Skip to main content
 

September 12, 2024 Vice Chancellors’ Representatives’ Meeting

Present: Caley Allen, Linc Butler, Leah Cox, Chassidy Dillon, Elizabeth Dubose, Kamran Farwell, Adrianne Gibilisco, Wendy Halsey, Keith Hines, Brigitte Ironside, Torri Mason, Becci Menghini, Allana Smith Potts, Allison Reid, Charlissa Rice, Lori Shamblin, Audrey Shore, Kirsten Stevenson, Susse Toro, Tyrone Williams

Keith Hines called the meeting to order at 2:03 p.m. He welcomed all attending, noting the time involved in the meeting is a considerable investment given the amount of things demanded of employees generally. Adrianne Gibilisco read the meeting’s first question:

(Gibilisco) There is a general consensus amongst those in Communications positions that the roles are undervalued. Specifically, the banding doesn’t allow for proper categorization of the different roles within Communications (Marketing, Content creation, Social Media specialist, etc.). When can we expect a review of the varied roles within Communications, with appropriate banding for each, to take place?

 

Linc Butler said that earlier in the year the SHRA salary ranges were adjusted. He said that OHR (Office of Human Resources) does not expect that there would be any work to parse out classification titles based on specific disciplines that are listed in the question. Butler said that work is also being done to develop an EPS classification, which has some current market data associated with this aspect as well.

From that, Butler said that the program is not one-size-fits-all. Instead, every System institution, while using some of the same ranges, can petition for “grade modifiers” which provide a little more headroom from a salary standpoint. There would be a different modifier for certain classifications here in Chapel Hill than would exist for Western Carolina and Cullowhee, for example, based on markets and pure competition. Butler said that UNC-Chapel Hill’s OHR has been consistently pushing the System Office in roles like Marketing, where it is felt that UNC-Chapel Hill has a different market for a Communications officer versus a manager of web content.

The System Office has been working with Buck Consultants on getting these proposals together. What Buck is not seeing is a significant enough differentiation to create individual classes. Instead, the System Office is encouraging the campus to leverage “grade modifiers” for these positions. Thus, once the classification system is up and running, OHR may then have the ability to work with campus units to then differentiate within a particular pay band, using the local modifier based on what the disciplines are to better align those roles with what the current local market is paying.

Butler did not expect that there will be individual parsed out classifications based on individual disciplines cited. He did think that there would be room to allow local OHR to work that will better pinpoint the market for areas like Marketing in particular. He said that the timing for these changes would take place in the New Year. Butler clarified that individual units would have to take some action using the new structure, following which OHR would work with these units, instead of a centralized study of positions.

Gibilisco confirmed that these changes would not take place for SHRA positions. Butler said that this is the case, as the State Office of Human Resources (OSHR) still controls what the University can and cannot do with SHRA positions. He expected that some of the work will be done around the standard trade conversion (???) for positions that are exempt from the Fair Labor Standards Act. Still, he thought that more of these communications roles would end up in the EHRA than the SHRA space.

Gibilisco followed up by asking what happens when a person does not want to be in an EHRA position and prefers their SHRA classification, be it for retirement or other reasons. She thought that SHRA employees were thus stuck in a weird kind of limbo, either in a non-recently banded position or moving into EHRA status against their wishes because that status is the only option available to them for the job.

Butler clarified that these employees would not be moved into EHRA status against their wishes, but rather would have to choose for themselves. Employees choosing to remain SHRA would be managed from within the SHRA classification system.

Gibilisco said that employees in this situation are thus faced with a very difficult decision: whether to remain SHRA and possibly forego the “grade modifiers” envisioned to be available only for EHRA employees. Butler said that this is the reality of the situation that each employee will have to address and make the decision best for them, given all of the factors involved. Gibilisco thanked Butler for his response.

Keith Hines read James Holman’s series of questions:

               (Holman) I have been approached by the Housekeeping staff with a list of concerns. They ask me to present their concerns to the Employee Forum for assistance in addressing these very important issues.

 

Unreasonable parking location for 2nd shift employees:  The newly assigned parking permits for S11, S12 and S10 Cardinal Deck or ACC parking lot preferred because it is the most logical location for the entire 2nd shift workforce based on centralized location (Safety Issues).

