March 6, 2024 Employee Forum meeting minutes
Delegates Attending: L.E. Alexander, David Barnette, Randall Borror, Sharron Bouquin, David Bragg, Bonita Brown, Renata Buchanan, Shavon Carey-Hicks, Denise Carter, Tiffany Carver, Elizabeth Dubose, Jay Eubank, Shayla Evans-Hollingsworth, Adrianne Gibilisco, Leslie Heal, Leah Hefner, Shayna Hill, Keith Hines, James Holman, Linda Holst, Rebecca Howell, Todd Hux, Brigitte Ironside, Kira Jones, Stacy Keast, Haydeé Marchese, Amber Meads, Arlene Medder, Vanessa Mitchell, Stephanie Morales, Katie Musgrove, Natiaya Neal, Katherine Neer, Joseph Ormond, Lisa Petersen, Sara Pettaway, Laura Pratt, Charlissa Rice, Jacqueline Schwamberger, Kelly Scurlock-Cross, Lori Shamblin, Audrey Shore, Theresa Silsby, Janice Singletary, Sarah Smith, Jake Stallard, James Stamey, Mathew Steadman, Annetta Streater, Michael Williams, Tyrone Williams, Jacob Womack
Excused Absences: Gabriela De la Cruz, Jessi Hill, Sara Kelley, Vanessa Morris, Heather Skinner, Julie Theriault
Chair Katie Musgrove called the meeting to order at 9:15 a.m., welcoming all present in the School of Pharmacy that morning. She also welcomed remote attendees, members of the press, and guests to the event. She welcomed Interim Chancellor Lee Roberts to make the Forum’s opening remarks.
Roberts was grateful to all who shared good wishes and concerns over the last several weeks. He noted a range of campus accomplishments in the last month, including the Ethics Bowl national championship, the announcement of the new School of Civic Life and Leadership Dean Jed Atkins, and the announcement of two new undergraduate degrees in data science which were approved by the Board of Governors last week. He had spent a lot of time getting to know faculty, staff, students, alumni, and others, and listening as much as possible. Roberts noted the competing visions for Carolina, but added that each vision has hopes of making the place run better.
Roberts observed that a few themes have emerged from these different conversations. He noted the clear need to accelerate the campus’ repair and renovation efforts. As the oldest public university in the nation, which is home to some of the state’s most iconic buildings, UNC-Chapel Hill has some of the state’s most pressing repair and renovation needs. He personally had some experience in this area from his time in state government, relating that repair and renovation needs never seem to be completely addressed. Nonetheless, Roberts believed the campus could make progress in investing in project management and deployment of renovation dollars most effectively.
Roberts noted the buzz regarding artificial intelligence (A. I.) and how the university will navigate that landscape, developing tools for the campus community and becoming a thought leader in this field. Additionally, Roberts recalled that the university’s current five-year plan was developed four years ago and thus needs an update. He said that A.I. is now clearly one of the most important developments in faculty members’ careers and he looked to what generative A.I. will mean for future graduates. He was thrilled to see the campus discussion amongst philosophers, artists, computer scientists and others regarding this new development. Roberts recalled that the Chair and others on the Forum had assisted over the summer with developing initial guidelines for staff to help them navigate these new waters.
Roberts said that Carolina is perfectly positioned to help our society make thoughtful choices about how to harness and shape emerging technologies, and he was excited to work with the Forum on this issue and other challenges facing the campus. He thanked the Forum for the chance to speak and offered to take questions.
Keith Hines asked what distinction could be drawn between the new director or dean of the new School of Civic Life and Leadership and the Chair of, for example, the Chemistry Department. Would this person be paid as a dean or paid as a chair of a department? Roberts said that the Civic Life School is within the College of Arts and Sciences because this way is a much more efficient and rapid way of starting a new program. Roberts noted that the College already has infrastructure to create the School in a more rapid way than building the School on a free-standing basis.
Roberts observed that the School already has significant funding and will likely grow more independent over time to resemble a free-standing School. He cautioned that this change would occur only over time, however. The most important thing is to now find enough staff and significant institutional capacity to allow offerings of a broad range of course work. A minor will be available from the School in the fall. Regarding how Dean Atkins will be paid, he stated that deans are all paid a range of different salaries, meaning that one figure could not answer Hines’ question.
Elizabeth DuBose asked if there are plans to mitigate the university’s historic burden of understaffing, aside from upper levels of leadership. She thought that there is a significant burden of understaffing that more money, platforms, or even A.I. will not alleviate. She granted that there are plans to develop serious approaches to this problem, and that staffing resources are controlled at the state level. Still, she did not want to let the question go unmentioned and unasked.
