May 8, 2024 Employee Forum meeting minutes
Delegates Attending: L. E. Alexander, Caley Allen, David Barnette, Randall Borror, Sharron Bouquin, David Bragg, Shane Brogan, Bonita Brown, Renata Buchanan, Shavon Carey-Hicks, Denise Carter, Tiffany Carver, Matthew Chamberlin, Warren Chui, Gabriela De la Cruz, Kelsey Dillon, Chassidy Dixon, Elizabeth DuBose, Jay Eubank, Shayla Evans-Hollingsworth, Adrianne Gibilisco, Sarah Green, Chrissie Greenberg, Leslie Heal, Keith Hines, James Holman, Linda Holst, Rebecca Howell, Samara Howell, Jacob Hurst, Todd Hux, Brigitte Ironside, Kira Jones, Stacy Keast, Sara Kelley, Paige Krier, Haydeé Marchese, Daysia Mardré, Arlene Medder, Cherie Mellor, Vanessa Mitchell, Katie Musgrove, Natiaya Neal, Ken Nesbett, Joseph Ormond, Lisa Petersen, Sara Pettaway, Laura Pratt, Charlissa Rice, Drexel Rivers, Janny Sanchez, Jacqueline Schwamberger, Kelly Scurlock-Cross, Lori Shamblin, Audrey Shore, Theresa Silsby, Paige Simpson, Janice Singletary, Heather Skinner, Greg Smith, Sarah Smith, Jake Stallard, James Stamey, Mathew Steadman, Annetta Streater, Susse Toro, Ally Wardell, Tiesha Williams, Tyrone Williams, Jacob Womack, Natasha Young
Excused Absences: Alicea Easthope-Frazer, Paloma Eddowes, Amber Meads, Vanessa Morris, Katherine Neer, Allana Smith Potts, Julie Theriault, Marianna Tilley
Chair Katie Musgrove called the meeting to order at 9:16 a.m., welcoming new delegates, members of the media, and others to the May general meeting of the Employee Forum. She then took a moment to ask Interim Chancellor Lee Roberts to lead new delegates in a recitation of the Forum charge over the Zoom broadcast.
She then welcomed Roberts to the Forum’s traditional Chancellor Roundtable. Roberts wished all good morning. He recognized the Forum’s new delegates and thanked them for taking on additional responsibility on behalf of the university.
Roberts noted that the university will soon hold its first Saturday evening commencement in living memory. He said it was difficult to overstate the amount of work that commencement takes from people across the university. He recognized the thousands of people involved in the planning, preparation, and execution of this significant event. He mentioned this year’s ceremony has additional meaning given what the Class of 2024 has been through.
Roberts said that he and his wife Liza have a daughter a year older than this class. Their daughter has had some of her college experience affected by the pandemic but had a pretty intact high school experience. His son, a year younger than this class, had some of his high school experience affected but enjoyed a pretty intact college experience.
Roberts’ two nephews, who are members of the Class of 2024, did not have a high school graduation, a prom, or a spring sports season. While freshmen, the Class of 2024 got to Chapel Hill and then were sent home after two weeks. These students have had both the rites and passages of high school affected, and all of the traditional experiences of a freshman year in college negatively affected as well. Roberts hoped that the Class of 2024 will enjoy a joyous and celebratory commencement.
Roberts also singled out the enormous number of first-generation college students at Carolina, who may find commencement to be one of the most important events for their entire families. Roberts hoped and believed that commencement will be a peaceful and joyous occasion. He thanked everyone who has put in so much work to make commencement happen, particularly on a Saturday night this year. Roberts also recognized that the signature ceremony is just one of the dozens of events that have already started and that are happening all around campus, all of which demand a tremendous amount of work from staff.
Roberts mentioned the events of the previous week involving the university’s move to clear out encampments from Polk Place related to the Palestinian protests. He said that he was eager to take questions about this decision. He said that the university has a legal and constitutional obligation to uphold free speech and peaceful protests. He said that this obligation goes beyond law and the Constitution. It is an obligation and noble tradition of the nation’s first public university.
Roberts thought that the university’s time, place, and manner restrictions were very reasonable. He recalled that one cannot camp upon the Quad, as the Quad is a shared space that cannot be appropriated for a particular group, no matter what that group is. He said that one cannot take down the American flag and put up another flag, whether it is the Confederate, Palestinian, French, South Carolina, or any other flag. He said that there is only one flag that flies on the flagpole in front of South Building. He thought that putting up another flag also is an impingement of others’ rights.
