Skip to main content


Agenda — November 5, 1997

Don’t Forget: The Forum’s Five Year Reunion Will Take Place from 8:30-9:30 a.m. in the Wilson Library Lobby

9:30 a.m.–Meeting, Assembly Room of Wilson Library

I. Call to Order


II. Welcome Guests, Members of the Press


III. Opening Remarks

* Executive Vice Chancellor Elson Floyd


IV. Special Presentation

* Director of Housekeeping Services Barbara DeLon

* Chief Information Officer Marian Moore


V. Employee Presentations—Janet Tysinger


VI. Human Resources Update

* Laurie Charest, Associate Vice Chancellor, Human Resources


VII. Approval of Minutes of the October 1, 1997 meeting


VIII. Unfinished Business


IX. New Business

* Additional Members for Intellectual Climate Task Force

* Erika Phillips, University Career Counselor, to Speak Briefly at December Forum Meeting


X. Chair’s Report (Executive Committee): Bob Schreiner

* Community Award (3-Legged Stool) Nominations

* 50 Most Important People at UNC

* Forum Budget Report

* University Priorities and Budget Committee Report

* Discussion with Tim Sanford, Laurie Charest on EPA Non-Faculty Issues in December Packet

* University Gazette Insert Task Force

* UNC System Staff Council Meeting November 7

* Presentation at North Carolina Central November 12

* University Day Recap

* New Delegate Orientation

* Fall Community Meeting

* Forum Officer Nominations



XI. Committee/Task Force Reports: Annual Reports

* Nominating—Libby Evans

=> Forum Officer Elections

* Orientation—Joyce Dalgleish/Jeffery Beam

=> Orientation Recap

=> Five Year Reunion November 5

=> January Retreat

* Personnel Policies—Peter Schledorn

=> Exempt Employees Work Schedule (Comp Time) Discussions

=> Reclassification Question from UNC Physicians & Associates Employees

* Compensation and Benefits—Tommy Brickhouse

=> Revision & Distribution of In-Range Salary Adjustment Fact Sheet

=> Pat Bigelow New Committee Member

* Public Affairs—Ruth Lewter/Anne Montgomery

* Recognition and Awards—Laura Grady/Nancy Klatt

=> Booklet: Steps to Developing a Departmental Recognition Program

* University Committee Assignments—Anne Montgomery/Tommy Nixon

=> UNC One Card Advisory Committee

* Career Development—Norm Loewenthal

=> New Careers Training Board—George Sharp

* Employee Presentations—Janet Tysinger

=> Fall Community Meeting Recap

* School Volunteerism Task Force—Libby Evans

* Intellectual Climate Task Force—Libby Evans

* Faculty Council Liaisons

* Partner Benefits—Peter Schledorn

* Legislative Affairs—Tom Sullivan

* Transportation and Parking Advisory Committee Representative—Janet Tysinger

* Outsourcing Team Representatives—Bennie Griffin/Ann Hamner


XII. Announcements/Questions


XIII. Adjournment


November 5, 1997

Delegates Present

Jeffery Beam

Pat Bigelow

Tommy Brickhouse

Lucille Brooks

Eddie Capel

Joyce Dalgleish

Libby Evans

Betty Geer

Laura Grady

Bennie Griffin

Tommy Gunter

Thomas Holmes

Al Jeter

Bettye Jones

Steve Jones

Phil Hearne

Ruth Lewter

Norm Loewenthal

Connie Dean McPherson

Tommy Nixon

Archie Phillips, Jr.

Peter Schledorn

Bob Schreiner

George Sharp

Stephanie Stadler

Cheryl Stout

Reba Sullivan

Nancy Tannenbaum

Janet Tysinger

Chien-Hsin Wagner

Dail White

Beverly Williams

Mary Woodall

Laurie Charest”

Ann Hamner “

” = Ex-Officio


Delegates Absent

Mary Bogues

Mitch Copeland

Thomas Goodwin

Jerry Hall

Nancy Klatt

Anne Montgomery

Jackie Overton

Rosa Nolen

Frances Rountree

Diana Saxon

Jamie Spruiell



Alternates Present

Linda Drake



Betty Averette

Martha Barbour

Linwood Blalock

Myrna Bower

Mary Braxton

Sylvia Buckner

Rik Carroll

Robyn Catlett

Sharon Cheek

Libby Chenault

Denise Childress

Dianne Crabill

Martha Davidson

Barbara DeLon

Elson Floyd

Linwood Futrelle

Sherry Graham

Paul Hardin

Mike Hobbs

LaEula Joyner

Mitch Kokai

Bobbie Lesane

Ken Litowsky

Liz Lucas

Dee Dee Massey

Ruby Massey

Marian Moore

Linda Naylor

Ed Phillips

Barbara Prear

LaBron Reid

Dick Richardson

Kay Wijnberg

(and many others—our apologies if we missed anyone)



Call to Order, Welcome to Guests

Chair Bob Schreiner called the meeting to order at 9:30 a.m., asking members to sign in and to examine the routing file as it was passed around the room. He welcomed guests and members of the press. Finally, the Chair welcomed Executive Vice Chancellor Elson Floyd to provide opening remarks. Floyd noted that the Forum had just held its five-year reunion for past Delegates and thanked these past members for their time in service. In addition, he noted the many new Delegates attending possibly their first Forum meeting, and welcomed them as well.


Opening Remarks

The following is an edited transcript of remarks made by Dr. Elson S. Floyd, Executive Vice Chancellor:

“… Over the last couple of weeks, there has been a lot said in the newspapers regarding our Police Department, and I want to talk very briefly about that circumstance. I also want to talk about housekeepers, and I want to talk about the groundskeepers and any other matters that may come before the floor. … I apologize in advance for my extended comments, but the issues that we have right now are such that I think that it is absolutely important and time well spent to engage in perhaps a meaningful discussion about it.

“Over the past several weeks, the University’s Police Department really has captured much media attention, and I regret the circumstance for you and for the University, and for the Police Department, for, in fact, there are some very fine individuals in our UNC Police Department. The combination of police plus parking, I think, (is) doing a marvelous job in terms of providing first-rate service to the institution and I continue to be very, very proud of the working relationship and the association that we have with that particular unit.

“As many of you know, Don Gold has indicated that he is going to be on leave from the University. At this point in time, I am not sure when Don is coming back. I will hopefully have a better sense of that by the end of this week, but I want to assure you that the University Police Department is still running in an efficient and effective manner, and I appreciate the leadership that the officers, Carolyn Elfland (associate vice chancellor for auxiliary services) and others have taken in terms of the day-to-day management there.

“I’ve made a long-standing commitment to this Forum. I have made a commitment to make sure that you are thoroughly engaged in the issues. I have also made a commitment to be very forthcoming in terms of the issues that we are involved in. Integrity is at the cornerstone of this administration and we have not wavered on that one iota, and we will never waiver on that.

“Now I want to speak a little bit about the events surrounding the citation that was issued at the UVA game. It is important to note at the outset that in any given day, I’ll probably receive anywhere from 20 to 25 phone calls. All of those phone calls are not necessarily here. The vast majority of them are at home. The calls will range from a broken water line on Manning Drive, to a student who has fallen off a residence hall, to a Phi Gam fire. It really does cover the gambit and in my role as executive vice chancellor at the University, many of the day-to-day operational issues of the University fall on my plate. It is a responsibility that I enthusiastically embrace, because there is nothing that I am more committed to than this institution.