Roberts responded that there is a conversation ongoing about how A.I. will be deployed internally. He thought that the broader conversation is what the strategy will be for A.I. as a research focus. In terms of staffing, he asked for more information on this question. He had heard generalized concerns from faculty and staff about not enough people and not enough pay. However, he thought that DuBose indicated that she had more specific data on this concern. DuBose replied that this has been a common concern although it may not be visibly true in every place on campus. As background, she noted that she works in the School of Medicine.
James Holman asked if the university had considered advertising open positions in the Housekeeping Department, as the Department needs around 96 housekeepers. He said that the university is not promoting these jobs and no one is aware of hiring fairs people can visit. He asked that internal job postings be publicized more broadly to the general public. Roberts thought that this was a great point about hiring in a tough environment. He thought that it made sense that the university publicize its openings through whatever channels make the most sense.
Haydeé Marchese shared there was a mental health crisis in her office due to the stress of being understaffed and working overtime hours to keep up with the work. She said that this stress not only impacts a person on the job and their well-being but also those who love their jobs, departments, and students. She thought that when employees go the extra mile here to get the job done, they are not being taken care of, through compensation or empathy. She asked Roberts’ plans to take care of employees who are doing the extra work of two or three others to get work done. She complained of a lack of compensation, a general fatigue, and a work life that has bled into personal life.
Roberts said that Marchese’s instance was not the first time he had heard of this situation. He said that first, the university must address its understaffing challenges through broader posting of positions, amongst other ideas. Secondly, Roberts noted the limit to how much control the university has over compensation. Employees have recently received the across-the-board increases from the legislature, and the university has worked with the Office of State Human Resources (OSHR) to provide more flexibility in salary bands.
He recalled that during his time as State Budget Director he found that the state human resources system is rigid on how job categories are banded and what these categories are paid. The UNC System has more flexibility than the rest of the state, but Roberts said that more flexibility would be helpful and has been requested.
Thirdly, Roberts noted wellness resources, particularly mental wellness resources, which received tremendous investment and management under former Chancellor Guskiewicz, one of his enormous accomplishments, he said. Roberts perceived that there is not as much awareness of these resources as there should be, but a large range of free 24/7 resources are available to students, faculty, and staff on the mental wellness front. The Heels Care network and the CAPS network are available, and Roberts encouraged all to familiarize themselves with these resources. He granted that this information does not address the underlying issue but these resources help deal with its symptoms to some degree.
The Chair added that staff employees are passionate about issues of mental wellness and mental health. She recalled at the mental health summit under former Chancellor Guskiewicz’ leadership, staff numbered 500 of the 700 attendees of that Zoom session. She said that staff are often on the front lines addressing student mental health issues while simultaneously trying to deal with their own concerns.
The Chair granted that the focus has been on student mental health as the number one priority of campus. Still, she thought that there could be more done to help advocate for staff mental health and wellness, such as increasing the use of wellness days for staff. Roberts thanked the Chair for her input and offered to discuss the question further.
Lori Shamblin echoed concerns about deferred maintenance that have been dealt with for years. She cited the case of Poe Hall at NC State University as a cautionary tale. She works in Biology and asked for more details about plans to address the possibility of similar building flaws. Roberts said that this question represents a significant focus for the university and added that he had recently discussed the issue with Chancellor Woodson at NC State. He said that Environment Health, and Safety Executive Director Catherine Brennan will speak with UNC-Chapel Hill’s Faculty Council this month. He encouraged the Forum to request similar remarks from Brennan. Roberts said that UNC-Chapel Hill has a survey of all campus buildings built during the relevant time period underway now. The Chair hoped Brennan would be available for the April meeting.
Michael Williams returned to the issue of understaffing. He stated that often when a team of three people loses a member, the other two end up doing 150% of their job for no more money, while the position sits open for six months until the right applicant comes along. In the meantime, the two people remaining become radically burned out and more likely to quit a university position themselves. Williams said that as Interim Chancellor, Roberts needs to know about these situations.
Williams recalled the case of a new position created within the Information Security Office, specifically to help take the load off of very overworked staff. He said that the pool of applicants that made it through to be considered for interviews was so large that people running the committee were already being asked to cover for all the work needed to be done that led to the creation of a new position. Committee members went through over 150 resumes over a period of weeks, in addition to regular duties. At the end of the time when candidates were finally identified, many had moved on to other jobs and were not interested in the position because of the time it took to be considered, Williams said. He asserted that there is a real problem at the university between the amount of what is being asked of staff and the number of staff assigned to these tasks.
Roberts said that this issue represents a significant challenge, with understaffing occurring nowhere more acutely than in information security. He had spoken with other chancellors through the UNC System regarding this fact, noting the tremendous demand for individuals skilled in this field. Roberts said that it appears that there are fewer people generally who perform information security than can now fulfill demand. He recalled the case of a UNC System school that lost most of their information security specialists to the University of California system via remote work.