Roberts thought that everyone present was aware of the action that the administration took last week. He was happy to hear people’s views about student conduct decisions. However, he said that in response to federal law, under FERPA which protects student disciplinary records, there would be very little he could share with the Forum. Roberts regretted that, as he wished to be as transparent as possible about the steps taken. But, consistent with legal advice, he could not say very much about students’ disciplinary proceedings. Still, Roberts was eager to hear people’s thoughts on this topic in spite of this restriction.
Roberts noted that the university has had four entirely peaceful protests on the Gaza issue since last Tuesday on campus, all of which were completely within the law and university policies and very well attended. He said that this development was encouraging and he himself was encouraged and hopeful that the university will continue to see peaceful demonstrations and protests arise. He was thankful again to everyone who was focused on helping graduation come off as smoothly as possible.
At this point, Roberts offered to take questions from the Forum. He thanked all for taking the time to be present during this busy time of year. The Chair shared a question from the chat, asking whether there would be any discussion with seniors to ensure that no political statements or signs take place during commencement, as this occasion should be an event for celebration, not division. Roberts replied that he could not agree more with this sentiment. He recalled that attendees are not allowed to bring anything larger than an 8.5” x 11” standard sheet of paper into commencement. A student can decorate their caps or wave a sign of that size but cannot bring flags or signs on sticks. Roberts said that the university will enforce this policy.
Audrey Shore understood that UNC-Chapel Hill brought in law enforcement from other UNC System schools to deal with Tuesday’s events. She asked why these other agencies were called. Additionally, Shore recalled that there were use of force concerns in some videos of the events she had seen on-line. She noted that these were professional law enforcement officers, not students subject to student discipline, so hopefully FERPA concerns didn’t apply.
Roberts began by identifying why the university needed extra police and why those police were UNC System Police. The UNC Police Chief has said that having as many police on the scene as possible increases the chances of keeping a protest or arrests around a protest as peaceful and non-confrontational as possible. He said that the situations on other campuses have deteriorated when police feel outnumbered and thus (in their minds) compelled to use other tactics. Roberts granted that a little of that happened here, as there were a couple of uses of pepper spray, but not in the original arrests but in the afternoon around the flag.
The question of why UNC System police forces were chosen is because these are the police trained to work with student protestors on college campuses, unlike most other police forces. He observed that at other schools, a relatively small campus police force combined with the correspondent large city police force that is not trained to deal or have patience with student protestors led to less advantageous and more confrontational results. Roberts recalled that his son at Tulane University in New Orleans observed this phenomenon, which also took place at George Washington University, Columbia University, and UCLA, among others. Roberts thought it was unfortunate to have to rely on these other police systems instead of deploying trained personnel.
Secondly, Roberts said that reports have emerged of police here behaving inappropriately or with excessive force. He thought that there have been complaints lodged, and that there is a very specific process for handling these complaints. Roberts added that this whole event was extremely well-documented, which was a positive. Students present all had phones, as did most of the other protestors and police. Almost all police present were wearing body cameras. He said that there is an enormous amount of footage around this event that should help the university get to the facts and the appropriate response for any disciplinary issue involving police. Shore thanked Roberts for his response.
The Chair said that she and several other faculty and staff leaders met with Roberts and his administration to talk about these issues and last week’s incidents. The Chair noted the context for opening this academic year was with a heavy police presence on campus in the aftermath of the shooting incidents that occurred at the beginning of the academic year. She said that this was a traumatic experience requiring police presence to keep community members safe.
Nonetheless, the Chair recognized that last week’s events were a traumatic way to bring another heavy police force to campus to bookend the year. She thought that the events retraumatized some community members. She added that this is an important piece of how people are reacting to this situation, which is in turn a tough thing to deal with in the context of the shooting incidents this past fall.
The Chair’s second point involved a Daily Tar Heel op-ed in which a Grounds employee wrote about Grounds employees being put in the position of having to take down signs or tents following protests. The writer found that this task put these employees in an awkward position. The Chair hoped to work with the administration to ensure that lower-paid, boots-on-the-ground employees are not placed in these tense situations. She said that the university has trained professionals, be it the UNC Police or others, who have the tools and capabilities to make sure that these situations do not escalate, while employing their training and knowledge to enforce policy. The Chair said that Grounds employees do not have the same context or training for this work.
