November 9, 2023 Vice Chancellors’ Representatives’ Meeting Minutes
Attending: David Barnette, David Bragg, Linc Butler, Shavon Carey-Hicks, Gabriela De La Cruz, Elizabeth Dubose, Shayla Evans-Hollingsworth, Leah Hefner, Keith Hines, Jonah Hodge, James Holman, Stacy Keast, Sara Kelley, Arlene Medder, Becci Menghini, Katie Musgrove, Katherine Neer, Carly Perin, Lisa Petersen, Jacqueline Schwamberger, Lori Shamblin, James Stamey, Julie Theriault, Ally Wardell, Tyrone Williams, Jacob Womack
Katie Musgrove called the meeting to order at 2:01 p.m. She read the first question, from Elizabeth Dubose:
(Dubose) Is the University concerned about the impact that the UNCH system departure from the State retirement plan will have on sustaining adequate funding for retiree payments over time?
Linc Butler said that there is some concern as this drama unfolds between UNC Health and the State Retirement system. He observed that the estimated 45,000 employees who could be removed from the retirement system is no small number. Butler estimated that around 40% of that number are probably already in the Optional Retirement program and so are not in TSERS. He also thought that employees affected by this switch in TSERS would be likely to keep their retirement in that plan because of the health benefits provided, especially if they started employment before that benefit was phased out.
Butler said that the big question is the lack of future funding. If newly hired UNC Health employees over time are no longer being offered the opportunity to enter TSERS, what would that mean for the state retirement system? As perspective, he observed that the state retirement system has about $115 billion in State pension funds, with the removal of this group representing about $1 billion. He thought that comparatively, while these are large numbers, the system would survive the removal of $1 billion from this $115 billion.
However, the question still remains to be seen, and only time will tell as to the true impact on future payments into the system. Butler pledged to keep the Forum posted as more information becomes available.
Musgrove read Dubose’s follow-up question from the chat: “We would like clear answers as to why the leaders in Raleigh don’t seem to be doing the math. Our companion concern is that the number of School of Medicine positions once vacant that are being transferred to UNC Health is impacting some of the smaller research departments.”
Butler responded that Dubose’s concern was a fair one. He said that the Office of Human Resources (OHR) has a process in place with the School of Medicine whereby if School of Medicine leadership prefers to transfer a vacant position to UNC Health, this transfer requires review and approval by OHR. There is a threshold that has to be met in terms of the number of duties and responsibilities that fall on the clinical UNC Health side before a transfer can be made. Butler said that the number of transfers coming through has been low. He said that if something becomes vacant in the School of Medicine and a position is abolished, with UNC Health creating a new, similar position, OHR would not have any information on that occurring. Still, OHR has not seen many direct transfers of positions over the last 4-5 years, Butler said.
Musgrove said that she understood enough about what is happening to the remaining structure at the School of Medicine to become concerned. Butler thought that even if a position goes over to UNC Health, the position will still function in the original unit unless some kind of other reorganization takes place, like restructuring that involves the clinics. Even if a position is moved over to UNC Health, this fact would not mean that an area is losing a position and would not have it replaced. The hiring of this position would be done by UNC Health as opposed to the University’s School of Medicine.
Leah Hefner asked about a part of the News & Observer article that describes this change. She said that the article described the tax-exempt status of the pension system possibly being in jeopardy as a result of this move. There was further concern that members of the pension system could owe billions in back taxes to the IRS as a result.
Butler said that he did not understand this part of the article well enough to comment. He said that he would have to do a bit more digging into this question regarding IRS rules governing the retirement system. He ventured that perhaps the IRS would be concerned about certain thresholds not being met in terms of the number of participants or contributions to the system. He said he would be happy to take a deeper look at this question.
Lori Shamblin presented the meeting’s next question:
(Shamblin) Concerns have been raised about comments that the new wrestling coach made recently on a podcast, specifically about young women. There does not seem to be any comment or response from leadership in athletics or from UNC leadership as a whole. The comments made by Coach Koll are very concerning to many people, particularly women, in our community. Will the university respond in any way? Will Coach Koll have any consequences for his comments? He was speaking specifically as the new coach about women in Chapel Hill.
https://www.dailytarheel.com/article/2023/10/sports-wrestling-rob-koll-culture-concerns
Butler did not know the best person to speak to this concern. He thought that someone from the Chancellor’s Office would be best positioned to speak. Musgrove said that she had met with the Chancellor earlier in the week and thought that his Office had not commented because the remarks represent a personnel matter. She believed this was the reason for the university’s silence regarding this matter.