“On the Saturday of the game in question, I received a phone call from Don Gold, chief of police, as I typically do. Don will call me on a fairly regular basis to update me on any issues or items that are occurring within the University. Among the items that he reported to me was the issuance of a citation that was given at that particular game. Our conversation ended with Don reporting that event to me. I then received a phone call from Carolyn Elfland on the next day, on that Sunday — she again called me at home — who then recounted the events that were initially reported to me by Don Gold. She then briefed me on the personnel issues surrounding the officer who issued the citation. I then instructed her to handle the matter in the way that she felt was appropriate. We talked for a while longer, and she then said that she was going to hold the ticket until an investigation could be conducted surrounding the issuance of the ticket. I concurred with her approach because she was much closer to the situation than was I. An investigation was indeed conducted, and the issuing officer was consulted at the conclusion of the investigation. He was informed of the questions surrounding the citation at question here, and the final call for transmittal of the citation to the magistrate rested with that issuing officer.

“Now, it is important to know that if any citation is issued by an officer, there is a 10-day window of time in which that citation has to be transmitted. The citation was written on a Saturday. It was transmitted to the magistrate, with the concurrence of the issuing officer, on the following Wednesday — well within the 10-day window and well before any reported comments in the public domain about that.

“Why did we conduct an investigation of the matter? There are indeed some significant personnel issues at the heart of that, and unfortunately I’m not at liberty to go through those details with you. Part of the protocol of this University, and part of the protocol of the American society, quite frankly, is to protect the confidentiality of individuals. Even though much of that information has already been released to the media by the officer, I still am not at liberty to go through those details. But the fact of the matter is that this administration has the right, and the responsibility, and the accountability of each of you in this room and the University and the citizens at large to conduct an investigation of any matter that we feel is appropriate. That’s what happened and in some respects, you will feel that we would be remiss in our duties and responsibilities if we failed to do so.

“Any number of you can call me on any occasion to say, `Elson, there is an issue that is important to me. I would like for you to look into it.’ And my response, as all of you know, would be: `We will look into it and we will do it as soon as possible.’ That’s exactly what happened here. There is nothing insidious about it. There is no corruption at place here. There was no undue influence by any trustee on this matter. It is clearly and simply a management circumstance.

“Now, our University Police Department has had a very long history of resisting management, in many respects. It has become a question of accountability and we have a lot of people to whom we are accountable. But I have said to this Forum repeatedly, and I have always indicated to you and to others, that everything we do in this institution, we must be accountable to the public, and this is clearly in that circumstance. So was the officer consulted? Yes. Did the officer make the final decision? Absolutely. Was there undue influence by any trustee? Absolutely not. There was none of that. There was no corruption, there was no cover-up.

“The question is perhaps, `Then why haven’t we talked about this before?’ As I said before, at the cornerstone of everything under the personnel issues that we have, and we simply have not been at liberty to do it because of that circumstance, but now, because so much of it is in the public domain, it did seem prudent to do that and I wanted to use this as an occasion to at least tell you what I know about the events surrounding that particular incident.

“Let me talk just for a second about the Grounds Department. At the last Employee Forum at which I made remarks, I shared with each of you the fact that we had established a review committee to look at the issues raised by our groundskeepers. We, in fact, did that immediately.

“The first time that I was aware of a situation in the Grounds Department, it was as a result of a press conference that was on the steps of South Building. I didn’t know anything about it prior to that time. After that press conference I received a list of grievances signed by members of the Grounds Department. Well, it’s very difficult for this administration to be accountable to anyone in that particular circumstance, but I’ll tell you exactly what we did. As soon as that press conference was over, I immediately constituted a review committee to look at the issues raised by our groundskeepers. There was no hesitation, there was no ambivalence about it. We did it quickly, we did it expeditiously and I think we did it efficiently.

“There were nine recommendations, and all of you hopefully by now have seen the nine recommendations. What do we do at that point? We said that we would immediately implement those nine recommendations because we believe that it would improve the quality of the workplace for our groundskeepers. There was no hesitation on the part of this administration to do it. It is all in the spirit of community, which we talked about before. So we moved forward, in terms of implementing those recommendations, and, quite frankly, if there are other recommendations that will be forthcoming to improve the quality of the workplace for any employee here, we are going to look at it. We’re going to look at it in a very proactive way and we have done that in that regard. And we are going to continue to work and be responsive to the groundskeepers, and any other Employees here. But the common thread associated with this, perhaps, is the fact that the Employees in this particular situation felt that it was necessary for them to take their concerns to the media before they took their concerns to the administration. It does make it exceedingly difficult for us to manage in that type of environment.

“Housekeepers. We have been very, very aggressive about implementing the terms associated with our housekeepers agreement. There is probably nothing that I have been more proud of than reaching an agreement with our housekeepers. It was an important time for this institution, both in terms of the official signing of the agreement, as well as the recognition that we have had since then. Now, with any agreement that is as complex as that one, it does take a while to implement all of the recommendations contained therein. But I can tell you, without a doubt, we have made good-faith efforts to implement all of the recommendations contained in our housekeepers agreement. On November 13th, there is a meeting, what’s referred to as workplace quality meetings, in which we will go through, one by one, all the recommendations contained in the agreement, and provide the housekeepers and anyone else who is interested, an up-to-date status in terms of where we are with all of the recommendations.

“Now, much has been said about the staffing levels associated in our housekeeping division. Barbara DeLon will perhaps talk a little bit more about that, but I wanted to just share with you where we are as it relates to our housekeeping department. As I have said, we will go through these matters in more detail a little bit later on. But right now in terms of full-time, permanent staff, we have seven administrative staff people. We have 305 [housekeeping Employees, of which 3 are] zone managers or administrators or supervisors or team leaders in what is a large cadre of Employees, and we have one half-time position that’s a spot crew weekend coverage that we want to provide for those particularly troublesome spots that we have throughout the University. We have hired 10 new Employees since July. And right now, we are actively recruiting for 40 vacant positions. Now, there is some belief, some speculation, that there is a freeze on positions. That’s not the case. In fact, it has been very, very difficult for us to recruit persons for the housekeeping positions. And in those instances, we have tried to use temporary employees. But right now we are very aggressively seeking to fill the 40 vacant positions.

“Now why has it been difficult to fill the positions? Well, the fact of the matter is that if you were to look at any statistics, just call up and find them, the unemployment rate in this area is one of the lowest unemployment rates there is and, in fact, it has been very difficult for us to fill a lot of key positions. Many of you, from your University jobs and responsibilities, know that that is indeed the case. It is difficult to find qualified people to fill many positions. But particularly in housekeeping, it has been somewhat bothersome. We’ve actually had a number of hurdles. Some of the applicants have been unable to work the needed hours that we want them to fill their shifts. They are just simply not interested in the time frames that we have available. We have been unable to contact some of the applicants, either at the home address or the telephone number that they left with us. That makes it somewhat difficult when you can’t get in touch with someone. Some employees have had unacceptable work histories and we’ve also had some poor references, or are unable to verify the references that have been given. Those are significant problems. The fact of the matter, though, is that we really are working to fill out the rest of the housekeeping staff. It is inappropriate, it is not correct to say that there is a freeze on positions. There is no freeze on positions.