Roberts thanked the Chair for raising these issues, recalling his agreement with her when she made the first point at the previous meeting. He had talked with many people locally about August 28th and noted that the university has learned a lot of lessons from a campus security and safety standpoint. He said that there has been a formal after-action report delivered on these lessons. While he was not personally on campus that day, he understood that the situation feels different to the people who were here then. He thanked the Chair for her comment.
With respect to the use of Facilities employees, Roberts said that he agreed with the Chair’s comments that these people are not trained for this work, and it would not be particularly fair to ask them to do this work. He observed that if Facilities employees are not the correct people for this work, the next logical step is to deploy police in these situations. He noted that there is a lot of sensitivity about using university police in these situations, but these employees are indeed trained for this work, more than Facilities employees and more than big city police are.
Roberts noted the tricky situation governing police when campus policy has been violated but a law has not been broken. These situations will require more thought and more work. The university does not have great options now if all agree that Facilities employees are not right for this work, and that there are significant pros and cons to using police in these situations. “What other options do we have,” Roberts asked. He welcomed the partnership of the Forum Chair and others in talking about how to address these situations in the future.
The Chair said that she was interested in this work. She recognized that UNC Police officers are also UNC staff employees and said that the Forum is charged to advocate for these employees as well. She said that this is a tough situation that the entire campus must navigate as a community.
Sarah Green asked if Roberts could expand on his statement that deploying university police is the “next logical step.” Green said that the university has mental health professionals on campus along with people who train others in de-escalation. The university has entire departments of support people who may be a better, more logical next step, Green said. She thought that police officers trained by the IDF are the least logical next step. She asked that this point of view be considered in the construction of the university approach.
Roberts thanked Green for her comment, noting that he had been unclear. He meant that police are the next logical step for physically taking down tents, not the overall interaction. He said that the broad interaction needs to be and was controlled by the university’s highly trained Student Affairs professionals who were interacting routinely with the students, certainly for the first encampment. For the second encampment, the more significant encampment, throughout the first few days there was constant dialogue between the Dean of Students, the rest of her team, and the protesters. However, on Sunday afternoon and evening a week ago the protesters stopped, in most meaningful respects, the dialogue with Student Affairs employees and started putting the tents back up.
Roberts said that the protesters seemed to have made a deliberate decision to start violating policies that they had been complying with from the beginning of the protest Friday. Every time before when they were asked to take down the tents they did. Every time they were asked to keep their noise below the policy level they did so. Roberts said that a really productive and constructive dialogue occurred from Friday morning through Sunday morning. That Sunday evening, the protesters decided to stop talking with Student Affairs and to stop complying with policies that they had been complying with, and that they have complied with since.Roberts reiterated that he had just referred to the physical act of taking down structures and not the broader dialogue with the protesters, which he concluded should be handled by the trained professionals in Student Affairs.
Keith Hines asked about the specific act of bringing in larger city police who are unfamiliar with or not as familiar with dealing with college students in this environment. He asked if there would be an evaluation or assessment of how these things happened. Hines expressed his admiration for UNC Police Chief James and UNC Police, for the most part. Still, he thought that the university may need to reassess in case anything else happens like this again that may bring in police officers who are not familiar with college campuses and situations. He granted that these police are the most apt and accustomed to dealing with riots and protests in the streets, not on a college campus. He thought that this may have been a misstep on the university’s part to bring in these officers, who may have come in with a lack of skill set needed to handle this situation. He thought that the university may need to reassess whom it brings in when these situations arise. Hines understood bringing in other UNC System officers with what other campuses can spare and still keep their campuses safe. These personnel deal with similar things and people in the same age group with the same train of thought. However, police from larger cities may not be ready or well-equipped to deal with this task.
Hines added that upon reading the earlier university messaging on this subject compared with the latter messaging, he said that he tended to favor the latter because it was more expressively saying that we recognize that the upheaval was not caused by all students. He said that some of the earlier messaging sounded like everyone who was there was doing something against university policy or against the law. He did not believe that this conclusion was true. Hines hoped that the university will continue to express itself along the lines of the latter messaging, saying that there were some people who did some things and not all of those people were students or affiliated with the university.
Roberts thanked Hines for his comments regarding Chief of UNC Police James, noting that he had worked closely with James and his team. Roberts thanked the Chair for pointing out that UNC Police are employees just like the rest of those present. He said that he could not be more impressed with James’ professionalism and expertise, and that of his team.