Roberts granted that hiring of new personnel is a challenge as the temptation to hire too fast could lead to employing the wrong person, leading to duplication of these processes. However, he thought this challenge is recognized at the UNC System level in terms of what these people are paid across the board. He thanked Williams for his remarks illustrating this context.
L. E. Alexander added that the Great Resignation affected university employees a great deal. She added that the recent change in job descriptions has been massive, without actual change to the official version of these descriptions. She observed that people likely will apply for university positions without a true understanding of the work involved, due to this discrepancy.
Alexander granted that employees have to deal with system changes like learning new software related to changing technologies. However, their job descriptions often do not change to reflect this new work, leaving employees to take on more work in these jobs. Often, employees must find a job in a different department to make more money and receive an acknowledgement that they have learned these new skills. She said that this cycle leaves departments throughout campus in the situation that Williams explained earlier. She added that the new system has been a burden since the COVID-19 pandemic, in terms of time spent to learn the new system and to teach faculty how to use the system. She added that the College of Arts and Sciences is constantly changing different reporting mechanisms or creating more mechanisms, especially for work regarding faculty and promotion. She offered to send Roberts a list of these tasks.
Audrey Shore was curious as to what levels are required to shepherd these concerns through the Board of Trustees and the Board of Governors within the scope of the Interim Chancellor role. Roberts said that less than eight weeks into the job he still is doing a lot of fact finding and information gathering. He said that this conversation is very helpful as it provides much more specific feedback on these concerns.
Roberts added that there are some things that local administration can control and other things beyond this control, subject either to the General Assembly’s or the Board of Governors’ rulings. He said that university leaders probably have more influence with the Board than the General Assembly, although it engages in constant dialogue with both bodies. He noted the questions of working with the Office of State Human Resources and with university budget codes, which offers the possibility of needed flexibility. Moving funds across cost codes in some cases requires UNC System Office or state budget office approval. The budget cycle is UNC-Chapel Hill’s primary opportunity to obtain more resources outside that cycle and to move resources within significant constraints. The General Assembly’s short session will begin soon and UNC-Chapel Hill and the UNC System have a list of requests based on compensation and benefits.
Tiffany Carver thought that red tape often gets in the way of compensating people while they perform multiple roles. She observed that while the university may not be able to offer permanent increases there should be consideration of granting the vacant position’s funds to compensate people covering for that job. She said that currently, there are Human Resources reasons that prevent this additional income for these employees. She advocated eliminating red tape, if possible, to temporarily compensate these employees for extra work done.
Roberts said this situation represents the urgency of academia meeting the efficiency of state government. He thought that the university could make progress in this area, tackling managerial challenges, during his term in office. He further noted that his background was not as a faculty member, but as the former director of the state budget office. He added that the Forum is helpful in identifying issues and pain points. He thought that employee feedback is very helpful and he was eager to learn more about these situations.
The Chair thanked Roberts for his remarks and for hosting the morning’s coffee and bagel social. She was excited to welcome the meeting’s next guests, Dr. Shauna Harris, the new Director of the Carolina Women’s Center along with Assistant Director Shelley Gist Kennedy. The duo introduced themselves. Kennedy noted the long history of the Women’s Center at the university as well as the Center’s recent reintroduction. She said that due to staffing changes, the Women’s Center was on a bit of hiatus until Harris and Kennedy stepped in as leaders to reinvigorate this space.
Kennedy asked delegates’ opinions about what they would want to see from the Carolina Women’s Center in 2024. She noted a general focus on gender equity, as the Women’s Center wants to address the needs of women on campus in celebrating gender in all of its forms and recognizing gender equity as something that affects all on campus. Harris said that the Center has a group of students and a Chancellor’s Fellow helping with programming through the end of the semester. She said that she has worked with campus and community partners on what the Center space should look like and the eventual course of the Women’s Center. She noted that the Center will soon need to hire a business services coordinator and a program coordinator to assist with future planning. She said that additional details would come before the end of the week about the Center’s recent work. She added that the Center will work to reintroduce itself to campus, particularly during the month of March.
Kennedy said that the Center is looking at which signature programs to relaunch or institute anew. She said that the Center is focused on redeveloping the Women of Worth program, support networking, community building, professional development for women from underrepresented groups, and a series of workshops and mentorship programming for staff seeking to help or to be helped in these areas. She emphasized the importance of working on struggles with work-life balance and finding opportunities for advancement within the university, and ways that the Center could support this work. The Center will seek to create a sense of camaraderie and connection for individuals on campus. Kennedy also noted the need for the Women’s History series and on intersectional perspectives, to recognize the diversity of experience here that informs this work.