The Forum followed up after the meeting with Kamrhan Farwell to obtain a formal response from University Communications. Farwell responded thusly to an emailed question from the Chair: “Coach Koll has issued his apology for his remarks. Beyond that, this issue is a personnel matter, so we wouldn’t be able to share answers to the other questions on this matter.”
Leah Hefner read the meeting’s next question:
(Hefner) In follow-up to the affordable housing survey report at the last general forum meeting, would you please elaborate on the partnerships administration will be exploring during the next two years? In addition to the Chapel Hill mayor and town council, who are the people and/or organizations the University sees as partners? In terms of potentially developing UNC’s land and turning it into affordable housing, what kinds of authorizations does the University need to do this? Moreover, where does the funding for such projects come from?
Carly Perin shared a short response from Nate Knuffman, who could not be present for the meeting due to a previous commitment with the Board of Trustees. The statement read:
“So you know, we’re at the very early stages of exploring housing options and our first step was the work we completed with UNC advisors, to gain a detailed understanding of the current needs and issues. We’ve planned to continue conversations with the town of Chapel Hill and Carrboro and Orange County, along with local affordable housing organizations on how we can work together to address those housing issues. These conversations will be inclusive of location including potential sites owned by UNC. We will share more information as the process on both as viable options are identified.”
Perin granted that this statement does not answer all of the questions raised but said it represents a start. Musgrove recalled a brief conversation with Gordon Merklein on this subject at the Board of Trustees meeting yesterday. She hoped to connect Merklein and Hefner, and perhaps to invite Merklein to speak on recent steps forward in this area, to inform the Forum’s work on its relevant resolution.
Katie Musgrove read the next question on behalf of Jacob Womack:
(Womack) I would like an update on the process for upgrading security cameras. Will the university provide any funding for these upgrades? There are many units that are receipt based that have tight budgets already. I know that the policy regarding security cameras has been updated, but I am more interested in steps to increase safety for our students and employees.
Carly Perin said that this question crosses units. She noted that no one from Campus Safety was on the call that afternoon. She said that this issue is a top priority, and that Facilities Services is proud to serve in a partnership of campus units working on this question. She noted that Public Safety has distributed a feedback portal and continues to gather input. She said that unit continues to process results to inform any possible changes to process and safety measures.
Perin said that another part of the post-emergency process is the after-action report, which is the standard for all emergency situations on campus. The university’s report is currently in progress, Perin said.
Rebecca Menghini added that the key is that Public Safety is working to actively explore both new cameras and systems to upgrade and coordinate existing resources. In this way, Menghini thought that Womack’s concerns about camera locations and updates are being addressed. She said that there had been a lot of conversation in that morning’s Board of Trustees meeting on this subject and campus safety overall.
Womack thanked Perin and Menghini for their responses. He said that the Student Union had been trying to upgrade its system for years, even prior to the pandemic. Now, costs have gone through the roof, with products bid out in 2019 requiring a rebid process. He was curious if there had been concern at the higher levels of the university about shouldering the financial burden of these updates centrally, rather than leaving these expenses to campus units. He asked if there would be any potential support for a change in the university’s financial model for something this systemic.
Menghini said that Womack’s question is a fair one, and she offered to circle back with more information when it becomes available. Musgrove thought that the financial side of this question is important because it is the source of some inequities, as some receipt-supported programs have very tight budgets. These programs might not be able to make the necessary safety improvements. She said that having this effort become a campus-level initiative would take the burden off these programs and would be the most equitable solution in this case.
James Stamey read the next question on the agenda:
(Stamey) Does the Associate Vice Chancellor’s position have flexibility with salary, whether to become SHRA, or can the selected candidate be given a contract for four years? My opinion, making the position SHRA may increase the candidate pool.
Butler said that there is not really an SHRA classification that would have a salary range that could pay the requisite salary needed to attract candidates for this role. In addition, he noted the recent legislative change that all FLSA exempt positions convert to EHRA. This is the kind of role that fits into the classic senior academic administrative officer (SAAO) tier 2 type role.
Regarding Stamey’s first question, Butler said that there is always a chance that a candidate may choose to negotiate a salary offer. He said that the university needs to prepare for this possibility within reason. Ranges exist even for these high-level positions, and OHR must adhere to these ranges and consider internal equity with comparable roles, Butler said.
Stamey asked if a four-year contract would apply to a position like this as well. Butler said that the position is characterized as an EHRA non-faculty at-will position for which contracts are not typically done. Contracts are typically reserved for head coaches, because of how these positions are structured.