Roberts said that the university will conduct a full after-action reporting process that is required in this case and is in fact standard in a situation like this. He would lead a meeting that day to kick off that process, which should be done in a complete and comprehensive fashion. Roberts said that any time that a situation like this arises, there are things that were done well and things which could be improved. He said that it is important to learn from these situations, and that the university will make every effort to do that.
Roberts said that the university had two other forces, Orange County Sheriff’s Deputies, and the North Carolina Highway Patrol, on campus during this time. He did not know that anyone from these forces interacted with protesters at all. These police were there to be in reserve but only to be used as a reserve. Roberts said that the Orange County folks were visible but he was uncertain as to whether any interacted with protestors directly. He understood that these personnel conducted traffic control around campus but he was unaware of them being used directly. Roberts said that the standing preference is always to have UNC-Chapel Hill campus police first and other campus police second with any other police forces used as a backup.
Roberts also thanked Hines for his comments regarding communication that week. He stressed that the broad majority, not just the protesters who were at the encampment, but the protesters who were seen before and since, were peaceful and following the rules.
Even on the day of the arrests, Roberts thought it true to say that the only people who were arrested were people who wanted to get arrested. These people were given very clear communication about dispersing, about what would happen if they did not disperse through multiple warnings, he said. Plenty of students and protesters walked away when the police told them to walk away and thus were not arrested. Roberts also agreed with Hines’ comment about the make-up of the protesters, as just 13 of the 36 people detained were Carolina students, around 36% of the overall total.
Kelsey Dillon understood that UNC Police probably have more training in these situations. She wanted clarity on their de-escalation training. She observed when the university calls in other police forces and things of that nature, is the university certain that these forces have had de-escalation training, so that they really know how to interact in these situations without creating more stress and anxiety. She said that just the fact of bringing police to campus for some people is very stressful. She wished to ensure that the university has a de-escalation program for all police officers coming on campus.
Roberts said that they are trained in de-escalation techniques and student protest. He said that Dillon made a good point about the consistency of training across UNC System police forces. He said that all of these forces receive this training in this regard. Roberts noted that conversation has moved to the need for a consistent standard of training across UNC System police officers. He understood that this level of training is high, as all of these officers have combined training at the State Police facility. Roberts recalled that there has been money in the state budget for this purpose the last several years. Still, he said that discussion has asked what can be done to ensure that these officers have the highest standard of training and that their inter-operability is at the level needed. Roberts said that there has already been conversation with budget personnel at the General Assembly on this question, about what else can be done to ensure a consistent and high-level of training at the UNC System level.
The Chair added a question from the chat, which asked if there have been any realistic and expedient plans for UNC to schedule meaningful discussions about the conflict, as opportunities exist to generate and continue a discussion. Roberts said that he and other South Building employees have thought about this question and would welcome suggestions. He said that with the advent of summer break, it is the wrong time of year to set up anything that involves a large number of students. Yet, there are many things that the university can do before and after the next school year begins. He noted the possible contributions of the new School for Civic Life and Leadership, the focus of which is to improve civil discourse. Roberts also observed that while there have been plenty of discussions on the Gaza conflict on campus, relatively few of these discussions have represented a broad range of views. He thought that UNC-Chapel Hill, as a leading global research university, should find ways to use its expertise and resources to demonstrate a scholarly dialogue around an issue as sensitive and high profile as this one. He welcomed thoughts on the best ways to do that.
Sarah Smith noted her work as a staff employee with the Campus Y. She asked Roberts to speak to the communication, impacted facilities, and the indefinite closure of the Campus Y space that seemed to be reversed only after community members and alumni expressed outrage. She noted that a campus-wide email has stated that the Campus Y building is being monitored. She understood that students use Campus Y facilities for the restrooms, but asked if that warrants a complete shutdown of the space.
Smith said that staff employees there were kept in the dark about what was occurring and why. Students were asking staff questions to which answers were not available. Smith also noted that Campus Y staff are also Student Affairs professionals who could have been leveraged into having some meaningful dialogue with the protesters. She said that last week Campus Y employees were not allowed into their offices and had to be escorted by administration and police officers to retrieve their own belongings. She asked Roberts’ perspective on that experience, as Campus Y employees are staff just like others here and thus deserve communication and clarity.