Harris provided means for delegates to apply for the Center’s advisory board or to volunteer for other programs. Kennedy noted that staff, faculty, alumni, and students will have space on these boards. The Chair asked given the structural changes of the new Women’s Center, whether or not Haven training be housed within the new Center. Additionally, she asked about the new reporting structure for gender violence service coordinators. It was said that both of these services will continue to dwell under Violence Prevention and Advocacy Services (VPAS) in Student Affairs.
L. E. Alexander offered the help of the Forum’s Education and Career Development committee in the Center’s work on mentorship and professional development. She looked to gather information about how to make these efforts work. Alexander praised the Center for its interest in these concerns.
An online questioner asked if the advisory board committee meetings would take place via Zoom. Harris said that these meetings will feature a hybrid option, given the need to preserve access for all. Rebecca Howell recalled that the campus landscape has changed a little bit since the Center went on hiatus, particularly the landscape of intersectionality. She stated that the campus has students and staff who identify as transgender and nonbinary seeking where they fit in this community. Harris responded that the Center would work with the LGBTQ Center to ensure provision of a holistic, supportive environment as a part of its long-term planning. While the Center has historically focused on undergraduate students, the Center will also serve staff, faculty, students, and community partners, ensuring that gender equity work reaches the masses.
Todd Hux asked if the Center plans to pick up the program on lactation rooms, as he had not seen anything listed. Harris said that the Center has been in discussions with the Equal Opportunity and Compliance (EOC) Office that has recently led this effort. She did not know if the Center will take on responsibility for these spaces, as the EOC seems to have taken this on permanently.
Harris asked listeners to participate in the Center survey to submit comments and questions. The Chair thanked both of these commentors for their remarks. She then welcomed Director Cheryl Stout of Transportation and Parking to discuss the development of their current 5-year plan for the university. Stout said that plan architects developed a strong vision and mission, guiding principles, outreach, and system evaluation in order to construct a new five-year plan. The plan had to refine these strategies given Transportation and Parking is receipt supported.
The plan began with individual ideas about improvements, reflections, and goals to start. In the spring of last year, administrators started the five-year plan launch, which saw a number of discussions with executive sponsor groups. Additionally, the department launched the Advisory Committee for Transportation (ACT), which contains representatives from every aspect of campus. Forum representatives serve, as well as undergraduate and graduate students, the Medical School, UNC Health, Athletics, Student Affairs, academic representatives from the Provost’s Office, and more.
Stout said that ACT conducted focus groups and surveys, helping administrators analyze campus feedback and develop key themes for a potential plan of action. Transportation and Parking hired consultants to help with the planning process who evaluated key indicators for comparative systems. In the fall, Transportation and Parking began the collaboration process with ACT to develop finance strategies to keep the system sound. Afterwards, the department communicated programmatic and funding changes to the plan and finalized changes to the ordinance, the regulatory document that determines fees.
Stout said that the Board of Trustees (BOT) has ultimate authority over the approval process for the department’s five-year planning. Any time the department changes fees or regulatory items, the BOT is the authority over the ordinance that regulates transportation on campus. Following this work comes the plan’s rollout.
Stout noted that one of the big issues reflected in the survey this year was equitable permit pricing, a topic championed by the Employee Forum. Another big issue was the simplification of the permit pricing system, together with improved communication on departmental pricing structures, easing access to transportation services, addressing pedestrian concerns, and of course transit improvements.
Stout said that the department received over 4,000 survey responses on these topics. She noted concern regarding the pricing structure, with differences related to gated and non-gated lots and salary/permit scales. She recalled reports that the allocation system for permits is confusing, with multiple departments operating under one administrative unit. Flexible parking operations, hybrid schedules, and parking technology are other areas of activity. Additionally, the university’s accreditation status as a parking organization is measured against other systems across the country to determine system strength. Transportation demand management, Point to Point, after dark and ADA transportation, local, Chapel Hill and regional transit systems are also under discussion. The ACT discussed deferred maintenance, as Parking has hundreds of millions of dollars’ worth of capital assets that must be repaired and kept safe and in good working order. These responsibilities include assessment of the University’s entire parking inventory, its parking decks, development of its master plan for all needed maintenance and approving a funding mechanism for these efforts that will be part of the five-year plan. In addition, Stout said that the process must involve campus experts in how the department provides ADA collaborations.
ACT devised a holistic review of twenty characteristics of the system, based on communication, education, partnership, and collaboration. The advisory committee developed a list of what is being done well and what needs to be improved.
