September 13, 2023 Employee Forum Meeting Minutes
Delegates Attending: L.E. Alexander, David Barnette, Randall Borror, Sharron Bouquin, David Bragg, Bonita Brown, Shavon Carey-Hicks, Denise Carter, Tiffany Carver, Matthew Chamberlin, Elizabeth Dubose, Jay Eubank, Shayla Evans-Hollingsworth, Adrianne Gibilisco, Leslie Heal Ray, Leah Hefner, Jessi Hill, Keith Hines, Jonah Hodge, James Holman, Rebecca Howell, Jacob Hurst, Todd Hux, Brigitte Ironside, Kira Jones, Stacy Keast, Sara Kelley, Anthony Lindsey, Amber Meads, Arlene Medder, Mandy Melton, Stephanie Morales, Katie Musgrove, Katherine Neer, Joseph Ormond, Lisa Petersen, Sara Pettaway, Laura Pratt, Charlissa Rice, Drexel Rivers, Kelly Scurlock-Cross, Lori Shamblin, Audrey Shore, Theresa Silsby, Sarah Smith, Jake Stallard, James Stamey, Mathew Steadman, Jonathan Stroud, Matthew Teal, Julie Theriault, Ally Wardell, June Weston, Tracy Wetherby Williams, Michael Williams, Tyrone Williams, Jacob Womack
Excused: Linda Holst, Haydee Marchese, Jackie Schwamberger
Chair Katie Musgrove called the meeting to order at 9 a.m. She thanked everyone for being willing to open the meeting a bit earlier than usual that morning. She welcomed everyone to the meeting and asked all to participate in a moment of silence for Professor Zijie Yan, whom the University lost due a senseless act of gun violence on August 28th.
As shared in her social media statement following the shooting, the Chair commended the selfless acts of many staff across campus on that day. She took a moment to echo the resolution passed last Friday by the Faculty Council (https://facultygov.unc.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/261/2023/09/Resolution-In-Memory-of-Zijie-Yan-bilingual.pdf). The Chair noted that the resolution was read out in English and Chinese before being passed. The Council was joined by some of Professor Yan’s close colleagues who have been supporting his family members since the shooting. The faculty passed along an update that was shared at Professor Yan’s private memorial ceremony as well. The Chair encouraged delegates to watch the recording of the Faculty Council’s meeting to hear these moving remarks, sharing a link to the video of that meeting (https://uncch.hosted.panopto.com/Panopto/Pages/Viewer.aspx?id=4b252cd4-588b-401c-b59d-b07500f0c05c).
The Chair opened the floor for some brief reflection about the events of August 28th. She began by first noting that the university will create an opportunity to submit feedback on how it handled the situation that day. She encouraged all to take advantage of this opportunity. She believed that university leaders want all feedback shared via that avenue, including feedback from today, in order to respond effectively to concerns raised.
In addition, the Chair said that the Employee Forum has already begun collecting many thoughts and concerns from staff, which will be shared at the Vice Chancellors’ representatives’ meeting the following afternoon. The Chair recalled that the Staff Advisory Committee to the Chancellor (STACC) had held a great conversation with Chancellor Guskiewicz the previous week, providing him valuable feedback and perspective from that day.
Janet Steele recalled not being able to leave a building that morning. She commented that she thought that the Emergency Management team did a very good job informing the community about what was occurring. She said that some students did not feel that way, and she wondered if these students were not connected yet virtually with the university. All in all, she thought that Emergency Management did a very good job with distributing information. She granted that others may have a different perspective, particularly as she was not on that side of campus that morning. She was sorry that the students did not feel this way.
David Bragg noted comments from graduate students that many campus classrooms do not have lockable doors, or doors that are easily lockable. He said that this problem affected Dey Hall, which is close to where the shooting actually occurred. Bragg reported that students, graduate students, and staff had to shelter in place without the ability to lock their door.
Shavon Carey-Hicks said that students and faculty have reported doors not being able to lock to Facilities Services. She thought that the communication that day was great, as community members received the initial alert with a very basic template, with nothing else communicated through either the Carolina Alert system or email until 2:35 p.m. People then turned to checking social media and the local news for information.
Carey-Hicks recalled that there was a lot of misinformation circulated not only among students but also through the media, a frustrating occurrence as people had no other information to fill this void. She had to pull a couple of students from a hallway to shelter in place, and she had no additional information to tell them. She thus thought that communication needed to be better and a little bit more frequent. She also thought that training for these situations would be appropriate and is needed. She had been through a lockdown at another institution and so kind of knew what to do, following on her instincts.