“While I wanted to use this occasion to talk just a bit about police, that is to tell you exactly where we are, I want to talk about groundskeepers, in terms of what we have done, the spirit of it. I wanted to talk a bit about housekeeping. And as I said, we’ll have a much more detailed briefing to provide to all the housekeepers. Are we perfect? Absolutely not. But there is no one in this room that is perfect. Do we do the best job we possibly can for this University? Every day that I work here and wake up to come to this University and leave, I think about doing the best job and, quite frankly, with your help and assistance, I think we are doing a very, very good job under some exceedingly difficult circumstances.

“Now, we’ve had a grievance procedure here that, in my opinion, we need to go back and take a look at. We need to do it for a couple of reasons. One, is that there is an issue of accountability. That is, we need to be accountable to everyone for what we do. We need to make sure that we establish a mechanism in which if any employee has something that they feel that they need to grieve, there is a legitimate protocol and procedure set up to provide that remedy for Employees.

“On the other hand, it is irresponsible for us to create a climate, an environment, in which frivolous grievances are lodged. It is a waste of taxpayers dollars for the time, effort and attention that all of us will have to engage in that process. And indeed, it causes the whole process to be questioned, if you will, the legitimacy of the process, for all of us, and so those appropriate grievances perhaps will not get the time and attention they deserve because we are spending our time chasing grievances that may not be appropriate. So, today I am asking Laurie Charest (associate vice chancellor for human resources) to work with Bob (Schreiner, Employee Forum Chair) to establish a review committee and we will review our grievance protocol and procedure in its entirety. It is absolutely crucial to involve the Employee Forum as we look at this because of not only your professional duties and responsibilities, but also because of the impact that it will have on Employees here within the University. It is the right thing to do. It is a question of accountability, as far as I am concerned, and everything that we are engaged in will be predicated on accountability to each of you.”


Floyd offered to take questions from the Forum. Regarding the police ticketing matter, George Sharp sought clarification on the process by which police citations are forwarded and, if necessary, any irregularities are investigated. Sharp asked if it is common police procedure in these types of investigations to consult with the officer who issued the citation. Floyd said that once this particular investigation was completed, the issuing officer was consulted. Sharp asked if this statement meant that the issuing officer had “signed off” on the results and conclusions that were drawn by the administration before the citation was forwarded. Floyd said that the administration had shared the results of its investigation with the issuing officer, asking him how the administration should proceed. The issuing officer had replied that he would like for the citation to be sent forward, and the citation was indeed forwarded.

Sharp concluded that the issuing officer had some problems with how this question had been handled previously. Floyd replied that he would not presume to speak for the issuing officer. Floyd had concentrated on explaining the facts involved, leaving it to the issuing officer to make the final determination.

Tommy Brickhouse noted Floyd’s comments about resistance to management, particularly among the University police. He asked if Floyd would elaborate on what conclusions he had drawn about the department’s organization and the administration’s next steps. Floyd thanked Brickhouse for his frank question and his candor. He noted the general philosophical debate that asks to whom police departments are ultimately accountable. Questions about whether law enforcement organizations should report to civilians seem common in law enforcement circles. Floyd emphasized that the entire University community, including the officers involved, must talk and work together. Floyd had tried to address all the issues of his term as Executive Vice Chancellor in a similar spirit of teamwork and mutual understanding.

Peter Schledorn said that Floyd’s announcement that the grievance procedure will be re-examined was the best news he had heard in some time. Scheldorn’s comment met with some applause by the Forum. Schledorn reminded Floyd that the Forum had released a position paper on the grievance procedure last year, and he commended this document to the nascent committee that will investigate the procedure. In addition, he offered that members of the Forum’s Personnel Policies Committee would be willing to lend their efforts to this revision. Floyd replied that he wanted the active involvement and participation of all interested Forum members and University Employees.

Concerning housekeeper staffing levels, Schledorn noted Floyd had mentioned there are around 305 working zone managers now in place. Floyd said this was correct, and recalled that this category includes administrative supervisors, zone managers and team leaders. Schledorn confirmed that these managers are working in buildings, and that the University is trying to fill around 40 other positions. Floyd said both of these suppositions were correct. Scheldorn recalled a few years ago that around 400 such Employees were on staff. Given that campus square footage numbers are rising, he asked if the administration planned to raise housekeeping staffing to this previous number, over and above filling currently vacant positions.

Floyd replied that Housekeeping has endeavored to carry out its activities as efficiently as possible, and any savings generated by these efforts have been returned to the Housekeeping division so that these monies can be redeployed in an appropriate fashion. The administration continues to examine housekeeping staffing levels in an ongoing process. Floyd noted that Barbara DeLon, Director of Housekeeping Services, is on the agenda later in the meeting and should be able to provide a more detailed answer to this question.

As there were no further questions, Floyd thanked the Forum and its members for all that it has done for the University. He stated that the maintaining quality in the University workplace is absolutely crucial and thanked the Forum for its contributions to bettering this environment. The Forum gave Floyd a warm round of applause.

The Chair took this opportunity to remind observers that all University Employees may serve on Forum and University committees.


Special Presentations

Barbara DeLon, Director of Housekeeping Services, gave the meeting’s first special presentation. DeLon wished the Forum good morning, and said that it was good fortune that her remarks immediately followed Floyd’s. She commented that she had served in her current position for around 18 months.

DeLon noted that her first days on the job were devoted to work on Housekeeping’s organizational structure. She asserted that, two years previous, the division for the most part did not have a coherent organizational structure. The division had no oversight of its budget, and relied on the Physical Plant to handle its financial matters. In fact, until recently, officers in Housekeeping did not even know how much money the division had to spend. Housekeeping did not hold direct responsibility for its personnel, nor did it maintain a schedule for workplans. The division relied on Physical Plant for inventory information and for delivery of supplies to its cleaning crews. Essentially, the division had no internal structure of its own.

Responding to these deficiencies, Housekeeping had to hire all new staff and put in new systems before it could begin to deal with the question of organizational structure. At this point, Housekeeping employed around 400 people.

DeLon reminded listeners that for the last several months, the Housekeeping division has been responsible and accountable to Human Resources rather than the Physical Plant, an arrangement which will continue into the next year.

DeLon recalled that two years ago, around six layers of supervision in Housekeeping existed and formed a barrier to communications between management and staff. In addition, communications structures and equipment for housekeepers was mainly out of date or needed repair. In both instances, DeLon observed that a new structure was necessary to improve operational efficiencies.

While working on these projects, Housekeeping managers have prepared for the University outsourcing study. The division’s first official outsourcing presentation will take place in December 1998. DeLon would touch on this subject later in her report along with discussions of staffing and future plans.

DeLon noted that Housekeeping had received some criticism in the Daily Tar Heel concerning the cleanliness in student dormitories, and has tried to address these concerns as quickly as possible. She noted that University Housing has been one of the first areas in which Housekeeping has put its official restructuring plans into place.

