November 4, 1998
|Delegates Present||Betty Averette||Martha Barbour||Jeffery Beam|
|Linwood Blalock||Connie Boyce||Mary Braxton||Tommy Brickhouse|
|Lucille Brooks||Denise Childress||Jean Coble||Joyce Dalgleish|
|Linda Drake||Elizabeth Evans||Linwood Futrelle||Betty Geer|
|Sherry Graham||Jennifer Henderson||Bettye Jones||LaEula Joyner|
|Ken Litowsky||Eileen McGrath||Anne Montgomery||Ken Perry|
|Bob Schreiner||Stephanie Stadler||Nancy Tannenbaum||Sharon Windsor|
|Carol Worrell||Laurie Charest“||“ = Ex-Officio||Delagates Absent|
|Pat Bigelow||Sheila Burnett||Gwen Burston||William Carroll|
|Mitch Copeland||Al Jeter||Steve Jones||Janice Lee|
|Dee Dee Massey||Lesa McPherson||Jackie Overton||Frances Rountree|
|Jane Stine||Terry Teer||Dail White||Alternates Present|
|Guests||Barbara Barton||Carolyn Coppedge||Eric Ferreri|
|Kim Gardner||Jill Goodman||Bennie Griffin||Joe Hewitt|
|Francina Hoskins||Ted Hunter||Wanda Kersey||Roger Patterson|
|Denise Phillips||Scott Ragland||Jim Ramsey||David Vaughn|
Call to Order, Welcome to Guests
Chair Linwood Futrelle called the meeting to order at 9:30 a.m. He recognized the many visitors from UNC-Greensboro who had traveled to observe the Forum in action, and looked forward to meeting with the group following adjournment. He also welcomed members of the press and other administration officials and Employees.
The Chair introduced Vice Chancellor for Administration Jim Ramsey to provide opening remarks. Ramsey noted that following a long legislative session, the General Assembly has adopted a budget for the University. He felt good about the final result of the budget negotiations, and had produced a handout summarizing the highlights of the negotiations as they affect the University.
Ramsey recalled that the Forum had heard from Susan Kitchen concerning the impact of the span of control study on University operations, and said that University administrators had dealt with these cuts over the past 2-3 months. However, he saw very little change in the University’s base continuing operating budget. The University has received additional expansion funds, but its base budget has been cut by approximately $1.7 million as a result of the span of control study.
The General Assembly has been generous with regard to continuing operations such as salary increases. Expansion budget items were generally well supported, with some expansion items receiving recurring funding and others one-time dollars. Ramsey was very pleased that the General Assembly had dedicated $8 million towards System graduate student tuition remissions, a significant increase over previous estimates of $1 million. Originally, UNC-Chapel Hill thought that its share would be around $4-4.5 million, but General Administration has informed the campus that it would receive around $2.8 million. Ramsey said that the University was disappointed that the distribution of this fund did not result in more dollars for this campus.
Currently, five percent of all University overhead research dollars received are returned as a de facto “tax” to the General Assembly. Previously, ten percent of all overhead was returned to State government, but this figure has been reduced in recent years. This change frees up over $5 million, which the University will use towards capital projects such as building renovations.
The University is still studying the distribution of dollars allocated for technological improvements. General Administration will probably hire a consultant to address System-wide technology needs, and will determine campus technological allocations from a pool established by the General Assembly. Carolina does not yet know what its share of this pool will be.
With regard to other items, Ramsey reported that UNC Libraries would receive some nonrecurring money. Concerning the capital budget, the University had done well. UNC-Chapel Hill received $9.3 million for renovations to the House Undergraduate Library, and a $6 million “down payment” on the $60 million needed for construction of the new Biomolecular Building. The Medical School’s plans to fund that building require that the University raise $30 million while the General Assembly provides the oth er $30 million. Dave Perry and others in the School of Medicine are working on ways to find the University’s share through capital and bond markets.
Six and one half million dollars have been allocated for the Institute of Government project, $1 million towards the Paul Green Theater, and $1.5 million towards the renovation of Memorial Hall. Ramsey commented that the University had worked hard to realize these appropriations over the last four months and was generally satisfied about the outcome of the legislative session. He thanked the legislative leadership, particularly the Senate for staking out a strong stand in favor of funding higher education. He said that the session had been very difficult given commitments to increasing teacher salaries and lowering taxes.
