal as it relates to student workers and lower-income Employees. She planned to discuss these concerns with Associate Vice Chancellor for Finance Roger Patterson in the next month.

Jean Coble said that research assistants who work two and three hours a week may be adversely affected by the direct deposit requirement. Other Employees might have suspicions about setting up a bank account. Martha Barbour asked if Employees would have a chance to provide their feedback on the proposal.

Members noted that an internal audit of University financial practices had recommended direct deposit of Employee paychecks, given the difficulties of handing out paychecks for a campus this large. It was noted also that other State agencies require their Employees to use direct deposit and have found the practice to be beneficial. Nonetheless, the Chair noted the concerns raised by Employee constituents, and said that the Forum would raise these concerns with administration officials. She thought that the administration might use this feedback to tweak its program to function more efficiently.

Coble added that she was not complaining about the program, as it had been a godsend in her experience. She noted many complaints that direct deposit was not available to student assistants. Connie Boyce added that when an Employee leaves the University, typically their last paycheck is not direct deposited.

The Chair proposed inviting Patterson and Press to the Forum’s April 7 meeting to discuss these concerns. The Forum approved this idea.

The Chair thanked Charest for her remarks.

Approval of the Minutes

The Chair called for a motion to approve the minutes of the February 3, 1999 meeting. Linwood Futrelle made this motion, seconded by Cindy Stone. Stone noted that she had been incorrectly listed as absent at the meeting, and Eileen McGrath said that she had been incorrectly counted as present. It was also noted that the first paragraph of the Human Resources Update on page 4 should read, “… Laurie Charest reported that Laurie Kellison has news on an Elder Care Fair….”

Denise Childress said that on page 6 the meeting place for the University Committee Assignments Committee should be listed as 105 Hanes Hall. Martha Barbour also noted that she had not been present at the meeting and so could not have made the comments attributed to her on page 6. Delegates from the Health Affairs side of campus reported that they had not received their packets in time for the day’s meeting. Forum Assistant Matt Banks pledged to mail the packets sooner.

In the absence of further corrections, the Forum approved the minutes as amended.

Unfinished Business

The Chair called for further comments on possible uses of the Horace Williams tract. She directed members to a first draft of the Forum’s response which was based on discussion at the February 3 meeting, along with additional comments from the Executive Committee. She asked for further comments from the Forum on the use of the tract.

The Chair took a straw poll of delegate sentiment about uses of the tract. The informal poll showed that around six Delegates supported using the tract for additional parking, five Delegates favored using the tract to add to affordable housing, two Delegates favored turning the tract into a freshman campus, and no Delegates stated a preference for using the tract as a medical research area or for academic use.

In the absence of further discussion, the Chair called for a motion for the Forum to submit the document to the Chancellor and the Horace Williams tract planning committee in its current form. Linda Drake made this motion, seconded by Maxcine Barnes. The motion carried without opposition.

The Chair noted that the Forum had received recommendations to revise the criteria for its Community Award (Three Legged Stool) from the 1998 Executive Committee. The 1999 Executive Committee had moved to submit the recommendations to the full Forum for approval and enactment. The Chair thus called for a motion to adopt these criteria as written. Linwood Futrelle made this motion, seconded by LaEula Joyner. In the absence of discussion, the Forum adopted the motion by acclamation.

The Chair reported that committee vacancies were gradually improving. She said that the Communications and Employee Presentations committees needed the most help at this point.

New Business

The Chair submitted Lynn Ray’s name as her nomination for Forum Secretary, replacing Jennifer Henderson. The Chair said that Ray was unable to join the Forum that day but had stated her commitment to the position and to the Forum. She called for a motion to ratify Ray’s selection, as required by the Forum Guidelines. Karen Geer made this motion, seconded by Rickey Robinson. In the absence of further discussion, the Forum approved Ray’s appointment unanimously.

The Chair noted that the Forum has been offered a chance to submit projects on behalf of staff for the upcoming billion dollar campus campaign. She noted one proposal that the University construct a building devoted to staff development and retraining, possibly to be located on the Horace Williams tract. Linwood Futrelle noted that the deadline for proposals had recently passed, but that the Forum could still enter its proposals in the form of case statements into the process. He advised that the Forum contact the Development Office for advice on putting together a case statement.

Regarding the proposal itself, Futrelle encouraged the Forum to seek an expansion of the Staff Development fund. He noted that the Fund had been the source of the Forum’s creation of the career counselor position and the audio-visual training library, and could serve as the basis for other accomplishments by the Forum and the University. In addition, the Forum itself has had the power to make recommendations about the use of this fund. The Chair agreed to construct a case statement with the help of the Forum Office.

Chair’s Report

The Chair announced that the Forum’s April 7 meeting had been moved to Room 136 of the Tate Turner Kuralt Auditorium due to difficulties in reserving the Wilson Library Assembly Room.

The Chair noted that the FASTOC pilot has been extended. The FASTOC system is designed to serve Employees and faculty who desire to have a service performed but do not know whom to call. The service has been available to only a few departments, but had thus far proved rather successful. At this point, Forum Delagates are invited to use the service to expedite needed repairs and other improvements. The Chair noted that Ann Dodd, the Director for Quality Improvement, had spearheaded this program, which had thus far not found permanent funding.