Housekeeping’s responsibilities cover the entire campus, over 10 million square feet. In addition to University Housing dormitories, Housekeeping is responsible for buildings in Health Affairs, Academic Affairs, Support Services, campus libraries and gymnasiums, and outlying areas, including the Carolina Living and Learning Center in Pittsboro. The division also has oversight and management responsibility for housekeeping contracts on campus, including locations such as Tottenham Gardens and 725 Airport Road. In addition, the division has won bids to provide services for the Meadowmont complex and the new Kenan Stadium press box. Recently, Housekeeping management has made presentations to the University Outsourcing Team on behalf of its window-washing and moving crews.

Regarding planning and staffing levels, DeLon recalled that the division’s initial restructuring efforts concentrated on University Housing areas. The division composed a focus group to provide background information for these efforts. DeLon noted that Housing operations are mainly receipt-based, meaning that students are directly charged for services provided. There are around 112 housekeeping positions in Housing of which 75 are occupied.

The focus group met to decide how the division could be competitive, provide appropriate levels of service and augment the mission of the University. She praised the group for its efforts in this regard. The group met to discuss, among other things, communication lines within the division’s zones of operation.

The focus group was composed of 13 volunteers from within the Housing area of Housekeeping, along with University Housing representatives. Housekeeping provided resources and information to the group when requested. The group met through the entire summer.

The group’s report accounted for daily operations and tasks, as well as long- and short-term planning for the Housekeeping division. Regarding planning, DeLon noted that the Special Olympics are scheduled to be held in Chapel Hill in 1999, and the division has already begun to consider the particular needs of this event.

Housing uses zones in housekeeping operations. Each zone includes housekeeping staff for administrative functions and a group (approximately 20 to 25 people) who have primary responsibility for the housekeeping tasks. Housekeeping has recently moved to consolidate its zones to coincide with the administrative groupings used by Physical Plant and Housing. DeLon felt that this move will improve the working relationships among these various operations.

Considering staffing levels, the focus group determined what amounts of labor and material would be required to provide a suitable level of service for each campus building. As an example, the Hinton James dormitory, a high-rise on South Campus, contains 203,000 square feet, of which there are 136,000 net square feet. In Hinton James, there are 496 residents’ rooms, 160 restrooms and showers, 9 kitchens, 9 study rooms and lounges, 3 elevators, and 60 stairways. Of course, Housekeeping is not responsible for cleaning the residents’ rooms, but the division is responsible for cleaning all of the building’s common areas.

Given these parameters, the focus group asked what the staff should do to cover these areas on a daily basis, and what Employees’ work plans should contain to insure these tasks are completed. DeLon felt such an evaluation was not unusual for any professional worker, and she considers Housekeeping staff to be trained professionals. The focus group divided the work day into 430 minutes, and attempted to determine how much time is needed to accomplish specific tasks throughout the day.

DeLon said that Housekeeping was still fine-tuning its overall plan and was still receiving criticism in certain areas, but had seen real progress in maintaining service levels given staffing vacancies and absenteeism. DeLon mentioned that she herself had stepped in to substitute for a chronically ill zone manager while carrying on her regular duties. She was proud that this person’s work team had come together each morning to plan activities and make up for this absence.

In response to a Daily Tar Heel article critical of housekeeping services in Morrison dormitory, DeLon said that she had inspected “hotspots” in that dorm the previous day, and would meet presently with the student in question to resolve their complaint. Housekeepers generally try to follow up with similar concerns as soon as possible.

DeLon noted that in Hinton James, one of that building’s housekeepers had indicated they could handle the work if joined by an additional worker. Managers decided to dispatch a spot crew person and pull a temporary employee from the new addition to the Lineberger building to Hinton James. The work plan for the building has been designed so that additions to crews automatically know the content and priority of work expected from them. In addition, Housekeeping managers are also meeting with area directors in Housing to obtain feedback.

With the UNC-Florida State football game that weekend, DeLon anticipated a great amount of debris for the housekeeping crews to deal with the next week. If UNC wins the game, students will follow tradition and “toilet paper” the trees. (The crews have removed a good portion of toilet paper from the dorms in anticipation of this problem.) Also, on most weekends, students use their dormitory kitchens and leave a good amount of trash behind. Housekeeping crews will begin Sunday night to address dealing with this volume of work before Monday morning.

DeLon said that Housekeeping plans to install self-directing work teams similar to the one at Hinton James across campus. She stated that for the most part this manner of organizing work by zone managers is not in place, but the plans for reorganizing building assignments are in place. Health Affairs and Support Services have been among the first divisions to work with Housekeeping towards effecting this reorganization. There are still two shops in which this reorganization has not been implemented, and Housekeeping plans to consult with an administrator when it is advantageous to implement throughout these departments.

DeLon offered to take questions from the Forum. Barbara Prear said that she had recently met with housekeepers from Morrison and Hinton James and heard that these Employees were not happy and had not benefited from an extra person to help with the work. DeLon asked when Prear had consulted with these Employees, and Prear said that she had spoke with this group at noon the day before. DeLon said that Prear might wish to check back with these Employees as she had met with the group that morning as she had met with the group every morning since the supervisor in question had fallen ill. DeLon thanked Prear for her question.

Concerning Schledorn’s previous question to Floyd, George Sharp surmised that one of the problems administrators face in finding new hires for staff housekeeping positions is the threat of privatization. He had been told that Housekeeping must prove as efficient as a hypothetical private operation in the opinion of the Outsourcing Steering Team. Given this requirement, it is said that Housekeeping has little incentive to fill positions in the fear that it’s bottom line may not compare favorably with a private company. Sharp asked if this supposition was correct.

DeLon reiterated that this criterion was not the only one governing the outsourcing process. Efficiency and cost-savings are very important, but the quality of service delivery is vital as well. All of these considerations will be reflected in the division’s report to the Outsourcing Steering Team. The division is addressing staffing needs in a number of ways, including using Tar Heel Temporaries and outside temporary services to supplement the workforce. The division also continues to recruit permanent staffers. DeLon said that the important thing for the division to do is to concentrate on implementing its reorganization campus-wide and to insure that Housekeeping is addressing service needs throughout the community. The division did realize savings last year and DeLon thought that these savings would continue in fulfilling dormitory contracts and elsewhere. Housekeeping’s outsourcing report will reflect these advances.

In addition, DeLon said that Housekeeping is very fortunate that Associate Vice Chancellor Laurie Charest oversees the division and also serves as a member of the Outsourcing Employee Relations Team. Human Resources and UNC managers have helped the department conduct its restructuring. Housekeeping will address all of the issues within the outsourcing study, not solely the very important considerations of efficiency and cost-savings.

Sharp reiterated the point that the division has 40 vacancies, and DeLon noted that Housekeeping has brought in 36 temporary employees to offset this deficit. In addition, Housekeeping has begun to train these temporary employees to service newly functional campus buildings. Sharp concluded that if Housekeeping were to fill all of its current vacancies, the division would employ around 350 housekeepers. DeLon said that the division would instead have between 365-375 housekeepers. Sharp asked if DeLon would then consider the division fully staffed if all of these vacancies were filled, and DeLon said that she would.

Prear asked if all of the temporary positions that were filled were line housekeepers. DeLon said that three temporary positions were allocated to zone managers.

Janet Tysinger recalled that the division had advertised several new services at the Employee Appreciation Fair in May. She asked if DeLon would comment on these services and the effect they have on the division’s overall workflow. DeLon said that the division oversaw the moving crew when she arrived as director. However, with the revamped organizational structure, Housekeeping has addressed what this service composes. She was uncertain about the other services to which Tysinger referred.