Ramsey said that the budget process for the next biennial has already begun since the Board of Governors has received recommendations from General Administration on the operating budget at the Board’s last meeting. In November, the Board will hear recommendations on capital projects. The University obviously has a strong interest in the content of these recommendations.
Eva Klein, a consulting firm, has been hired by General Administration to review the capital adequacy of campus facilities at all of the System’s 16 institutions, and to examine the equity of capital funding over time. Ramsey understood that the firm h ad visited eleven of the System’s sixteen campuses and would submit its final report on capital and deferred maintenance needs to the Board of Governors in March. Eva Klein will submit a preliminary report, subject to revision, in December.
Ramsey understood that Klein may specify a huge dollar amount for all of the new science facilities and deferred maintenance needs in the University System. There have been worries that this figure may be so large as to be overwhelming to State leaders . In addition, rather than relying on the historic method of cash appropriations to fund capital projects, Klein will examine alternative financing methods to meet these needs.
Concerning enrollment management, Ramsey noted demographic projections estimate that the population attending college within the University System (the sixteen campuses) should increase by 40-50,000 students over current levels in the next ten y ears. This change will have a great impact on life at Carolina, since many feel that the campus is already having problems with space issues. Members of the Board of Trustees are now serving on the enrollment management committee and are sensitive to the need to grow in a managed way. Ramsey said that the University would be unable to manage additional students with its current allotment of facilities, faculty, and staff.
Chaired by Provost Dick Richardson, the enrollment management committee will meet Thursday, November 5 to finalize its recommendation on the number of additional students UNC-Chapel Hill will be able to take in, and the facilities and staff needed to accommodate these new charges. This figure will be communicated to the Board of Trustees by Friday, November 9, and the full Board will discuss these recommendations at its meeting November 17-18. The enrollment number also will be communicated to General Administration before the full Board meeting, with the understanding that this figure can be amended if necessary by the Board.
Ramsey said that the consulting firms that have helped the University estimate the cost and impact of an increase in student enrollment are nervous that they have not had enough time to do a careful, thoughtful analysis. Thus, the firms emphasize that figures cited are only preliminary estimates. The University wants to ascertain what an increase in enrollment will mean to the body of campus facilities, utilities, support staff and faculty. Based on the direction of the Board, the University will refine its cost estimates to accompany enrollment adjustments.
Thirdly, Ramsey noted that the University had made a presentation to the Airport Advisory Group (AAG) October 9. The University outlined several options for the future of the Airport, concluding that due to the federal services and funds provided by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Horace Williams should remain a public service area. The AAG will meet again that day at 4 p.m. and discuss what other federal funds the University could obtain to make the airport even more safe. The AA G was established by the Chancellor to offer advice on airport operations, but as of yet would make no final recommendations.
Ramsey noted that a couple hundred pine trees next to the airport would be removed for safety reasons established by the FAA. The University will replace these trees in a landscaping plan that should make the area facing Estes Drive and Airport Road even more attractive.
Ramsey announced that the University would move forward with enactment of pre-tax treatment of Employee bus pass purchases. He noted that the University had formally obtained this status for parking permits, and was glad to be able to offer this plan for bus services also. Associate Vice Chancellor for Human Resources Laurie Charest would have more information in her report.
Ramsey noted that the University has created a new UNC Health Care System (HCS). This new organization has raised many issues among campus personnel. A specially called meeting of the Hospital Board of Directors has been called with University President Molly Broad to talk in earnest about the implications of the HCS Monday, November 9. Ramsey deferred questions about specific personnel issues to Charest. The Board will be reconfigured over time; currently, Ramsey, Jeffery Houpt, dean of the School of Medicine and William Roper, dean of the School of Public Health all serve on the Board. A new Board of Directors will be configured with representatives of the University appointed by President Broad and Chancellor Hooker.