Regarding the financial future of Transportation and Parking, Stout said that the plan considered rate structure changes in salary bands. The current salary bands ranged from below $32,000, $32,000 – $50,000, $50,000 – $100,000, and over $100,000. The new structure recommended ten new salary ranges as opposed to the current four. The advisory committee also recommended simplification of permits, with gated parking and service parking pricing being simplified in the new system. Daily options for patients and visitor concerns were also raised.
The Transportation recommendations were to increase communication and transparency with transit services. There was a great amount of interest in people tracking systems and on-demand services. There was also interest in expanding alternative modes of transportation such as bike share, micromobility opportunities, and the commuter alternative system.
Stout said that fares will return to regional transit, which will require the university to pay a share for its employees who use this transit. Transportation and Parking will recommend regional transit opportunities for residential students who may not have cars on campus due to parking availability. Stout reiterated the importance of demand management and capital asset management in keeping facilities in good repair.
Stout noted that simplifying the allocation process for permits was a desired goal this year, along with communicating with employees about available parking and transit options. A big part of this plan includes upgrades to the camera and lighting systems in the decks. Transportation and Parking will work to incorporate IT support to evaluate systems to ensure use of the best technology for this purpose.
Regarding pricing structure, plan architects sought to narrow salary ranges providing a similar percentage impact to employee salaries. Stout noted similar discussions regarding full-time versus hybrid commuting options and provision and availability of spaces in a much more dynamic way. She thanked the Chair for the recommendation to increase visitor parking prices during events to gain a higher share of revenue. The department also tried to address student affordability and patient visitor cost concerns as well in developing its pricing recommendations.
Stout said that Transportation and Parking activities are funded by the department separately, through the department transit fee. All Chapel Hill Transit is fare free at boarding, but this does not mean that this service is completely free. Transit fees, wherein each department pays a fee per $1 million of payroll, and students also pay a fee supporting this service. Some reserves for transit occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic, as the university did not pay Chapel Hill Transit as usual because services were cut. Reserves will be used to offset future cost projections. She noted that the reserve was used this year in conjunction with departmental parking fee and student parking fee increases to meet budget deficits in this area. Price increases will take effect in fiscal year 2025 and may remain static for the remainder of the plan.
Regarding parking funding strategy, Stout said that employee parking permit ranges currently run from $234 to $2,355 a year for 18 permit types for salary bands with 72 overall pricing points. Revenue from employee parking is $9.2 million. The proposed strategy is to remove the difference between gated and non-gated lots and adjust the overall range of permits from $200 to $4,780. The new plan will feature only four permit types with ten salary bands, with 13 pricing points. These changes were close to revenue neutral, but with the increased number of salary bands, it did allow for employees across the different bands to pay an equitable percentage of their salary towards parking, with an average of 1% of their salary going to this cost. Student permit ranges are from $176 to $454, with ten permit types and a $10/weeknight parking fee for students as well. The new recommendation moves permit ranges from $158 to $405, with three permit types instead of ten as before.
Stout said that this proposed funding structure ends up making only $200,000 less than the previous revenue structure did. Event parking will compose 9% of revenue for sports and fine arts events. The maximum of $10 to $20 for these events will now be replaced with the flexibility to raise these fees up to $100 for these events. She anticipated that the flexibility to increase fees to this higher range would be reserved for outside events such as the summer professional soccer match. Still, in this way the department can increase its event revenue earnings.
With regard to visitor parking, Stout said that there would be no changes to visitor parking on North campus while South campus will see a $.25 increase per hour in the last year of the plan, creating another $900,000 in revenue. Stout said that South campus rates have held steady at $1.50/hour for close to 20 years, as the department has worked to hold these steady.
Stout outlined the types of parking prices from the six different permit types (or price points) earning about $1.7 million gained, although only two of these ranges will change of the six. The conversion of pricing points lost the department revenue that was able to be recaptured through implementation of new salary bands. Salary bands were redefined, flex parking was removed, and parking options for daily use will increase throughout campus. She noted that the lowest employee rate for passes like the park and ride lot and weeknight parking will be a flat $200.
Stout spoke briefly about the structure of student parking fees as well as the proposed event structure. She noted an increase in service permit rates as well. The department is now at the point of updating its ordinance, meaning all of these regulatory rates must be changed in the ordinance and approved by the Board of Trustees.
Stout added that the department sought to ensure employees on average only paid about one percent of their salary towards parking across all of these different ranges. People paying a lower amount due to their salary under the current plan will pay less in the new plan, and employees earning more will pay more in the new plan.
Stout offered to take questions from the Forum. Rebecca Howell asked if the changes define salary range as gross salary before taxes and retirement is deducted. Stout answered that this was so. Laura Pratt asked about the thought process involved in deciding to get rid of the flex permit. Stout said that daily options will replace the flex permit, with a corresponding price break. She said that the department had just received so many different requests to accommodate so many different schedules that it wasn’t sustainable or efficient moving forward.