Roberts thought that communication around the Campus Y could have been done better. As far as he was aware, Roberts said that the reopening of the Campus Y was not driven by outside pressure. He said that the closure was one of a number of buildings around the Quad which were closed. The university had received reports of people not just using the bathroom but also sleeping in the buildings, with reports of people coming into work and finding people who clearly were not students. He noted reports specific to the buildings around the Quad, with sleeping in bathrooms and trash left around. So, the university decided to close all of the buildings around the Quad.
Roberts understood that the Campus Y required quite a bit of cleanup, leading to a Friday announcement that the building would reopen once the cleanup took place over the weekend. He further understood that the building reopened Monday. He thought that communication could have been better regarding this question. Roberts said that the Campus Y was not closed for punitive reasons, but rather it was closed because it seemed like it was being used by folks in ways that he did not think any university building is intended to be used.
Smith thanked Roberts for his response, saying that it represented the most information received to date. She added that she had been in the building and said that the building was fine, with no need for whatever cleanup was done over the weekend. Roberts said that he had not been in the building himself, but rather relied on photos and comments from people. He granted that Smith had been in the building and that he had not.
The Chair thanked Roberts for joining the Forum, hearing its delegates out, and answering questions. She appreciated the continuing partnership of the Chancellor’s Office. Roberts thanked everyone once again who worked hard on not just commencement, but also in getting this huge institution through to the end of another proud semester in the university’s 229th academic year.
The Chair raised one more point that the Staff Advisory Committee to the Chancellor (STACC) would reassemble in the summer. Roberts once again thanked the Forum and the Chair.
The Chair then welcomed Vice Chancellor for Human Resources, Equal Opportunity, and Compliance Becci Menghini to provide the Forum’s customary HR Update. Menghini started by acknowledging that today is North Carolina’s State Employee Recognition Day. She recalled that the university celebrates this date in the fall with games, music, and ice cream in the Pit. Still, she did not want to miss an opportunity to celebrate colleagues. She thus joined the Chancellor, the Governor, and others in thanking employees for their service to Carolina and the state on this day.
Menghini said that the university is still anticipating the 3% salary adjustment for employees occurring in July. She noted that some employees have been tracking the state budget on the news as the General Assembly enters its short session and as revenue forecasts emerge. Menghini reminded listeners that the state budget office works with both parties to anticipate the state’s revenue forecast, a prediction that is usually close to the final figure. This year, the office anticipated a $400 million surplus, with the actual outcome resulting in a billion dollars over that figure. Menghini noted Governor Cooper’s proposed budget for the short session advocates an additional increase for state employees. She thought that the House Speaker had said that this idea would be on the table this year.
Menghini noted this fiscal surplus is in non-recurring dollars, which are difficult to dedicate to recurring needs like raises. She added that realistically, the money may not come to fruition. She thought that the prospects for a bonus were more likely. She hoped that the legislature would follow one of the bonus patterns of the last decade, as constructing new patterns represents additional work. She hoped to be able to report soon that employees will have more money from the legislature, be it in July or sometime after. Menghini also hoped that the legislature would fund deferred maintenance needs of the university as one of many other priorities that people across the state were pitching for as a part of the budget surplus. She added that this is an election year, with all that implies.
Menghini congratulated staff employees for making it through another academic year, with only a few more days until commencement, meaning that the year’s work is nearly done but not quite complete. She hoped that employees would take a deep breath following commencement, through use of well-earned vacation leave throughout the summer.
Menghini said that she had attended a UNC System meeting regarding the upcoming State Health Plan transition from Blue Cross/Blue Shield to Aetna. She would provide more details on that transition once available. She recalled feeling much better about this transition following this meeting, stating again that Aetna’s replacement of Blue Cross is only as a third-party administrator of the State Health Plan. Blue Cross/Blue Shield has never chosen what the plan covers or its physicians or services. She said that this fact will remain true with Aetna.
Menghini also noted that an assessment of State Health Plan claims from 2021 found that Aetna would have covered 99% of those covered by Blue Cross/Blue Shield. She said that the chances of a local provider not covered by Aetna were very low. Employees will have the chance to contact these new administrators prior to the January 2025 transition. Providers will have to figure out details, but Menghini understood that in terms of compensation rates, almost everything will remain the same. She said that providers will bear the onus of selecting into Aetna. Aetna has hired extra people to assist in this changeover. There are concerns in a few rural areas about getting this 1% of claims covered, but this deficit should not impact the Triangle area. Employees can contact their providers now to ensure that their coverage will continue.