The thrust of the UNC Health Care System (HCS) is to provide more flexibility to the medical center to be competitive economically. This is a time of great change in the health care industry, as Health Maintenance Organizations and hospitals are buying other hospitals and establishing vast health care networks. UNC Hospitals’ system was rather slow, cumbersome, and unable to keep track of the changes in the industry. Another goal of the merger is to develop a closer working relationship between doc tors in the School of Medicine and the Hospital. Doctors in the School provide staffing for much treatment and clinical services in the Hospital. Previously, doctors reported to two different boards, an arrangement, which precluded a close working relationship. The new UNC Health Care System took life November 1. Ramsey said that much remains to be done to add to the bones of the statute establishing the HCS.
Tommy Brickhouse asked about the location of the Biomedical Building. Stephanie Stadler said the building would be in a block of Manning Drive near Taylor Hall.
Associate Vice Chancellor for Finance Roger Patterson added that the University would face a challenge in the next biennium, as word is that funding in the next budget will be very tight.
Nancy Tannenbaum asked if the return of overhead funds to the General Assembly also applies to grant funding. Ramsey recalled that the University brings in over $300 million in grant funding for research, and overhead accompanying these funds ma kes up $58 million of this money. UNC-Chapel Hill sends 5% of this $58 million to General Administration. The University had been required to ship 10% of this money to the State, but now is able to keep these funds.
Tannenbaum asked when the University would know the exact figures for graduate student allotments at a departmental and school level. Patterson indicated that the Provost’s Office should have this information. Ramsey did know that the University sho uld receive $2.8 million for graduate tuition remissions, unless a technical hurdle related to Board of Governors approval changes this number. (General Administration has established the $2.8 million figure for UNC-Chapel Hill, subject to approval by the Board.)
Rachel Windham asked if there would be an adequate and appropriate opportunity for Employees affected by the HCS to provide input into the process of change. Ramsey hoped that there would be the opportunity for input, and asked Charest to provide m ore information on this question.
The Chair noted that due to a scheduling error, Public Safety Director Derek Poarch was unable to make a special presentation in November, but had been rescheduled for December 2.
The Chair introduced Director of Libraries Joe Hewitt to make a special presentation on the impact of the span of control study on UNC Libraries. Hewitt thanked the Forum for the opportunity to speak on an unhappy topic. Hewitt said that the Academic Affairs Library, which includes the Law Library, Wilson, Davis, Undergraduate, and branches, received a cut of $113,000 as a result of the span of control study. The Health Sciences Library took a cut of $33,000.
In the Academic Affairs library, administrators found money to deal with the cuts by cutting four vacant positions. Two positions in the catalog department were cut, affecting the speed with which new books are cataloged. One position was cut fr om the retrospective conversion unit, which is responsible for the 300,000-400,000 books remaining to be converted from cards to on-line catalogs. Two other positions had been saved for reassignment, one to a new office of communication, and another as a support person for information literacy programs offered in the Undergraduate library. Over the years, some of the Library’s backroom technical functions have been made more efficient through the use of technology.
Administrators did not want to cut into services offered to the public or hours of operation. Hewitt said this part was easier than dealing with the method by which the span of control cuts were justified. There have been indications that future cuts might come through span of control dictates, and so Library administrators have been looking for ways to bring the Academic Affairs Library into line with these guidelines. However, Hewitt said that the guidelines were very unreasonable in light of the Library’s internal operations.
Hewitt thought that the Library would hold up well with regard to the number of levels within the organization. However, the span of control numbers (numbers of Employees overseen by each supervisor) represent another question. The Library has many specialized small operations. For example, most departmental libraries have one full-time head and one full-time support person. The Library’s target ratio of Employees to supervisors is 5.8:1, and Hewitt said there was no way that the Library could achieve this ratio under its current organization.
Hewitt said that it would be extremely awkward to set up another form of supervision for departmental libraries. For example, a Slavic bibliographer in Area Studies does not require more than one staff member for their work and thus would have no need for additional Employees to supervise.
In addition, the span of control errs by not taking into account the number of students employed by the Library. The Library is the largest employer of students on campus; for example, the Circulation department employs 80 students. Thus, a supervisor overseeing 2 full-time Employees and eight students is considered below the supervisor/Employee ratio established by the span of control study. Hewitt said that the Library takes student supervision very seriously, and sees it as a good means to introduce students to the working world. Student workers represent a major supervisory load that has been discounted by the State.