Pratt thanked Stout for this answer. She asked how the department will handle parking in the Dogwood Deck. Stout said that the new ordinance would change infringements from a citation to a fee. Pratt asked if employees would have the option of a one-day pass if they have an appointment at UNC Health. Stout noted the many frailties of the current patient parking system that people have used to evade the prohibition on employee parking in patient lots. She said that these practices can be stopped with the use of license plate readers and other measures. Still, employees will have the chance to park in these lots when they have patient appointments.
Pratt asked when construction will likely be completed at the Cobb Deck. Stout said that this deck will contain a new gate system. She said that the 30-plus year-old system had its entire infrastructure rebuilt to accommodate the new gate system. She hoped that the gates would be reactivated in the next week or so.
Keith Hines asked Stout to explain why the department changed the penalty for employee parking in patient lots from citation to fee. Stout recalled that Transportation and Parking does not keep fine revenue and must instead return all of these revenues to the state under statute. She said that the department was determined that behavior that impacts patient care and access in this way should have the money paid returned to the local system. She said that the university puts a lot of resources in patient decks in order to keep patient parking available.
James Holman asked if the department is required to notify staff members when pricing structure changes. He noticed that nighttime parking started at one price and now seems to have grown a little higher. Stout said that nighttime parking had changed in this way during the previous 5-year plan but would actually go down to a flat $200/year in the new 5-year plan. Holman asked to discuss offline an issue related to overcharges in the past couple of paychecks. Stout said that she would look forward to this conversation.
Elizabeth DuBose asked about a couple of parking spaces that have signs designating the parking for “Nobel Prize laureates only.” She asked if the university could find another way to honor its laureates without a free parking spot as an honorarium. DuBose also asked if the department could study housekeepers’ needs, as some people at a lower income level have to travel very far to come to work because of housing costs. She asked if the department could offset these employees’ parking expenses, perhaps through the use of metrics like single-payer heads of household commuting distance from campus.
Stout said that Nobel laureates are given specific parking spots at the request of the Chancellor, and that the department would continue this practice unless the Chancellor provides differing instructions. She said that the department and university had chosen to recognize the huge achievement of a Nobel Prize in this way.
Stout added that the department considered the situation of employees commuting long distances in order to work here. She was uncertain this question could be answered simply within context of just the parking system. She noted that UNC-Chapel Hill was one of the first universities to implement a sliding scale for parking permits and had worked to refine this system. She said that the scale may undergo future iterations, but that the ACT was most comfortable with this iteration this year. DuBose thanked Stout for her answer and her commitment to the collaborative approach.
An employee asked about the request that all employees in their department update their flex permits for an April move in-date at the Friday Center. She asked the rollout timeline for these changes. Stout said that August 1, 2024 will be when the ordinance would go into effect with these changes.
A chat question from Annetta Streeter asked what steps an employee could take if they forget their OneCard and so cannot access their assigned parking deck. If the employee must park in the visitor deck in order to be on time and available for work, they would of course be liable for a citation under the new ordinance. Stout said that gated access parking would require a UNC OneCard, and failing that, the employee would need to obtain a temporary parking option. However, there is a mobile option for the OneCard which would eliminate worry about the physical card. Stout added that with the new system, intercoms in the lots connect to an Operations Center, which can verify an employee’s permit holding status and raise the gates that still exist. She hoped that this year the department will replace all of its gates so that employees can use the intercom.
A chat question asked if employees will always require parking passes once the gates are operational at the Cobb Deck. Stout said that employees will always need a parking pass in the absence of gates. One must always have a permit.
An employee asked with the change from flex to daily permits, would there be a corresponding increase in the number of daily permits available. She said that currently at the School of Pharmacy, an employee must reserve a daily pass 3-4 weeks in advance to park in the relevant lot. Stout said that there will be an increase in the allocation of daily options. Departments will have the opportunity to do these assignments, instead of distributing them on a first-come, first-served basis. This change will require a reimagination of how departments handle these situations, perhaps via a survey of daily needs.
An employee confirmed that individual staff must still go through a parking coordinator to make changes to their own parking. She then asked if there is any chance in the future whereby employees could make their own changes in the system. Stout could not speak for the future but said that for the present, the department is the resource manager of assignments. Employees can go into the system to make changes to their license plates, for example. Still, departments will likely retain the resource assignment process with departmental representatives.
James Holman asked why the same information is not available on an employee’s OneCard and mobile application. Stout deferred this question to the UNC OneCard Office, which manages that system. She suggested that Holman pose this question to OneCard Office representatives.