Sylvia Buckner asked if zone managers participate in the cleaning work as well. DeLon said that the managers do clean and that she herself pitches in often.

Betty Averette commented that Employees often do not know what the responsibilities of housekeepers working in their buildings. DeLon replied that each building should have an Employee contact who serves a direct link to the Housekeeping office. The Housekeeping division also is working to improve its communications with each area of campus. In certain buildings, the division has established multiple contacts to deal with multiple departments. In larger buildings and departments, a housekeeping facilities person maintains a workspace on site. Housekeeping communicates with the building contacts to determine what areas need attention.

DeLon added that this contact system has not yet been implemented throughout campus. Employees with questions about these duties should find out the administrator for their area by leaving a note on their housekeeper’s closet, calling the Housekeeping Office, or contacting DeLon personally.

Betty Averette, who works in the Tate-Turner-Kuralt building, said that sometimes when a spill occurs she would be willing to clean it up herself rather than waiting for Housekeeping staff to arrive. She asked if it would be feasible for Employees to have access to cleaning materials for this purpose. DeLon said that Averette should speak with the housekeeping contact in Tate-Turner-Kuralt, possibly organizing a cleaning committee for minor mishaps similar to one in place at the libraries and elsewhere. DeLon said that Dorothea Alston is the housekeeper in the Tate-Turner-Kuralt building and could work with Averette to set a committee up. DeLon said that Housekeeping would be most grateful for this assistance.

Before closing, DeLon thanked the members of the Forum for their work and asked members to relay her thanks to their co-workers. Much of the reason that Housekeeping’s plans are progressing is due to the feedback that the division has received from Employees. Furthermore, DeLon said that Housekeeping has worked to make itself competitive and continues to come to work everyday to find solutions facing the division. She said that if Housekeeping reforms were to fail, she would depart in the knowledge that the division has enjoyed the support of the University and all of the resources that the administration could muster on its behalf. She thanked the Chancellor for his backing in this enterprise. DeLon added that a number of the housekeepers she had worked with were “some of the hardest working and finest professionals” she had ever known. DeLon thanked the Forum for the opportunity to speak, and the Forum gave her a warm round of applause.


The Chair introduced Marian Moore, the University’s recently appointed Chief Information Officer. Moore greeted the Forum as “fellow staff members” and observed that the University is one of the most democratic institutions that she had ever known firsthand. She attributed a great deal of this democratic spirit to Executive Vice Chancellor Elson Floyd and the work of organizations like the Faculty Council, Student Government, and the Employee Forum.

To begin, Moore sought to give the Forum an impression of her experiences since assuming her role around two months ago. She noted that Information Technology Services is composed of two main divisions: Administrative Information Services (AIS), run by Steve Jarrell; and Academic Technologies and Networks (ATN), headed by John Oberlin. Moore felt that both organizations have done a fabulous job under some historic precedents that the University is attempting to overcome.

Moore was very impressed that the University offers a free e-mail account and Internet access to all of its faculty, staff and students. She believed that one of her main roles is to act as an advocate for information technology as the cornerstone of what the University can accomplish. Moore encouraged listeners to find out ways to establish an e-mail account for themselves, either through computers in the workplace or through one of the public clusters scattered across campus. Employees can also use the UNC web page to establish this account.

However, Moore granted that establishing an account and obtaining computing skills will be easier for some Employees than others. She recalled that ATN holds computer training classes for all University community members during lunch hours and until 7:30 p.m. ATN offers some specialized training, and Moore looked forward to the opportunity to expand this service.

In addition, the University has contracted with various companies to produce a computer-based training (CBT) series. In this training, Employees can improve their computer skills at their own pace without leaving their office. Courses are available in personal and workplace productivity tools such as Microsoft Word, Excel and Powerpoint which are now considered fundamental tools for success in the workplace. CBT courses are now available and may be accessed through a test site on the world wide web. She hoped that this additional attraction will encourage Employees to establish their e-mail accounts and get online as soon as possible.

At this point, Moore chose to open the floor for questions. Tommy Brickhouse recalled that in October a debate raged across campus concerning allegations—later proven false—that Public Safety had improperly accessed a faculty member’s private e-mail account. These allegations led to a widespread discussion on the degree of privacy for University e-mail accounts. Brickhouse said he had never seen an administrator step in as quickly in a controversial situation as Moore had to initiate creation of an e-mail privacy policy. The Forum gave Moore a round of applause. Moore warned listeners not to applaud too quickly as the policy has not yet been established.

Concerning the details of a policy on e-mail privacy, Moore emphasized that as the University is a State-supported and funded institution, it must abide by the laws and regulations of the State. This restriction will govern the content of whatever policy emerges from her office. Yet, Moore pledged that at the worst, the University’s privacy policy will allow examination of anyone’s electronic mail only under the most extreme circumstances. She understood that this was the policy of the State and said that University Counsel Susan Ehringhaus has begun work on the University’s privacy policy. The policy will be clearly stated and widely posted—she recalled that when the controversy first emerged, she had sought out the University’s policy on its web page but had not found a coherent statement. Moore said that the eventual policy will be something the University community can live with keeping in mind the rules and regulations established by the State.

Given the number of different servers that provide electronic mail services, and the fact that some mail privileges are provided on a departmental basis rather than falling within the purview of Information Technology Services, Moore pledged that every electronic mail server on campus will abide by the policy established. Moore said that this statement meant that faculty, undergraduate and graduate students will no longer have free rein over mail server machines. Moore’s general preference is that privacy rights be respected as much as possible.

George Sharp surmised from Moore’s comments that Employees of the State are governed by laws that preclude an absolute right to privacy. Moore said that electronic mail communications should not be considered different than guidelines governing written communication. The State has a right to examine written communication associated with the job. Given that access to communication is a State issue, the University will create as restrictive a policy on electronic mail privacy as it can establish within the State’s parameters.

Moore cautioned listeners that once they have used a computer to send an e-mail message, the sender loses control over its distribution. This is no different than when an Employee writes a memo to a compatriot who may decide to distribute the memo widely through photocopies or bulletin board postings. As most Employees at the University are moving into the world of electronic mail, Moore felt it important for all involved to understand these privacy considerations.

Sharp inferred that Employees have no absolute right to privacy in their use of campus mail. Moore thought this might be the case, but thought that Ehringhaus or other University attorneys would be better able to respond to these types of questions. Once again, employees of the State of North Carolina must abide by the laws of the State. The State owns the all of the equipment that Employees and others use for electronic purposes, and so theoretically maintains the right to monitor use of this equipment. However, Moore had never seen or heard of a case when such a search of electronic documents was conducted on the Chapel Hill campus. She assumed that the State was not expending its energies in this direction, and she said that Information Technology Services was not using its time to monitor electronic communications. Moore felt it important that community members feel they can rely on safe, secure and private electronic mail.

Libby Evans thought it would be useful if Moore could make some statement concerning archiving requirement and responsibility. Moore said that this issue involved the security of servers and electronic equipment. Evans noted that archiving policies differ from department to department. Moore stressed that departments will have to abide by the University general policies in this area. Evans thought that this requirement underscored the need for an archiving statement, a comment with which Moore agreed. In the normal course of establishing an e-mail account, mail files must be backed up somewhere on disks or the information will be lost otherwise. Campus mail servers provide this protection, and also secure back-up information so that it remains inaccessible to outside parties.