Hewitt said that the Library often accommodates budgetary cuts, but had never before been asked specifically cut staff. He said that there had been a very strong reaction to the span of control study in the Library’s full staff meeting. Library Employees feel that the study’s underlying assumption is that supervisors are not working hard enough and are propping up inefficient organizations. Employees also felt that the study’s conclusions had been applied in an arbitrary, formulaic way without looking at the intricacies of operations. All in all, Employees thought the study’s dictates were disrespectful to the work and mission of the Academic Affairs Library. In addition, Employees thought that the study further limited the already shortened career track for library work.
In sum, Library Employees had a strongly negative reaction, not to the cuts in themselves, but to the manner in which they were taken and the implications for the Library’s internal organization. Hewitt said that administrators are constantly looking f or ways to improve the Library functions, and would have gladly done some management studies to determine ways to increase managerial span of control in ways appropriate to the library organization, possibly compared to some external benchmarks. However, to have these cuts imposed without regard to the specifics of the organization is extremely detrimental to operations and morale. Hewitt hoped that future cuts could be avoided, but said that the Library remained a good way away from span of control guide lines even after this year’s adjustments.
Secretary Lucille Brooks asked how Employees and the Employee Forum could help the Library in response to these cuts. Hewitt said that he had written a memorandum with these points for inclusion in a white paper responding to the study. He thought that the University needs to make a strong statement about how disruptive the study has been and the study’s potential to create very awkward supervisory arrangements that are unsuitable for the Library’s mission. Hewitt thought that the cuts could result in a centralized library that would hurt the highly personalized services now provided.
Hewitt had asked other System librarians how they had dealt with the cuts, but many did not know, as cuts on their campuses were so small that they could be handled at the campus level without hitting individuals units.
Rachel Windham asked how much students know about the implications of this study. Hewitt said that he had spoken with the Daily Tar Heel, but thought the reporters found the topic too complicated for them to grasp. He felt the story that was eventually done did not have an appropriate impact. However, Student Government has this year established a Library Advisory Board, which has been active in fundraising for the Undergraduate Library. These students have been consulted but they seemed to focus more on the four positions lost than the administrative convolutions resulting from the study.
The Chair noted that Student Body President Reyna Walters had been present at University Priorities and Budget Committee meetings at which the span of control study was discussed. He noted that the budgetary impact on UNC-Chapel Hill was three times larger than that at North Carolina State and that other campuses had not been affected in the same way. He felt that this study represented a serious problem and micromangement of the worst kind. The Chair thanked Hewitt for his remarks.
Vice Chair Jeffery Beam indicated that there were no Employee presentations.
Human Resources Update
Associate Vice Chancellor for Human Resources Laurie Charest noted that the North Carolina Flex open enrollment period would last until November 13. She said that Employees enrolled in a flexible spending account, either health care or dependant care must re-enroll for the next calendar year.
Coverage in the two pre-tax dental plans does roll over into the next calendar year unless an Employee specifies a change during the open enrollment period. There is also a new vision care plan included for Employees wishing to enroll. Employees not receiving a benefits package can contact the benefits hotline at 558-5050, or access the benefits handbook online at http://www.state.nc.us/osp/ncflex.
Packets describing the Liberty Mutual disability insurance plan will be mailed to Employees not currently enrolled via campus mail this month. The enrollment period is through November 13. The package will include a summary of benefits, a Q& A sheet and an enrollment plan.
Concerning health insurance ID cards, if an Employee has changed plans during the annual HMO enrollment period they should have received ID cards by now. Employees who have not received an ID card should contact their new company’s customer service number. Employees having problems obtaining their card should contact Human Resources.
The long-term care open enrollment period has been extended through November 15. Employees can also sign up after this date, but will have to answer more medical questions following that date. Charest recalled that this plan is related to Employees’ current age, meaning the longer one waits, the higher the policy rate. Employees needing enrollment kits or posing questions can contact the Benefits Office at 962-3071. Also, Employees can access http://www.nccmmp.com.