Menghini said that Aetna will introduce a 24-hour, 7 day a week nurse line, a service not available in the current plan. The nurse on-call service will be available to everyone as part of the plan. Additionally, employees will have telemedicine services available. Aetna will also offer a health concierge and lifestyle and conditioning coaching service. These services are not built for everyone but are in addition to the new arrangement with Aetna and were not previously available. She understood that this was one reason that the State Health Plan was interested in Aetna as plan administrator. Menghini said that interested employees can download Aetna’s cellphone app to do searches as to whether their personal medical providers are covered.
Responding to a chat question regarding duplicating the EHRA bonus program for SHRA employees, Menghini noted there was an SHRA bonus program. She said that the only difference between the two programs is that SHRA employees are only eligible for sign-on and retention bonuses, while EHRA employees have the potential to earn those bonuses plus the ability to have a performance bonus built into their performance structure. These latter bonuses are not widely used across campus and are relatively complicated to construct. The university does not have local authority to extend these bonuses to SHRA employees, but sign-on and retention bonuses for these employees are available now.
Menghini confirmed that the hire date for employees to receive the 3% pay increase is June 30, 2024, subject to written guidance from the state. She recalled a long conversation about the transition from SHRA to EHRA at a recent in-person HR Council meeting. Unfortunately, range adjustments for this transition have been lagging, leading to an awkward period in between the two stages. She wanted this transition to work better and easier, but this is the structure now in place. She said that OHR is willing to help with individual cases.
The Chair raised a question regarding SHRA bonuses, noting a misconception as to whether SHRA retention bonuses require an offer in hand to provide these bonuses. Menghini understood that these bonuses do not require these offers, but she would confirm this fact for the Forum. She thought that the reason that they do not require offers is because sign-on bonus-receiving employees are receiving bonuses, so the university can even this disparity out through the retention bonus for current staff. She offered to confirm this fact.
The Chair also said that the Forum would love to partner with OHR this fall to provide a community meeting or session with Senior Director of Benefits and Leave Administration Joe Williams to answer questions around the conversion from Blue Cross to Aetna, especially as the university approaches open enrollment in October. Menghini agreed, noting that the demands on the Benefits and Leave team in OHR have been extensive the last couple of years. She said that as people have had different reasons to request leave or retirement, this team has been active in response. She said that OHR would be happy to engage in this conversation. The Chair added that the Forum is here to advocate for anything that OHR needs to accomplish its work in this area. She recalled the recent difficulties with the COVID pandemic and the Great Resignation, among other events.
Menghini thanked the Chair for this partnership in enduring recent changes, which have been very complicated. She recalled that a few years ago, one could say that the university had no tools to retain its employees. She said that all of these problems have not been fixed, but she said that employees now benefit from bonus tools, recent raises the last couple of years, and new ranges for SHRA employees and EHRA employees, with the opportunity to convert from SHRA to EHRA.
Menghini was proud to report that university turnover rates have dropped below pre-pandemic rates. During the pre-pandemic period, the average for EHRA employee turnover was between 7-8%. During the pandemic, this rate rose to 14% but has now fallen back down to 6%. For faculty, these numbers were just under 4% pre-pandemic, up to 6% during the pandemic and now down to 2.5%. SHRA employee turnover rates hovered between 8-9% pre-pandemic, rising to 15% during the pandemic and now have fallen to below 8%. She said that these reductions represent some good things, but there is a lot more to this story as OHR continues to work on improving how it hires and engages employees. She said that OHR has worked really hard to ensure tools are available when hiring people or as employees receive other opportunities, that those outside opportunities are not better than those present here at UNC-Chapel Hill.
Menghini said that these are things that the university must do to build the sort of community desired at Carolina. She thanked all for their partnership and commitment to ensuring that the university gets these things done. The Chair noted that ex-officio delegate Shayna Hill, the former Chair of the Forum, is now the Chair of the UNC System Staff Assembly. She was proud to have people advocating for staff issues this closely to UNC System President Peter Hans, the Board of Governors, and the UNC System Office.
The Chair welcomed Senior Work/Life Manager Jessica Pyjas to present the Forum’s customary wellness updates. The Chair noted that Pyjas would provide a summary of her presentation in the Forum’s monthly post-meeting update email. Pyjas reminded the Forum that this is mental health awareness month. She shared common myths and facts related to mental illness. She urged employees to speak with counselors through the Employee Assistance Program (EAP) or the State Health Plan Resources before mental health crises result in larger issues.