Peter Schledorn felt that people generally understand that privacy can be guaranteed only until mail is sent. He thought that Employees were more concerned with potential uses that some might make of communications through e-mail. Schledorn had in mind not only monitoring communications but using copies of private correspondence for various purposes. Schledorn opined that the University needs a policy to insure that every precaution be taken to keep e-mail correspondence private; in addition, Schledorn proposed a policy that would not permit the use of certain types of information against an Employee or a student even if this information happens to become public. Moore thought that Schledorn’s proposal was beyond the scope of a policy on electronic mail. She suggested Schledorn address his concerns to the University Counsel’s office. While she sympathized with Schledorn’s point, she also generally felt that all types of information must be treated in approximately the same way. She said it was her goal to provide electronic mail communications at least at the same level of privacy as that found in the US Mail.

Schledorn asked when Moore anticipated the privacy policy draft would be readied. Moore said that she had met once with a committee chaired by Susan Ehringhaus to discuss the matter. The committee is reviewing the situation and hopes to have a direct and understandable policy established as soon as possible, possibly before the end of the semester. She added that in the meantime, the University is not doing anything other than keeping e-mail accounts as secure as possible.

In the absence of further questions, Moore took her leave from the Forum which gave her a round of applause. The Chair thanked her for her remarks.


Employee Presentations

There were no Employee presentations.


Human Resources Report

Associate Vice Chancellor for Human Resources Laurie Charest bid the Forum `good morning.’ She noted that with the advent of winter it was time to discuss adverse weather procedures once again. The Forum had asked that Human Resources provide annual updates on adverse weather procedures. The department will mail a memo to all Employees describing the adverse weather policy as well as giving the University’s hotline number (685-8100—free in the Triangle).

Charest reminded Employees that the University is always open unless the chancellor declares it closed. In adverse weather situations, statements by the Governor on behalf of all State employees do not apply to UNC-Chapel Hill because the University must remain active 24 hours a day. In cases of adverse weather, it is each Employee’s decision whether it is safe to come to work. If an Employee elects not to come to work, the adverse weather leave must be made up either through taking vacation leave, earned compensatory time or making the time up hour for hour over the next twelve months.

“Critical” Employees are expected to report to work no matter the weather conditions. “Critical” Employees are to be notified of their status in advanced; one must not become “critical” once the snow falls—supervisors must work out plans for “critical” Employees in advance of adverse weather.

Charest thanked the Forum for the opportunity to make a presentation on the activities of Human Resources at its fall community meeting October 21. She reported that the department had received 27 questions or requests for information following the meeting and is in the process of responding to each of these concerns. A copy of these responses will be uploaded onto the Forum’s web page.

Charest was particularly pleased by the number of requests for information from Employees about 403b programs, spouse and dependent scholarship programs and the retirement planning seminars. She felt that Employees had learned a great deal of information at the meeting that becomes more important as one progresses through life—scholarship programs, for instance, take on greater value when an Employee has a child about to enter college. For these reasons, Charest was grateful for the opportunity to make these presentations and share responses with the Forum.

Charest relayed some information on behalf of Associate Vice Chancellor for Business Carolyn Elfland. The transit and parking task force, which includes representation from the Forum, Faculty Council and Student Government, began studying the University’s transit and parking issues in September with a goal of making recommendations for changes and improvements at the March 1998 Board of Trustees meeting. The task force and its consultants will hold a community meeting November 18 from 12-2 p.m. in the Great Hall of the Student Union. Attendance at this meeting is considered worktime, as long one makes arrangements with one’s supervisor.

Libby Evans praised Charest for her composure and informative responses in the face of the many tough questions at the fall community meeting, and the Forum’s monthly meetings. She thanked Charest for her continuing support. Forum members gave her a warm round of applause.


Approval of the Minutes

The Chair called for a motion to approve the minutes of the October 1, 1997 meeting. Ruth Lewter made this motion, with Janet Tysinger seconding. There was no discussion, and the minutes were approved.


Unfinished Business

The Chair had no unfinished business for the Forum. Tommy Brickhouse, the Chair of the Compensation and Benefits Committee, asked permission of the Forum to make a report on behalf of his group as he would soon be called away to another appointment. The Forum granted Brickhouse leave to make this report.

Brickhouse reported that the in-range salary adjustment fact sheet had been approved by Senior Director of Administration Drake Maynard and sent to Printing for distribution to all University Employees. He thanked Libby Evans for her help in formatting this report.

The Executive Committee has asked that the committee work with Human Resources on a recent update on a Transfer Opportunities Program (TOP) position paper published in 1994. Brickhouse said the groups will attempt to meet in December.

In addition, the Chair of the Forum had asked a question about the differences in administration of 401k and 403b retirement plans. The Compensation and Benefits Committee will try to find an answer to this question at its next meeting.


New Business

The Chair asked leave of the Forum to consider a resolution submitted by the Career Development Committee on the subject of Employee computer literacy. While this resolution was not included in the Forum’s monthly agenda packet, he asked the Forum to consider this proposal on first reading. The Forum agreed to this proposal.

Norm Loewenthal, Chair of the Career Development Committee, noted that copies of the resolution were distributed on the morning of the meeting. The committee has also consulted with members of Information Technology Services, including Chief Information Officer Marian Moore, on the details of this proposal. Moore had graciously agreed to postpone her departure from the meeting in order to answer any questions from the Forum about the resolution. Loewenthal recognized George Sharp and others on the Career Development Committee for their contributions to this resolution.

The resolution addresses issues of computer literacy, staff development and career growth at the University. It focuses on overcoming barriers to computer use for Employees within the lower salary grades. Loewenthal read the resolution in question:



A Resolution Advocating Computer Literacy and Training for UNC-Chapel Hill Staff


Proposed Resolution of the Employee Forum of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill


WHEREAS, the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill is among the nation’s leading institutions in employing and advocating the use of computer technology in instruction, administration and research; and


WHEREAS, proficiency in the use of computers and electronic communications is essential to the satisfactory performance of many positions in the University and to the ability to achieve advancement to many positions inside and outside the University; and


WHEREAS, proficiency in the use of computers and electronic communications is increasingly essential in becoming an informed and effective member of society; and


WHEREAS, many University Employees, especially those in lower pay grades, do not possess adequate computer knowledge and skill, do not have access to computers at their work site, and do not follow traditional work schedules; and


WHEREAS, many University Employees, especially those in the lower pay grades, have difficulty overcoming reluctance and other barriers to taking computer training classes and becoming proficient in their use, and do not receive encouragement from their supervisors to do so.


THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT, University administration be encouraged to commit itself to the following goals and provide the resources to achieve them:


1. The attainment of a basic, minimal level of computer literacy by all UNC-CH staff by the year 2000. Literacy includes the ability to use computers to communicate and to access electronic-based information important to their jobs and to staying informed about University activities. It further includes the ability to use basic productivity applications and information systems essential or important to their jobs.

2. Computer access at the work site of all UNC-CH staff, including access to e-mail, the World Wide Web, and job-essential productivity applications and information systems.