Regarding the pre-tax transit passes, Charest said that a second tax law change reflected the first change which provided pre-tax parking benefits last August. Letters will go out to all who purchase bus passes through the University offering the opportunity to purchase bus passes on a pre-tax basis beginning the first paycheck following January 1. This benefit is available to those who do not currently have bus passes and this information will be sent to all departments. Matt Banks asked if this change would affect Employees’ 401(k) status, and Charest said that she would check into this information. (Following the meeting, Charest said that Employees with 401(k) plans should check with Benefits concerning its effects on the pre-tax plan).
Charest noted that the Legislature did establish the UNC Health Care System November 1. The chief executive officer is to be appointed by President Molly Corbett Broad, and a Board of Directors will gradually replace the current Hospital Board. The statute contains a couple of provisions that directly relate to Employees.
First, Employees of the UNC Health Care System (HCS) are clearly Employees of the State of North Carolina. However, the HCS has the authority to establish separate rules outside of the State personnel system. Effective as of November 1, all current rules remain in effect until changed by the Board of Directors. Thus, nothing has changed as of today, since a Board of Directors has not yet been appointed.
Addressing Windham’s question, Charest did not know how the process would proceed, although she hoped and assumed that it would call for Employee involvement. In addition, Employees who have attained career status in the SPA system cannot have a pay cut as a result of this change, and remain subject to the same disciplinary procedures as currently exist, for as long as they work for the HCS.
As of now, Charest knew that Employees of the Hospital continue in this status, as do University Employees continue to remain University Employees. She did not know if this would continue, as the process had not proceeded that far yet. However, she knew that there would not be changes made without a great deal of discussion and opportunity for input on how changes impact benefits. There is little else to report aside from what the statute says; work begins when the HCS has a CEO and a Board of Directors.
Finally, with regard to the span of control study, Charest has been coordinating work on a white paper addressing the span of control study and summarizing concerns expressed by Employees throughout the University. In response to Brooks’ question, C harest said that there were two levels of decision-making associated with the study: first, how the cuts were allocated by General Administration to Universities, and secondly, how the cuts are implemented on campus. General Administration did not dictate to campuses which positions they should cut, but rather set a figure which campuses must meet in permanent dollars cut. General Administration has said that it will check back on how campus numbers have improved, which can be seen as an implied threat of further cuts.
Thus, the University Priorities and Budget Committee was able to decide how the cuts would be made on campus, and General Administration decided how the span of control cuts given by the Legislature would be distributed among System campuses. The University will investigate all of these questions in its white paper, addressing ideas about the different and appropriate ways for campuses to improve the efficiency of their organizations. Employees with comments should contact Charest.
Jeffery Beam asked if it would be useful for the Forum to involve itself, perhaps by writing a resolution on the study. Charest said that a resolution should not hurt, but cautioned the Forum to consider whether to address the allocation of cuts at the General Administration or the campus level. There are different decision-makers involved. She thought that there was a significant amount of sentiment that the study represented an arbitrary way of allocating cuts that does not reflect the reality of uni ts’ organizations.
Beam asked if the formation of the UNC Health Care System (HCS) added strength to the push to distance the University System from the Office of State Personnel (OSP) in human resources administration. Charest thought that these were separate issues and are viewed as separate by General Administration. The HCS does provide an opportunity to demonstrate good development and management of a personnel system without restrictive rules and regulations. The other effort continues as a partnership effort between the Office of State Personnel and General Administration to delegate more daily operational issues to the University while remaining under the policies of the Office. This effort proceeds separately from the HCS merger.
Beam asked how the HCS merger would be evaluated. Charest said that the HCS would be continually evaluated, though the statute does not specifically call for evaluation. She was uncertain whether a year would be long enough to evaluate or implement the changes associated with the HCS.
Sherrie Graham asked whether Charest thought that Hospital Employees would become part of the Human Resources Information Services database (HRIS). Charest did not know the answer, but thought that a better question was whether UNC-Chapel Hill Employees who are part of the HCS will remain in the HRIS, or be moved to a separate database. She did not know whether Information Technology Services would provide services to the HCS. She thought these represented a number of complex and confusing quest ions.
Betty Averette asked if University and Hospital Employees would eventually be removed from one another, or would they join a separate entity known as the HCS. While she could not say for certain, Charest thought that both University and Hospital Employees could be moved within a new governing organization known as the UNC Health Care System (HCS). She imagined that eventually everyone working within the HCS would be covered by the same set of policies.