James Holman presented the final question on the agenda, noting that he had distributed it to various people in Human Resources and Facilities Services. He sought feedback from OHR regarding the proposals put forward.
(Holman) We would like to have a discussion related to the emailed suggestions below on improvements to the Housekeeping hiring process. Here is the content of that email sent to various individuals involved in the hiring process:
I hope this message finds you well. I am writing to request a change in our current hiring process for the Housekeeping Department. Over the past hiring cycles, they have encountered some challenges after conversations with managers that I believe we can address for better outcomes. Employees Forum Delegates I’m asking for your support in presenting this document to Senior Management and Human Resources. I have included a few members of Housekeeping management on this email if they would like give any recommendations.
- In-Person Interviews: Respectfully suggest that whenever possible, we conduct interviews in person rather than exclusively using Zoom or other video conferencing platforms. In-person interviews allows managers to better assess candidates and their suitability for our team. While virtual interviews can be convenient, they may not provide the same level of insight into a candidate’s qualifications.
- Involvement of Department Professionals: When a job position becomes available, I propose that all applications be directed to both the hiring manager and the assistant director for the zones to which the employee will be assigned. These individuals possess in-depth knowledge of the position’s requirements and can offer valuable insights into selecting the most suitable candidates. They should be responsible for shortlisting and selecting applicants for interviews.
- HR Role: I believe that the primary role of Human Resources (HR) officers in the hiring process, should be to ensure compliance with University policies and to conduct background checks on prospective candidates. While they play a crucial role in the process, they should not be the ones selecting the candidates for interviews. Instead, they should work closely with the department professionals to facilitate the hiring process smoothly.
- Inclusion of Inexperienced Applicants: It is important to consider all applicants, even those who may not have prior experience in the field. Sometimes, individuals with less experience can bring perspectives and enthusiasm to our team. I recommend that all applicants be given a fair chance, and decisions regarding their suitability can be made during the interview and evaluation process.
- Lastly, I suggest that the final decision on Housekeeping hiring a candidate be made collectively by management, taking into consideration the recommendations of the hiring manager, assistant director, and HR. This approach ensures that hiring decisions are well-informed and aligned with our department’s needs and goals.
Menghini deferred to Carly Perin, as she had done previously in conversations with Holman during Employee Appreciation Day. She said that Human Resources can certainly weigh in on the structural process and would be happy to do so. However, she emphasized that the original unit manages their hiring process. She had shared with Perin that Holman had raised these questions previously and noted that Perin is open to making some changes.
Menghini said that OHR is happy to coordinate with Facilities Services and other shops to think through which options work and which others might run afoul of standard practice. Still, she cautioned the Forum about raising concerns generally, emphasizing that we must follow the maxim that units know their work best. OHR manages centrally and only works with these units.
Menghini said that units are the subject matter experts in their areas. OHR is here to ensure that units follow policies and manage best practices. OHR will work with units but will never tell a unit exactly how it must conduct its business unless that unit is breaking the rules. Menghini said that OHR must ensure that units are leveraging internal structures in the best way possible.
In other words, Menghini observed that no one ever wants their boss to come in and say someone else told me how they think you should be doing your job. Likewise, she did not want to act in this way with units as a result of conversations with Forum delegates.
Perin thanked Holman for raising these questions with Menghini and Tracy Agnew. She said that her unit was open to the idea of having onsite interviews for staff that generally work onsite. She thought that OHR is working on a plan to move forward with this idea, or at least to pilot it to see if there is any resultant improvement to the candidate pool.
Holman thanked both Menghini and Perin for their comments. Musgrove thanked Holman for his work putting these proposals together. She also appreciated Menghini’s suggestions on improving Forum processes when bringing issues forward. She thanked Perin for her willingness to listen to folks that have “boots on the ground,” with their own viewpoints on these issues.
Musgrove said that concluded the list of previously submitted questions. However, she asked if there were any statements or questions from the floor. Tyrone Williams, a Housekeeping Zone Manager for Zone 207 (all labs on campus), asked who actually determines when these positions are posted. He has had seven vacancies in his zone for the majority of this year and half of last year, when the positions were posted as part-time. Only yesterday or the day before were these positions reclassified to full-time positions. He asked who controls this process.