Carey-Hicks noted that Carolina Alert posters are up in some classrooms, but not all of them. Dey Hall did not have one such poster before classes started this semester. She was uncertain about the utility of these posters in any event, as she was flustered to the point of running off instinct. She thought that some type of centralized training, not a training that one must request, is required. Carey-Hicks said that school-aged children must undergo this training regularly in the K-12 school system and asked why university personnel do not have similar required training.
Arlene Medder tearfully said that her building also did not lock, a stunning fact she realized only that morning. She recalled students freaking out because they could not find a classmate. She felt a responsibility to keep calm as an older person.
Kira Jones said that she was similarly shaken by these events. She echoed a desire for more specificity in communication, even as the situation was active, ongoing, and developing. She had heard from community members that the seriousness of this situation did not come through in the tone of the Alert Carolina message. While Jones was not personally physically on campus that day, she had a new work-study student who was trying to navigate the building and situation to the best of their ability. Jones said that this lack of communication may have contributed to some faculty continuing to hold class and students not knowing about the situation until later.
Jones was also frustrated that there have not been active shooter trainings on campus, recalling a similar shooting at UNC-Charlotte in 2019. Friends and family were concerned about her moving into the Chapel Hill area because of similar incidents. On the day of the shooting, she relied on previous trainings that she received at her previous institution in order to support those around her. She thought that faculty and graduate students like her partner must be equally prepared as they lead classes and end up taking responsibility for students in these heated moments.
Keith Hines thought that the situation was handled by the university about as well as it possibly could have been handled. He did not see anything that could have been handled any better, in his opinion. Hines is cognizant that in most of these situations, the assailant is someone who is internal to an organization. So, any communications disseminated to all of the campus population would also be disseminated to the assailant. He understood that people want communications in these circumstances, but also noted the problem that providing this information could aid the assailant in pursuit of a crime.
Hines said that he had taken an active shooter training on this campus. While this training is not compulsory, it is available. He took this training when he worked in the Student Union, as he and his co-workers wanted to take the initiative against what they saw as an inevitable circumstance. He again commented that everything he saw, from law enforcement to communications to university administration, had handled the situation about as well as possible.
Michael Williams recalled his time as a UNC-Chapel Hill student in the 1990s, when there was also an active shooter incident on campus. He said that in the time he has worked here, there have been multiple threats or mass casualty events initiated by people with guns. Williams granted Hines’ point that active shooter training does exist, but he said that this training needs to be mandatory. He said that every student on campus has done active shooter drills since kindergarten, and staff need to also know what to do through professional training. He reflected that having been through multiple security incidents on campus, he still felt he did not know what to do on campus when one occurs.
Additionally, Williams thought that staff need to be told how changes in the condition status of the university affect remote workers, as he received perhaps a dozen questions about the meaning of this status announcement. He said that this is a relatively small concern but thought that it led to a couple of days of people not knowing their role.
The Chair thanked all delegates for their feedback both in the meeting and in the chat feature. She then welcomed Provost Chris Clemens to speak in the Forum’s roundtable session. Clemens began by thanking the Forum for the previous conversation and all staff for their response to the incident. He had heard stories from all parts of campus and he was struck by how essential staff are to students and to one another in these critical moments and afterwards.
At last week’s Faculty Council meeting, Chancellor Guskiewicz described the university’s response as according to plan but not perfect. Clemens thought that the campus must plan for these situations in advance, and get better over time.
Thus, community members will have the opportunity to submit feedback through a portal set up by Daryl Jeter. The university will issue a message prepared by Communications either today or tomorrow, giving the entire campus a single site to submit feedback. He encouraged listeners to use this method even if they had previously given feedback in another way.
All of this feedback will go to improving the plan, as when something happens, it is too late for additional training or to change the plan. He thanked Jeter and his team for the work done over the past two years. He recalled that Jeter established a team to meet with the UNC System Office to invite UNC-Charlotte to describe their after-action response. UNC-Charlotte officials described the things that went well and went poorly in the 2019 shooting, which did inform a great deal of activity to improve planned responses here at Carolina.
Clemens noted that classrooms have scannable information to brief people about guidance in active shooter situations. He said that those faculty who read this information would have seen guidance that shooting incidents are not compatible with continuing to teach lessons. Those who did continue to teach either did not see this guidance or did not follow it. In any event, the university must understand why this occurred and figure out ways to do better. The university does have available active shooting training through UNC Public Safety. Clemens had personally undergone this training but granted that this training is not mandatory and also needs updating.