 

Waiving The 1-hour daytime parking fee:  Zone Managers are 2nd shift employees

 

The overlapping time for 1st and 2nd shifts is only 30 minutes and allows time to park prior to starting shift at 4pm per the hiring agreement.

 

Being tardy will impact the structured team cleaning process that is established within each zone. The process itself requires that employees arrive and complete tasks at specific times.

 

Unreasonable parking price:  The daytime parking fee for zone managers is unreasonable for 2 days per month that they are required to attend mandatory meetings.

 

Sporting event parking impact for 2nd shift: The newly assigned parking assignments are located near the sports arena and would severely reduce available parking for those events as well as disrupt workflow for 2nd shift employees during peak working hours.

               Wendy Halsey said that she was really glad that Holman had raised these concerns with her office previously, as they have led to good conversations between Facilities Services and Transportation and Parking.

 

Halsey addressed the concerns by noting that housekeepers now have a parking permit that allows them access without extra charge to park in a timely manner so that they can get to their shift on time. Thus, housekeepers would not have to pay for both day and nighttime parking to work their shifts. Halsey said that Facilities Services is still working with Transportation and Parking about staff concerns on parking priority. She did not have a detailed answer yet but her office is investigating individual cases.

 

Halsey said that Facilities Services does provide a daytime parking pass to zone managers working on campus for those two days a month. This charge is not something that these managers must pay for separately.

 

Halsey noted that staff parking sometimes conflicts with campus sporting events. On those occasions, Facilities Services provides a shuttle to take folks from the Cheek-Clark Building on West Cameron to the buildings in which they work. Halsey granted that this is not an ideal solution but said that it is a workaround for game days when parking is affected.

 

Halsey said that her office needs to follow up on housekeepers who have been assigned new lots, as some received new lots when the permits were assigned this year which are not as close to their assigned buildings. These situations will demand case-by-case treatment depending on the particularities of where people work and their assigned parking lots. Halsey understood that Parking assigns allotments based on certain numbers, and her office needs to find out more about where its allotments are located.

 

Overall, Halsey was pleased to have worked through most of the issues and concerns that Holman had raised, commenting that she was not aware of them until Holman had brought them forward. She was very glad that he had done so.

 

Keith Hines read Allan Smith Potts’ question, as she was unable to do so from her Zoom location:

 

(Allen) UNC-Chapel Hill and other system campuses are required to submit compliance reports by September 1, following the revised Section 300.8.5 of the UNC Policy Manual, which was updated by the Board of Governors on May 23. The new policy emphasizes the University’s commitment to nondiscrimination, equality of opportunity, institutional neutrality, academic freedom, and student success. While the policy mandates a detailed review of diversity and inclusion initiatives, it does not call for the elimination of programs or personnel dedicated to supporting students from diverse backgrounds. Targeted initiatives that support underserved students are still encouraged, as long as they comply with nondiscrimination laws and do not impose political viewpoints as a condition of participation.

 

Question:  How was this taken into consideration when UNC submitted its report to the UNC System on September 1?

 

Leah Cox said that this concern was highly considered in every way as officials met with every School’s Dean, Program Director, Vice Chancellor and Vice Provost of all programs across the institution, to study things being done around equity and inclusion concerns. She said that University officials tried to ensure that the campus is following the UNC System policy as it was laid out in the guidelines, with a focus on student success and employee well-being.

 

Cox said that so many of the programs accustomed to are still in place, perhaps in other places and spaces across campus, but are still part of the University. Some of these programs needed to refocus some of the things that they were doing to follow the new guidelines. Still, Cox thought that each of UNC-Chapel Hill’s schools and units has done a great job of trying to comply with the policy as it is written.

 

Keith Hines reiterated that Cox had said that the focus is now on student success. Based on his previous experience with Cox’ work, Hines said that student success has always been a focus for her work. He did not think that Cox’ work was ever about anything other than student success, perhaps mandated in a different way now. Hines said that he did not ever want anyone to ever think that the University’s Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) officers were not concerned about student success to the utmost.

 

Hines thanked the delegates and various Vice Chancellors for taking the time to meet that afternoon. He adjourned the meeting at 2:21 p.m.

 

Respectfully submitted,

 

Matt Banks, Recording Secretary

 

 

Comments are closed.