Williams added that these seven positions represent around $280,000 to the department, given that each earns around $40,000. He said that current employees must work a lot of overtime and are thus burned out. He took issue with the department calling itself the premier service provider when employees are only able to do the best they can given these constraints. He lamented a managerial focus on planning that does not make any headway. Also, he said that these staffing shortages have left current housekeepers in his zone frustrated. Currently, his area is supposed to have 18 people on staff but now only has ten, including himself. The zone is still responsible for cleaning the same amount of square footage on a daily basis.
This staffing disparity rapidly burns employees out, with the increasingly attractive option to quit work, Williams said. Neither the retention bonus nor the sign-on bonus worked to retain employees. In fact, Williams said that he had employees who received the retention bonus then quit a few months later. He thought that the issue is not the money, but rather having bodies there to work and to train people to do the work.
Williams said that he and other supervisors could teach anyone off the street the Housekeeping team cleaning process. He thought that the university needs to change the way it thinks about how it is doing things to produce results.
James Holman added that if a person has a good work record and they pass the criminal background check, they do not have to have housekeeping experience to do the work here. He, and others can train these people to do this work. He thought that positions were not being posted in a timely manner.
Holman said that people are applying for housekeeping jobs. He thought that people without six months’ housekeeping experience were being unfairly excluded from university interviews. He said that this practice has led to employee shortages and subsequent burnout. In turn, customers who expect service are increasingly disappointed, and are sending in complaints.
Holman asked why housekeepers are not notified of upcoming employment drives, as they could tell their friends to come in and apply for positions. He said that the communication part of this process is not working, and he thought that something needs to change.
James Stamey observed that a recent job fair featured 60-80 candidates, most of whom did not speak English. He had heard that precedents from the PRM investigation are holding Housekeeping back from getting things done. He suggested that Housekeeping reassess these precedents in light of current circumstances.
Stamey asked if there is a requirement that positions must have three candidates each for interviews. Linc Butler said that this is a general guideline. He said that research areas might only receive two applicants or even one per open position. Butler said that OHR approves exceptions to this general guideline to allow for fewer candidates, especially if the candidates available are qualified. This is not a hard and fast rule, however, more of a general recommendation that positions have three candidates available for each to show that a fair enough hiring process exists.
Stamey asked if the PRM investigation precedents could be reassessed to find if they affect the recruiting process in some way. Becci Menghini commented in the chat feature: “I’m inclined to think it may be useful to host a call with zone managers and the F&O HR team to walk through these issues. Those of us in central HR can assist as we work through these recommendations.”
Musgrove said that the unit seems to have not made much progress since 2021 given circumstances related to the pandemic and leadership departures. Menghini thought that it was not fair to say that things have not improved in the Housekeeping unit. She said that OHR has seen things move given effort from leadership and staff. She thought that new recommendations have had something to do with these improvements.
Menghini further thought that a reevaluation of hiring standards in Housekeeping should take place strictly within the unit, without including the Forum or any subsection of that body as part of these meetings. She thought that Finance & Operations should house this meeting with Housekeeping zone managers and leadership. Menghini was happy to offer OHR help in this area. Musgrove said that she agreed with Menghini’s chat comment altogether.
Menghini noted the difficulties in moving groups of this size and thought it important to emphasize that everyone know that all are on the same team. Managers and staff have perhaps a few different things in mind when approaching these discussions. However, Menghini thought that a frank and transparent acknowledgment of these differences would allow for some path forward.
Stacy Keast had a question from earlier in the meeting in the chat feature: “Is there any effort to research current occupancy levels in buildings on campus in an effort to reduce energy use (and expense) for the university and use campus building space more efficiently?”
Perin noted that there is a monthly updated report on building occupancy and how it is used. Musgrove also thought that Operational Excellence is also working in this area but was uncertain as to the particular work done. Perin said that Facilities is pairing with Operational Excellence related to space utilization on campus, with communication occurring with the Chancellor’s Cabinet and the Deans this week. Perin said that this is part of the campus budget process to assess base needs, which will utilize this data as the group moves through project implementation. She said that the group is now gathering data in conjunction with campus unit space needs to inform building occupancy and assess energy use. This data could find a correlation with service levels and staff working in particular buildings.
Arlene Medder took a moment to thank OHR for its work in implementing the trades apprenticeship program. Butler said that Finance & Operations deserves a ton of credit also for this work, as they found someone who has run these programs previously to do this work. Butler thanked the Facilities team as well for their extensive contributions.
Musgrove thanked all for their contributions to this conversation with the Vice Chancellors. The meeting adjourned at 2:41 p.m.
Respectfully submitted, Matt Banks, Recording Secretary