Stephanie Stadler said that as of right now, Hospital and University Employees associated with the HCS would retain their current status. The reporting structure will be moved to one place, but University and Hospital Employees will retain their same status. On the day following the Legislature’s approval of this governing structure, a four-page letter and a one-page flier explained the implications of the move to affected Employees.
Responding to Windham’s question, Stadler said that a series of meetings for staff affected to hear about the change and ask questions. Stadler said that there would be staff representation on the HCS task force. Stadler cautioned that it might be year s before Employees see some evidence of a change. She thought that Hospital and University administrators were trying to be sensitive to staff issues involved.
Elizabeth Evans asked the chances of having the State Employees’ Combined Campaign taken out of Employee paychecks as a pre-tax basis. Charest said that pre-tax status is associated with federal tax law and so was unlikely to obtain tax deduction status. Charitable deductions are handled by the tax system in other ways.
The Forum took its stretch break at this point.
Approval of the Minutes
The Chair called for a motion to approve the minutes of the October 7 meeting. Jeffery Beam made this motion, seconded by Linda Drake. There was no discussion, and the minutes were approved as written.
The Chair directed members to a recommendation by the Executive Committee to combine the Personnel Policies and Compensation & Benefits Committees into one body known as the Personnel Issues Committee, on recommendation of those committees and committee chairs Martha Barbour and Tommy Brickhouse, respectively. Barbour moved that the full Forum accept the Executive Committee’s proposal, and Brickhouse seconded this motion.
The Chair opened the floor for discussion of this motion. Brickhouse said that he had greatly enjoyed his work on the Compensation & Benefits Committee, finding it an exciting opportunity to become involved in issues and policies affecting campus Employees. He encouraged those new to the Forum to consider membership on the Personnel Issues Committee. Barbour echoed Brickhouse’s sentiment. As there was no further discussion, the Chair called for a vote on the motion, and the motion was approved unanimously. The change in the committee structure will be enacted for the January 1999 meeting.
The Chair urged committee chairs to begin work on their annual reports. Jeffery Beam reminded Delegates that the Forum would hold a reception for incoming and outgoing Delegates immediately before the December 2 meeting.
The Chair asked Delegates to consider nominations for the Forum Community Award (3-Legged Stool). He referred members to the information packet put together by the Recognition & Awards committee for more information on the award. Elizabeth Evans asked if the Executive Committee had examined the problem of the award’s criteria at its October meeting. The Chair said that it had not, but would try to address the question at its November meeting. The Executive Committee would need to make certain that the charge of making the award’s criteria more defined should be dealt with next year.
Greg Coker, a consultant with Business & Finance, had met with the Executive Committee to discuss unit operations. The Chair saw this meeting as a positive and significant gesture.
Committee & Task Force Reports
Bob Schreiner, Chair of the Career Development committee, had nothing to add to the group’s minutes.
Jennifer Henderson, Chair of the Communications committee, had nothing to report that month beyond the publication of the University Gazette insert. The Chair commented that the insert had been professionally done and spoke well of the Forum’s work. He recognized past Chair Bob Schreiner for his contributions to the first Forum insert in 1997.
Tommy Brickhouse, Chair of the Compensation & Benefits committee, noted a snafu associated with the most recent meeting of the group.
Jeffery Beam, Chair of the Employee Presentations committee, directed members’ attentions to an analysis of evaluations of the fall community meeting, compiled by Eileen McGrath and two student assistants. He thanked McGrath for her work on this project.
Lucille Brooks, Chair of the Nominating Committee, presented the slate of candidates agreeing to run for office in 1999: Secretary: Jennifer Henderson; Vice-Chair: Vicki Pineles, Jane Stine; Chair: no candidates as of yet. Brooks encouraged continuing members to consider running for the office of chair, or another office. She asked that candidates return their biographical sketches to the Forum Office by November 18, and contact Matt Banks to schedule their black and white portrait. Candi dates will have the opportunity to make a three-minute presentation at the December meeting, along with an additional presentation by Delegates supporting their candidacy.