Pyjas said that one in five Americans are diagnosed with a mental health condition in a given year, with 46% of Americans meeting the criteria of a diagnosable condition at some point in their lifetime. Half of these people develop the condition before the age of 14. Adolescents deal with a lot more mentally than in previous years and do not have the skills to deal with those situations or to have open conversations. Mental health conditions are more common in younger adolescents than a decade ago. Pyjas reminded listeners to prioritize self-care and connections with others.
Pyjas went through the schedule of Wellness Wednesday webinars for the month of May as well as upcoming Mindful Meditation sessions which occur during the lunch hour and are hosted by the School of Medicine. The North Carolina Botanical Gardens will host Thursdays with Yoga again, as well as other botany-related seminars on Thursdays.
Pyjas noted that employees can obtain counseling through the Heels for Health website, with 24/7 counseling support either via the phone or through website bookings. EAP resources are available through the State Health Plan’s Clear Pricing Project for those therapists and counselors who participate in that program, with a co-payment of zero dollars. Pyjas said that this program was started years ago by State Treasurer Dale Falwell.
Pyjas encouraged listeners to wear green on May 16th in support of mental health awareness month. The Human Resources newsletter WorkWell contains more information on these topics as well as a mental health tip every single day. She encouraged listeners to check out information on the EAP site and noted that there is a mental health page with other resources as well.
Pyjas announced that UNC-Chapel Hill has submitted several nominations for the Governor’s Awards for Excellence. Decisions on these awards will be made in August but not publicly shared with nominees and the public until October. Over 300 individuals were nominated for a Governor’s Award.
Pyjas noted the Eat Smart, Move More, Prevent Diabetes program which has been offered essentially free to employees for many years. This program, for pre-diabetic employees, will sunset its free rates and will instead charge $30 up front, with a return of this money upon meeting an attendance requirement. She asked employees to encourage needy co-workers to sign up for this program to avoid future charges.
Pyjas noted the May recipe feature for this month. She said that the recruitment process for Wellness Champions has begun, with additional interest sessions coming soon. Pyjas added that state employees can obtain a 15% discount off local Amtrak travel within the state, with 22 blackout dates through the specific website. The Chair praised Pyjas for pursuing this question over many months in response to a question from delegate Arlene Medder. Pyjas invited those with questions to contact her.
The Chair thanked Pyjas for her remarks. She moved to the consent agenda and asked for motions to approve the consent agenda. Laura Pratt asked that the Blood Drive committee have time reserved for an update, as did Arlene Medder for the Carolina Community Garden update. Theresa Silsby asked for time for the Community Service committee to speak on the upcoming Habitat for Humanity build. Sarah Smith asked to pull out the Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion committee, and Sharron Bouquin asked for time for the Personnel Issues committee. Laura Pratt moved that the consent agenda be approved with these exceptions, seconded by Elizabeth DuBose. The motion was approved via acclamation.
Silsby said that the Community Service committee hoped to finalize details regarding a possible Habitat for Humanity build for the group. She said that this could occur in June. She would provide more details as they become available.
Laura Pratt said that the Carolina Blood Drive committee had conducted its 36th annual drive the previous Wednesday. She said that the incidents on campus the Tuesday prior made the drive challenging, but she was impressed with the Carolina community for supporting the drive. There were 95 volunteers and 74 first-time donors. The drive collected 430 units of blood, enough to potentially impact 1,290 people. This work represents a lot of potential lives saved. Pratt thanked volunteers, donors, and others who spread the word about the drive to the campus and wider community. She additionally thanked Renata Buchanan, who this year served as co-chair of the drive and would chair the effort next year. She advised new delegates to consider this committee for their choice. The Chair thanked Pratt and Buchanan for their leadership and dedication. She recalled that Tuesday afternoon, there was a question as to whether the drive would occur at all.
Arlene Medder said that the Carolina Community Garden has six new accessible beds which are larger than the old accessible beds. The Garden put in a new drainage system to protect nearby paths from rainfall. She said that the Garden had a very good spring with two distributions per week which were well-attended by employees on all three shifts. The Garden has also received around 20 volunteers per workday, a number which will decrease with the departure of the students following commencement this week. In addition, the Garden received permission for a limited number of parking spaces in the Nash lot for community volunteers. The Garden now hosts two beehives and plans to expand the number of beds. Medder said that the Garden will hope to provide shade to replace a shade tree that died and had to be removed.