3. Arranging for computer training classes, already available during work time and at other times, to be held both at centralized, easily accessible locations and, for departments that are new to computer use, at the work site.

4. Encouragement of all UNC-CH staff, especially staff in the lower pay grades, to take computer training classes, to make use of work site computers and to gain proficiency in their use.

5. Encouragement of supervisors, especially supervisors of UNC-CH especially staff in the lower pay grades, to encourage staff to take computer training classes on their own time, but also to allow them to take computer training classes during work time if work loads and schedules permit. Furthermore, supervisors should permit access to work site computers for reasonable periods of time to gain proficiency in their use and to receive official University information.


As there were no questions or comments, the Forum would hold this resolution for consideration on second reading in December.


The Chair asked Libby Evans to speak on behalf of the Forum’s Intellectual Climate Task Force. Evans, Secretary of the Forum, advanced to the podium and asked leave to give all of her reports at one time as she had recently injured her knee. The Forum agreed to this request.

Evans asked how many Delagates have access to the Forum listserv and thus had seen her solicitation for members to serve on the task force. All but a few responded that they had seen the message. Evans recalled she had sent out this message a couple of weeks ago, after the Executive Committee had approved formation of the task force to respond to the intellectual task force report. She had received around ten volunteers to join the task force.

Employees serving on the task force include Cynthia Baker, Jeffery Beam, Libby Evans, Mike Hobbs, Norm Loewenthal, Anne Montgomery, Jackie Resnick, Stephanie Stadler, Janet Tysinger and Matt Banks. The first meeting of the group was held at Meadowmont, and two more meetings have been scheduled. Additional Employees interested in serving on the task force should contact Evans—Employees can participate in several different ways.

Evans asked listeners to forward any ideas on how staff already contribute to the intellectual climate on campus, and note how staff might further contribute to the intellectual climate on campus. However, contributors should keep in mind how much Employees can commit as part of their jobs versus outside of their jobs. These are the two large areas for Employee action that the task force will consider in its response.

The task force has developed a resolution for consideration by the Forum. Evans and the task force did not consider this a proposal of substance, and asked that the Forum agree to approve this resolution on first reading. She added that any delegate who felt the motion was a proposal of substance would be provided an opportunity to have this proposal undergo first and second readings.

Mike Hobbs read the resolution.




The Employee Forum endorses and offers its support to efforts to create ways to enrich the intellectual life of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. The vibrancy of a university’s intellectual life is a key measure of that university’s greatness. Carolina has a long tradition of commitment to service, discovery and free expression of ideas. As with those who come to Chapel Hill as students and teachers, that tradition also is a source of pride for its staff.


The Employee Forum pledges its efforts to support implementation of measures aimed at enhancing Carolina’s intellectual life. The Forum asks its Chair to communicate to the Chair of the Faculty his willingness to serve on the coordinating committee established by vote of the Faculty Council. In this capacity, the Forum Chair will help identify those who can serve on working groups to implement some of the recommendations of the Chancellor’s Task Force on Intellectual Climate. Carolina’s staff employees work in many of the areas that may contribute to implementation of Task Force recommendations and close coordination will help ensure success of this effort.


The Forum also will prepare for consideration in February a response to the Task Force report, identifying ways staff employees may contribute to the effort and describing additional ideas aimed at enriching Carolina’s intellectual life.


Evans asked if any member considered this a motion of substance for purposes of discussion and passage. No member objected to this course, and Libby Evans moved on behalf of the Task Force moved to pass the resolution. Tommy Nixon seconded this resolution, and it was approved unanimously without further discussion.

Peter Schledorn asked if the Task Force would set up a specialized listserv for intellectual climate discussions. Evans said that she would post summaries of task force meetings on the Forum listserv. She also will post a solicitation asking Employees to provide ideas about the campus intellectual climate.


Continuing, Evans made a report for the Forum Nominating Committee. She thanked Jeffery Beam and Sherry Graham for agreeing to stand for election as the Forum’s Vice-Chair in 1998. She noted that openings remained for the positions of Chair and Secretary. Evans said that in spite of the amount of work, she had greatly enjoyed her time as Secretary of the Forum and hoped that others would consider running for this position.


Regarding the Transit and Parking Task Force, Evans noted that this group has met in several lively and positive meetings. She said that a process seems to have emerged for looking at these issues from a fresh perspective.

At one of the meetings, it emerged that some students from smaller North Carolina towns may not have ridden buses before, and may not know the process of reading a schedule or finding which routes to take without getting lost. Many times, one bad experience can lead to a student refusing to use the bus services for the rest of their time at UNC. This piece of information may be useful in increasing student use of bus services.

Evans distributed two handouts, one entitled “Transit and Parking Task Force 1997,” and the second “Brainstorming Parking and Transportation Issues.” The first document contained information that Evans and fellow task force member Janet Tysinger thought especially interesting and useful in considering parking and transit issues. The information was a small piece of that provided to the task force by the consultant team working with the group.

For example, it costs $10,000-13,000 a space to build a parking deck, aside from real estate and maintenance costs. Annually, it costs around $370 a year to maintain a parking deck space plus operating costs. Parking decks located below ground cost between $15,000-24,000 per space, not including maintenance and operating costs. Evans hoped members would be mindful of these statistics in discussions of parking and transportation options.

Stephanie Stadler pointed out a probable error on the fact sheet. Evans agreed with Stadler, and noted that 2,400 parking spaces have been permanently lost at the University since 1970. Since 1990, the entire UNC-CH parking system has lost 1214 permitted parking spaces. Tysinger added that task force members have received a great deal of information on parking and transit issues that they are more than willing to share with their fellows. She said that there has been no holding back on the part of students, faculty or staff in discussions, and that the task force has actively consulted with other universities to find out how they have handled parking issues. Tysinger added that the task force still needs help compiling its ideas.

The second document distributed to the Forum was a list of Evans’ “brainstorming” ideas about how to best address the University’s parking situation. She had given a similar list to Willie Scroggs, the head of the transit and parking task force, to use as he saw fit. Evans had divided the list into 1) issues to consider—particularly issues related to decreasing dependency on parking and equitable distribution of permits available; 2) ideas to address these issues.

Evans said that there has been a very good discussion on the Forum listserv of the issues related to transportation and parking. She had passed along all of these messages to the task force’s consultants. In addition, she had posted her brainstorming list to the Forum listserv for Employees’ comments, positive and negative. Overall, she was heartened by the depth and vigor of these discussions. Evans invited Employees to consider her brainstorming list and create their own list of priorities and approaches that she would forward to the task force.

Schledorn asked if Evans would post a notice of upcoming transit and parking task force meetings on the Forum listserv. Evans said that she would indeed do this. The Chair thanked Evans for her various reports.


The Chair proposed that the Forum hear from newly appointed University Career Counselor Erika Phillips in a December special presentation. The Chair had met with her and the Forum Career Development Committee and had come away with a very positive impression. He asked if the Forum agreed to this proposal on first reading.