Laurie Charest’s white paper detailing the impact of the span of control study on University operations was included in the Forum’s routing file, and is available from the Forum Office (962-3779 or The Chair thought the paper had done a good job in capturing the difficulties that the study’s dictates had imposed on the campus.

Associate Vice Chancellor for Finance Roger Patterson is due to address the Forum Executive Committee’s next meeting on the topic of University financial matters, particularly how budgets are established and allocated. This meeting will be particularly valuable given Erika Phillips’ resignation from the University Career Counselor position to pursue other opportunities at the University.

The Executive Committee is working to arrange joint meetings with the Faculty Council Executive Committee and the leadership of the North Carolina State Staff Senate. A meeting with the latter group is tentatively scheduled for April 9 in Raleigh.

The Chair has met with Provost Richardson, Associate Provost Marsha Collins, and State Employees’ Association of North Carolina (SEANC) representatives to discuss campus women’s issues and the implementation of the Chancellor’s Task Force report on Women’s Issues.

Committee Reports

Cindy Stone reported that the Career Development Committee had met Monday April 5, and was joined by Bob Schreiner, the committee’s 1998 chair. The group discuss continuing activities. In addition, Joanne Kucharski was selected as committee chair and Bobbie Lesane as committee co-chair [following the meeting, Kucharski was forced to resign as committee chair, and Lesane assumed the chair’s post]. The committee is scheduled to meet again Wednesday, March 24, at 10 a.m. in 202 Carr.

There was no report from the Communications Committee.

Vicki Pineles, chair of the Employee Presentations Committee, reported the group had met to discuss topics and dates for the spring and fall community meetings. She hoped to make an announcement concerning the spring community meeting at the April 7 meeting.

Neither the Nominating or Orientation Committees met in February.

Martha Barbour, chair of the Personnel Issues Committee, urged the Forum to read that group’s minutes. She said that Peter Schledorn was busy writing a program to tabulate the results of the SPA exempt survey, and hoped that the results of the survey could be announced soon. She had heard from several other Employees who wanted to join the committee, bringing the group’s number to around 30. The committee has several other issues which it will raise with the Forum in the coming months.

Betty Averette, chair of the Recognition & Awards Committee, reported the group had met February 9 and had appointed Ruthie Lawson as committee co-chair and Maxcine Barnes as committee secretary. Averette noted that there are still departments that do not have recognition and award programs for their Employees. The committee plans to identify these departments and speak with the appropriate officials to facilitate creation of these programs. The group will meet the second Tuesday of every month from 8:30-9:30 a.m. in Room 303 of the Tate Turner Kuralt building.

Denise Childress, chair of the University Committee Assignments Committee, noted an article the committee had placed in the February 24 issue of the University Gazette seeking Employees to serve on various committees. She had received a couple of responses from the article. In addition, the committee plans to write a form letter to University committee chairs seeking basic information about committee responsibilities for the benefit of possible nominees. The group will meet again March 16 at 10 a.m. in 105 Hanes Hall.

Task Force Reports

The Chair referred members to a copy of the annual report of the Buildings & Grounds committee which was enclosed in the Forum routing file. She noted that the intellectual climate task force had moved into the implementation phase of the report. Finally, the Chair had been unable to attend the recent meeting of the master plan steering team due to illness, but she planned to catch up with Linda Convissor to obtain more information.

Ann Hamner of the University Outsourcing Steering Team reported that group had heard a presentation from Director of Institutional Research Tim Sanford on the University’s records storage procedures. The University had been charged to investigate prospects for outsourcing its in-house records storage program. She noted that there is currently a proposal to build a records storage center to store relevant materials for as long as necessary before trashing or archiving.

The Team decided that outsourcing this function at this time would interrupt the process of deciding about its archives, which are currently stored in a Durham warehouse. (The proposed records center would span approximately 45,000 square feet, and would contain facilities for storing electronic information.) As a result, the Team recommended that this function not be outsourced.

At its next meeting, Monday, April 12 from 9-12 p.m. in 208 Student Union, the Team will begin hearing presentation on printing services and housekeeping for residence halls. The Team expects a large turnout for this meeting and subsequent hearings.

Betty Averette reported that the Transportation and Parking Advisory Committee (TPAC) had discussed the sliding scale idea for campus parking fees. Last year’s task force had discussed this idea and had particularly accented the costs involved in implementing these costs through the payroll system.

TPAC has asked if the Employee Forum wants to do a survey of campus sentiment on the sliding scale issue. If Employee feeling is against the issue, the campus presumably will not need to go forward. Public Safety has offered to provide input into the creation of such a survey if the Forum is interested.

Averette noted that TPAC would not convene again until May or June. She also said that TPAC meeting minutes would be included in the Forum’s routing file.

The Chair added that the Executive Committee had discussed the sliding scale idea and its various sides. She noted additional concern that a sliding scale may fail to generate enough revenue for the department to subsidize needed programs like the campus park and ride.

The Chair reported that the University Priorities and Budget Committee had held its weekly meeting and discussed its future goals and work.

The Chair had spoken with Pete Andrews, Chair of the Faculty, and said that he was a great and helpful contact for the Forum.

The Chair announced that former Secretary Jennifer Henderson’s mother had recently passed on.

In the absence of further announcements or questions, the Forum adjourned by acclamation at 11:02 a.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Matt Banks, Recording Secretary

Comments are closed.