Rebecca Howell said that the Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion committee will hold its final end of the year meeting next week in person. Delegates are invited to attend and participate in discussions related to happenings at the UNC Board of Governors (BOG). The meeting will take place May 14th at the Law School.
Sharron Bouquin said that the Personnel Issues committee met last month and discussed the aforementioned BOG vote on a new DEI policy. She said that the committee is trying to maintain updated information regarding the issue on the Teams site under Personnel Issues > Topics. The committee has added links and other information to the Teams page related to this issue. The Chair said that a response from campus leaders on this topic may come soon.
The Chair asked that other committees share their updates with her via email for the monthly update sent out after each meeting. The Chair then moved to new business, with the call for officer nominations, then the bylaws first reading. The Forum officer elections will be held in June. Positions open for election include the Chair, the Chair elect (potentially), the Vice Chair, the Secretary, and the Treasurer positions. She opened nominations for each position. Laura Pratt nominated Katie Musgrove for another term as Chair. Musgrove accepted this nomination, noting that each nominator and candidate will have the chance to make five-minute speeches to the Forum at the June meeting. Keith Hines added that new delegates are immediately eligible for election in each position.
The Chair thanked Matthew Teal and Parliamentarian Jacob Womack for offering to administer the June officer elections electronically via the Zoom platform. Annetta Streater asked for a bit of background on the possible intersection of the Vice Chair and Chair elect positions. She also asked the identity of the person appointed to the Treasurer’s position following Tracy Wetherby Williams’ departure from the university. The Chair said that she had appointed Brigitte Ironside to this position.
The Chair said that the Chair elect would serve one year in that role, then two years as Chair, and one year as immediate past Chair. The Vice Chair would succeed to the role of Chair in the event of the Chair’s absence, to preserve the Chair elect’s full year of onboarding for the position. The Vice Chair preserves its authority in the new system, with the Chair Elect being created to ease leadership transition.
The Chair asked for any other nominations for the Chair position. With the prospective bylaws revisions, this is the last year of a one-year term for this role. There were no further nominations. The Chair asked for nominations for the Chair elect position. Rebecca Howell declared her interest. The Chair clarified that the Chair elect position is created as an intermediary step towards their assumption of the Chair’s position a year later. Jacob Womack said that anyone interested in the Chair’s position will need to serve as Chair elect the year prior, under the prospective bylaws revisions. This model emulates the Faculty Council and the UNC System Staff Assembly’s officer system. Elizabeth DuBose endorsed this structure as supporting the Vice Chair role. Haydeé Marchese nominated DuBose for the position of Chair elect. DuBose asked for time to consider this nomination.
Tiffany Carver then nominated Keith Hines for another term as Vice Chair, which Hines accepted. Susse Toro nominated David Bragg for this position, but Bragg declined this nomination.
Keith Hines nominated Tiffany Carver for the position of Forum Secretary, which Carver accepted. There were no other nominations for this position at this time. Moving to the Treasurer position, Annetta Streater nominated herself for this position. Keith Hines nominated Brigitte Ironside for the position, which Ironside accepted. Mathew Steadman also nominated himself via the chat feature.
The Chair said that the June meeting will feature the Peer Recognition awards as well as the officer elections. The Chair then moved to consider of the Forum Bylaws revisions, which were the product of months of work and received an initial Forum vote in favor of this proposal in February. The Chair described the potential bylaws changes, noting that a group from the Law School helped to translate this potential language into the bylaws themselves. The Chair went over the various bylaws changes in the first reading of the proposal. She asked Jacob Womack to provide more discussion of these changes.
Womack led a discussion of the proposed changes, explaining the reasons behind each change. The Chair thanked Womack for this work, noting that the Forum would consider the revisions for a final time on second reading at a special May 21st meeting. Arlene Medder moved that the revisions be accepted on first reading, a motion seconded by Laura Pratt. The motion passed without opposition or abstention from voting delegates.
The Chair asked delegates to stay on the call for another five or so minutes so that it could consider a matter in closed session. Arlene Medder made this motion, seconded by Laura Pratt. The motion was approved by acclamation, and the Forum entered closed session.
The Forum then emerged from closed session. The Chair thanked delegates for devoting extra time to the important discussion. She encouraged delegates to note the employees receiving years of service recognition this year. Some of these employees have served the university for as long as 55 years.
Arlene Medder moved that the meeting be adjourned, seconded by Laura Pratt. The meeting adjourned by acclamation at 11:48 a.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Matt Banks, Recording Secretary