Stout finished by noting that the five-year planning process for Parking and Transportation is a big deal and a big commitment. She thanked the Chair and Vice Chair for representing the Employee Forum consistently and effectively. She thought that the duo deserve credit for their work. The Chair thanked Stout for her remarks.
The Chair welcomed Senior Vice Chancellor for Human Resources Linc Butler to present the Forum’s customary Human Resources update. Butler appreciated the earlier presentation by the Carolina Women’s Center earlier in the meeting. He shared the good news that the Center has received funding for a proposed staff mentoring program. Kathleen Guerra, the new senior director for Organizational and Professional Development, will lead the process of working with the Center on this partnership. He hoped that Guerra could be introduced to the Forum’s Education and Career Development committee leaders at some point.
Butler added, in response to Tiffany Carver’s earlier point, that the concept of additional duties and compensation for those duties requires meeting a higher, more rigid definition under the state system, with a requirement of a higher level, a broader scope, and more complex work than the role that the employee currently performs. Regarding situations in which two employees pick up the work of a third departing employee, Butler said that there is not really a mechanism in the state system that allows for additional duties and compensation in these instances. He offered to continue this conversation.
Butler was pleased that the university recently received approvals for the SHRA salary ranges. Ranges that became live March 1st are available for use now not only for posting positions but also for addressing salaries of existing employees. OHR officers will meet with teams to discuss the need to engage with executive leadership and finance leads in their areas. Butler noted the need to be very strategic in thinking through how to use these new ranges. Butler did not want to see a prolific use of new employees hired under the new rates with existing employees and their salaries not being addressed.
Butler said that the state did not dedicate additional funding along with these updated ranges, leaving UNC System schools to look at their budget planning processes to help with this work. He recalled that two years ago, the state instituted a labor market adjustment reserve (LMAR) to provide some funds to be used to bring people closer or up to their market rates. Last year, however, the university system was not included in that labor market adjustment reserve with these new ranges. Butler thought that this decision puts the university in a better position to advocate being included in the future and to receive funding to address salaries over time.
Still, there is not an automatic adjustment that will occur to salaries with these new ranges. But the university has a new framework in place that will provide a little more headroom to address salaries over time. On average, the range has moved 15%. The movement presents some challenges about how the campus thinks strategically about managing postings and new hires, while also managing within those ranges for existing employees.
Butler’s second update was that there are new terminology changes for what have been known as EHRA non-faculty roles. He recalled the legislation that provided for wage-hour exempt positions and the opportunity to convert to EHRA non-faculty positions. This initiative will allow employees in those positions to decide later in the year whether to convert. OHR will share more information about these plans once they have solidified.
New terminology will address a couple of different categories. Senior academic administrative officers will now be referred to as SAOS, or senior academic administrative officers. This change essentially drops the Tier 1 designation for Tier 2 senior academic administrative officers and instructional research positions. These latter positions will now be categorized as exempt professional staff (EPS). Butler thought the reason for these changes was that older labels are not quite adequate for capturing the larger group and more diverse titles under consideration.
The System Office has thus adapted this new terminology of EPS for EHRA non-faculty. OHR is thus working to update terminology across its website and forms, which will take some time. In addition, OHR is providing template communications for HR officers to send communications to impacted employees. Butler said that this is simply a name change that does not change anything else regarding the terms and conditions of employment for staff.
The UNC System Office will work to stand up a new updated structure for EPS positions that should be ready later this year. As advocated, the new structure will be established prior to offering the window to SHRA wage-exempt employees to decide whether or not to convert to EPS or to remain as SHRA. Employees will thus receive the full picture of what the decision would mean for them.
Butler said that he had a quick update on performance management issues if there was time. Otherwise, he offered to take questions from delegates. An employee asked if OHR will reach out to departments or would departments need to reach out back to OHR to kickstart these discussions. The employee said that an action apparently had been underway and was advised that it needed to wait until after the new ranges were in place. Butler said he would encourage the department’s HR officer and team reach out to central OHR to get the process started again.
In addition, Butler said that the OHR Classification and Compensation team and the EPS HR team will also do outreach to departmental HR officers about these pending actions in a dual partnership to keep these things moving.
Theresa Silsby asked when the updated ranges will be uploaded on the university’s website. Butler thought that they would be uploaded this week. They have been uploaded into ConnectCarolina already. Butler added that there would indeed be mandatory increases for any employees falling below position minimums. Silsby asked how these would be handled. Butler said that the university did not have any positions falling below position minimums, a fortunate occurrence.
Regarding performance management season, Butler said that April sees the closing out of this current performance cycle. OHR is offering a couple of webinar opportunities called “setting the stage for a successful performance conversation.” One of these is focused for employees who are performance eligible, meaning that they would be due an evaluation. These two sessions are on March 19th and 20th. A similar webinar will be offered for managers on April 2-3rd.