At the January 6 meeting, Delegates may be nominated from the floor. Delegates nominated from the floor will have the opportunity to speak, and their opponents will also have the opportunity to speak for two minutes. If no candidate runs from the floor there will be no comments.
Jeffery Beam asked the Chair to provide a summary of his duties. The Chair outlined his committee service responsibilities and the varied experiences associated with the job as the representative of staff at the University. Martha Barbour asked the average number of hours required for service as chair. The Chair responded that between 10-15 hours are required, possibly more on busy weeks. He thanked Matt Banks for his work, which had made his job easier. Bob Schreiner, 1997 Forum chair, also commented that he had found the job greatly rewarding. He credited the teamwork with the other Forum officers.
Nancy Tannenbaum, Chair of the Orientation committee, noted that the group had held its Orientation for new Delegates October 23. She thought the session had gone very well. Matt Banks would send out the Forum buddy letters matching continuing and incoming Delegates that month.
Martha Barbour, Chair of the Personnel Policies committee, noted that the exempt Employee workload/work time survey would be sent out to relevant Employees by November 11. She hoped that the survey would help the University target areas abusing exempt Employees. Beam commended the committee for its work on the survey. He praised the committee for starting conversation on this issue.
Joyce Dalgleish, Chair of the Recognition & Awards committee, said that group’s work was winding down for the year. She asked Delagates to send their “Behind the Scenes” nominations to her or to the Forum Office by November 11. If the y desire, recipients’ names will be included in a University Gazette article, and recipients will be invited to the December 2 meeting and reception to be recognized. In addition, she thanked Lesa McPherson for her extra effort on the University Da y Staff Processional planning.
Anne Montgomery, Chair of the University Committee Assignments Committee, said that group’s minutes had been included in the monthly agenda packet. She noted that the Chair had produced a letter requesting staff representation on five University committees (Facilities Planning, Space Use, Real Property, Student Stores Advisory, and Trademark Licensing). The Chair praised Montgomery and the committee for its work in tracking down the various committees across campus.
Bob Schreiner reported that the Grievance Procedure Task Force was close to completing its final revised version of the policy. He hoped that the Office of State Personnel (OSP) would approve revisions expanding role of the grievant’s support person in Steps 1 & 2, increasing emphasis on grievance mediation, and establishment of a separate section to deal with sexual harassment situations. If OSP does not agree to these changes, the Task Force will find itself back at the drawing board.
Ken Litowsky asked what would be the expanded role of the support person. Schreiner said that the person will be allowed to speak during Stage 3 of the grievance, and could help prepare the grievant during Step 1 and be present at Step 2. Litowsky asked if the support person would be granted the same allotment of hours as the grievant to work on the case. Schreiner thought that this supposition was correct, and noted that this change represented a departure from present policy. He hoped that OSP would approve the new policy.
Elizabeth Evans reported that the Intellectual Climate Report Task Force had made slow progress, but some areas of the report have been actively incorporated into campus life. There have been two specific ways in which the campus has made progress with regard to the report. First, Provost Dick Richardson has been named chair of a new committee overseeing implementation of the task force. After some deliberation, Evans had been appointed to this committee.
Secondly, George Lensing has invited the Chair and Evans, among others to attend a group looking at the use of social space on North Campus. Stephanie Stadler will be the Forum’s representative at this meeting November 10, although other Forum delegate s are invited to attend.
The Chair reported that the University Priorities and Budget Committee was now meeting with deans about the activities in their areas. Vice Chancellors and deans have appeared before the committee to outline the goals and visions for their schools over the next five years, and to supply budgetary information. However, some representatives have been more forthcoming than others. The committee continues to meet each Tuesday morning.
The Chair noted that the Executive Committee would meet with representatives of the Faculty Council Executive Committee in November.
Announcements & Questions
Elizabeth Evans complimented the new placard on the podium. Matt Banks thanked Bob Schreiner for the idea, and Lee Davis of the University Sign Shop for the idea’s implementation.
In the absence of further discussion, the Chair called for a motion to adjourn. Jeffery Beam made this motion, seconded by Lucille Brooks. There was no discussion, and the meeting adjourned at 11:24 a.m.
Matt Banks, Recording Secretary