Peter Schledorn did not have any qualms with this proposal, but felt that the Forum’s two reading method for approving speakers was a bit unwieldy. He proposed that the Forum exempt the process of issuing invitations for special presentations from the Forum’s two reading requirement, allowing the Forum or the Executive Committee to issue invitations as it saw fit. The Chair praised this proposal as significantly more nimble, and thought that future chairs will have the opportunity to counsel against scheduling too many special presentations. Libby Evans seconded Scheldorn’s motion. The motion was approved unanimously. In addition, it was agreed that Phillips will be invited to make a special presentation to the Forum in December.




Chair’s Report

The Chair reminded members to send in their nominations for the Forum’s Community Award (3-Legged Stool) by November 18.

The Chair noted that the University’s Alumni Association is holding a competition to find the “50 Most Influential People at UNC.” Libby Evans added that the main qualification for this award is those persons contributing to the daily life of the University in a most positive manner. Evans took this charge to mean those who make the University work on a day to day basis. She invited those with more questions about this contest to contact her directly.

The Chair noted that the Forum’s FY 1996-97 budget report was included in the November agenda packet. Those with questions should address him or Forum Assistant Matt Banks.

The Chair reported that the University Priorities and Budget Committee has progressed in its discussions of the financial priorities for Carolina. He said that the Committee has dealt as well as it could given the wide variety of funding issues on campus and that the group has not exercised authority over the sources of funds to support numerous proposals. The committee must make some statement eventually on where to recommend cuts to fund new priorities.

In the December agenda packet there will be a follow-up discussion on SPA and EPA non-faculty employment issues held between the Executive Committee, Charest, and Director of Institutional Research Tim Sanford.

The Chair thanked the members of the University Gazette Insert Task Force for their work this year: Libby Evans, Peter Schledorn, Cheryl Stout and Matt Banks. In addition, he thanked Mike Hobbs and the Gazette staff, particularly student Mary K. Elkins, for their help with design and proofreading. He felt the team effort had produced a terrific result.

The UNC system-wide Staff Assembly will convene in Chapel Hill November 7 to discuss drafts of the group’s charter and by-laws. The group had made contact with representatives from all but a few system institutions, and has made slow progress in obtaining full representation across the State. Members desiring a copy of the draft charter and by-laws should contact the Forum Office (962-3779).

Forum representatives Bob Schreiner, Janet Tysinger, Rachel Windham and Matt Banks have been invited to give a presentation to the employees at North Carolina Central University to kick off their efforts to begin a staff council. The Chair lauded Chancellor Julius Chambers for pushing efforts to create a staff council and to set up assemblies at which the Chapel Hill group will make presentations and respond to questions.

Carolina’s University Day had a very good turnout from staff after a slow start, the Chair reported.

The Chair said that Forum Orientation had proceeded very well. He thanked Orientation Committee co-chairs Jeffery Beam and Joyce Dalgleish for their efforts, and said that the incoming class seemed to be a very lively group.

The fall community meeting had gone very positively, the Chair said. He thought that the meeting’s success was indicative of the close working relationship between the Forum and Human Resources. The Chair personally had found out a great deal of information from the event he had not been aware of before.

Forum Officer nominations had been discussed earlier in the meeting.

The Chair said that the Forum’s annual portraits would be distributed for current members following adjournment.


Committee Reports

Jeffery Beam, Co-Chair of the Orientation Committee, reported the group had not produced minutes this month but had met twice to resolve plans for the October 24 Orientation and November 5 five year reunion. He had greatly enjoyed his experience with the Orientation committee and the incoming group.

In addition, the Forum Office had distributed a list of “unknown facts” that various members had submitted about themselves. Members wishing to add their facts to the list should contact the Forum Office.

Beam thanked the Orientation Committee and the Forum Office for their work in organizing the five year reunion of past Forum members. He felt the reunion had been a great success.


Peter Schledorn, Chair of the Personnel Policies Committee, reported the group had not met that month and had nothing to report. The group hoped to meet with Drake Maynard to discuss comp time issues in November, and had resolved the classification issues that Employees with UNC Physicians & Associates raised earlier in the year. The Chair asked that Schledorn produce some record of this discussion.


The Compensation and Benefits Committee had produced a report earlier in the meeting. Ruth Lewter, Co-Chair of the Public Affairs Committee, said that group had met October 8 and hoped to investigate pricing issues for creating a regularly published Forum newsletter.


Laura Grady, Co-Chair of the Recognition and Awards Committee, said that group’s minutes were contained in the monthly agenda packet. The group hoped to distribute a copy of its booklet describing steps towards developing a departmental recognition program at the December meeting. She thanked Patti Smith of Human Resources for her invaluable help in producing this report. Grady also thanked members of the committee for their assistance in organizing the staff processional at University Day. The group will meet again on November 20 to discuss the final draft of the booklet and the group’s annual report.


Tommy Nixon, Co-Chair of the University Committee Assignments Committee, reported that Dianne Crabill had been selected as the Employee representative to the UNC One Card Advisory Committee. The Chair commented that the committee had been very busy this year and its activity speaks well for staff involvement in University committees.


Norm Loewenthal, Chair of the Career Development Committee, said that the group had submitted minutes for inclusion in the November agenda packet. He echoed the Chair’s good words about the quality of Erika Phillips, and felt that she had gotten off to a very good start. He looked forward to hearing from Phillips in December. In addition, the Forum’s recommendations on Employee education had been the subject of a very nice article in that day’s Daily Tar Heel.


Janet Tysinger, Chair of the Employee Presentations Committee, thanked Laurie Charest, Drake Maynard, and the other Human Resources representatives who gave presentations at the fall community meeting October 21. She praised their efforts and willingness to field questions from the assembly. Tysinger thanked Jeffery Beam, Mitch Copeland, Connie Dean, Thomas Goodwin, Phil Hearne, and Frances Rountree for their assistance with the meeting this year.


The Chair reminded Forum committee chairs that they will need to submit their annual reports to the Forum Office by November 18.


Libby Evans reported there had been no activity with the School Volunteerism Task Force. She anticipated that she would be able to give this task force more of her attention upon leaving her position as Forum Secretary.


Faculty Council Liaisons had nothing to report.


Outsourcing Steering Team representative Ann Hamner reported the group had discussed a presentation that a consultant of the Physical Plant had made to Employees in the grounds, grounds vehicle maintenance, and HVAC departments. Reports were that the presentation was well received by Employees in these units, and that a great deal of discussion was engendered.

A consultant and a group of 9-10 Employees will visit four other campuses to receive briefings on how other campuses carry out these tasks in-house and through private firms. The Employee group will be composed from unit managers and those recruited for outsourcing focus groups. A report from the consultant will be due to Physical Plant by the beginning of December. The Steering Team will meet again Monday, December 1 at 11 a.m. in the Business and Finance Conference Room on the second floor of South Building.


George Sharp reported on behalf of the New Careers Training Board that the group had addressed a number of different issues. Primary among these concerns was an attempt to find a home for twelve computers donated to the board by Academic Technologies and Networks. The board wanted to find a place for the computers that would not been overrun by students and in which Employees could feel at home. Spaces available included an office across Airport Road from Human Resources, but the group is investigating other alternatives.


There were no further announcements or questions.


In the absence of further discussion, the Chair called for a motion to adjourn. Jackie Overton so moved, seconded by Al Jeter. There was no discussion, and the meeting adjourned at 11:24 a.m.


Respectfully submitted,




Matt Banks, Recording Secretary

Comments are closed.