Butler yielded the floor to Senior Work/Life Director Jessica Pyjas to speak on various wellness updates. These updates were distributed to Forum delegates and are also available from the Forum office. Pyjas noted that Employee Assistance Program mental health resources are available 24 hours a day, seven days a week to permanent employees and their household members. Three free sessions are offered per issue per year, with health insurance information required only in excess of this number. Pyjas offered to answer questions on this topic as needed.
Pyjas also noted that OHR is planning the March 13th Wellness Expo at Fetzer Hall. Employees would have free parking available at Cobb Deck that day. This year the Expo will feature over 70 exhibitors, with several in-person trainings and dietary offerings. She thanked TIAA for the pizza and salad lunch to be offered at the Expo that day. She outlined the slate of trainings and virtual events for the week.
Pyjas then spoke about the classes offered, including the Miles for Wellness Challenge. She noted that the Governor’s Awards will be open for nominations through mid-April. TIAA will seek to hold departmental information sessions through June. Pyjas noted a number of discounts available to employees.
Laura Pratt confirmed that Blood Drive t-shirts will be offered to donors in a shade of blue this year. Pyjas said that exercise class participants will receive a complementary stretch bag for shopping at nearby stores.
The Chair asked that Forum committee chairs email updates to her regarding their groups’ activities that month. She asked for a motion to approve the meeting’s consent agenda. James Holman made this motion, seconded by Elizabeth DuBose. The motion was approved by acclamation.
The Chair noted a proposal from the University Managers’ Association (UMA) to merge with the Forum. This proposal had been mailed to delegates prior to the meeting. She noted that the Education and Career Development and Recognition & Awards committees would be most affected by this proposal.
L. E. Alexander provided background information on a meeting with UMA leaders earlier this year deciding to put this proposal forward. She said that the merger would involve professional development programming, which the Forum had put on prior to the COVID-19 pandemic. She said that the Education and Career Development committee has agreed to carry on UMA programming in this area. Additionally, the proposal suggests renaming that committee the Leadership, Education, and Career Development committee in support of leaders of all types, not just people who supervise or manage others on campus.
Alexander noted that the UMA also asked that the Forum retain its Manager of the Year and the Outstanding Encouragement of Leadership and Development (OELD) awards. The latter award was given in conjunction with Human Resources, and a member of this group will sit in with the Recognition & Awards committee to consider nominations.
The Chair asked for a motion to approve the UMA merger proposal, after which the proposal would be sent to the UMA for a final decision on ratification. James Holman made this motion, seconded by Theresa Silsby. Sara Pettaway asked if the university has pledged to continue its financial support of the UMA functions as they are absorbed into the Forum. The Chair replied that the UMA will no longer be a functioning organization, however its budget supporting award recipients and professional development projects will be turned over to the Forum via an existing protocol.
The Chair also underscored that the Forum would depict the UMA’s history on the Forum’s website for posterity. Forum leaders felt that this would be a great collaboration to support an organization that could not move forward in the current environment.
Randall Borror, a Forum delegate and UMA leader, said that the UMA had been in existence since the 1980s. He said that the organization initially weathered the COVID-19 pandemic quite well, moving operations to Zoom. He said that events were open to all employees, manager and non-manager alike. He said that the great resignation accompanying COVID-19 had really done the UMA in. He praised the Employee Forum for carrying forward with its work in an incredibly resilient manner, noting that the UMA had dwindled down to three board members with efforts to add to this number being unsuccessful. Borror said that UMA leaders wished to preserve awards granted by the organization as well as its professional development efforts, and he was pleased to accomplish these ends through the Forum.
Members agreed to ensure that UMA budget for these two efforts would be transferred to the Forum’s care, asking for administration collaboration to ensure these funds would continue.
Jacob Womack asked if the awards would be housed along with the Forum’s peer recognition awards. He asked if the nomination window and assessment of nominations would follow the Forum model. The Chair confirmed that the awards would fall within the peer recognition series of awards. She also noted that UMA members will have the ability to serve on Forum committees similar to the same provision available for all university employees. She encouraged delegates to keep upcoming elections in mind.
The question was called to merge the University Managers’ Association with the Employee Forum. Members voted in favor of the proposal, with none opposed and none abstaining. Jacob Womack confirmed that the Forum had a 1/3 quorum of membership for the motion.
In the interests of time, the Chair asked that the sexual assault awareness resolution be tabled until April for consideration then. She said that the Forum would need to suspend its rules in some way to secure approval for this resolution in April.
The Chair noted that the Forum will hold a Vice Chancellors’ representatives’ meeting on Thursday, March 14th. At this point, the meeting adjourned by acclamation at 11:33 a.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Matt Banks, Recording Secretary