Clemens praised George Battle, Derek Kemp, Daryl Jeter, and all of the people who executed on a much-improved safety plan over what the university had previously. He looked forward to working with these officials as the university gathers feedback for evaluation by consultants who are experts at this field. These consultants will make a set of recommendations for the plan going forward.
On another subject, Clemens recalled attending a recent meeting of the American Association of Universities (AAU) addressing challenges facing higher education. He noted help immediately granted by a range of provosts from campuses that have experienced similar shooting incidents. Now, a document exists to pass on to the next person who needs help and advice in a similar situation. Clemens said that it was very helpful to have this community of people who have undergone this experience to help process and plan for what the institution should do next.
Regarding the AAU meeting, there was a lot of concern about strong negative ratings from parents and the public about how expensive higher education is and how much debt students must go into to achieve this education. Clemens felt pretty good given Carolina’s relatively low cost and high state support compared to other AAU schools. He was proud that the university could lead as a low-cost option for people, particularly for those from the state of North Carolina.
Clemens noted that other universities are negotiating with unions around contracts for graduate students and for staff. He recalled that North Carolina is not a union state but said that these negotiations are a reminder of the need for improvements on pay, equity, and other categories that UNC-Chapel Hill should be doing with or without organized labor. He was happy to respond to the Employee Forum’s call for conversations on these issues.
Clemens said that the university’s Human Resources system is sometimes clunky, even if our intent is to do better within the state system. Despite that clunky system, he thought that Vice Chancellor Becci Menghini had done some good things in HR. He asked delegates to continue to make their voices heard so that we can work well together in spite of tension around some lingering issues.
The AAU meeting also discussed the upcoming embargoed university rankings which will come out in the next week. Finally, the meeting discussed budgetary concerns. Clemens noted that UNC-Chapel Hill is still anxiously awaiting its budget. He found the recent state of negotiations somewhat mystifying and said that he will phone legislative leaders encouraging them to return to their task, as otherwise raises will be delayed. He said that the next set of concerns is trying to figure out happenings in the legislature.
Tiffany Carver asked if the active shooter training offered something that can be tailored to particular buildings. She described the suite arrangement at the School of Social Work as very siloed, where an employee may be working all alone in a suite without awareness of everything else going on. She asked if the university could design specific training tailored to particular campus buildings.
Clemens responded that trainings now offered are designed centrally and are mostly not building-specific. Once shots are fired, decision-making in these situations will depend on individuals in the room deciding whether the right thing to do is to lock the doors and shelter or some other course of action. However, he thought it a great idea to think through these protocols for individual buildings, recalling that each school has its own safety plan. Thus, trainings on the specific safety plans would also need to be individualized. He directed delegates to the new Carolina Ready safety application, which is part of the university’s revised safety plan and will address tornadoes and natural disasters as well as active shooter situations.
The Chair thanked Clemens for his remarks and for being with the Forum that morning. She next welcomed Vice Chancellor for Finance and Operations Nate Knuffman to present updates on the university budget and other Finance and Operations information.
Knuffman thanked the Forum and staff in general for their service over the tough last couple of weeks. Knuffman said that the 2023-24 budget will be the second one published in the form of an all-funds budget. He thanked the many employees across campus who contributed to this effort, to create an all-funds budget of $4.2 billion.
Knuffman said that the broad scope of the mission of Carolina is reflected in the budget. He thought that the budget represents a big step forward in transparency. The budget is fiscally balanced and has some money set aside for contingency needs. Most importantly, the budget really does try to align resources with top priorities.
Of course, the university’s budget is not entirely finished without a corresponding budget from the legislature. Knuffman said that expectations were that the state budget would see approval that week, but there appears to have been a snag related to gaming issues. He was hopeful to see something soon and understood that the timing of the budget negotiations is pretty frustrating to many. He thought that the most important thing is that there seems to still be momentum towards finishing the budget.
He was pleased at news that a budget is ready, awaiting final release. He thought that the budget would include some good news for UNC-Chapel Hill. He reiterated that this expectation includes a strong package for bonuses and pay raises for state employees.
Knuffman said that this is the first year in which there is a new funding formula at the UNC System level on state funding allocations. UNC-Chapel Hill is set to be the largest beneficiary of this formula this year, Knuffman thought. There will also likely be some strong funding for repair and renovations which is critically needed on campus. The university expects and hopes to see some restored funding for Carrington Hall (School of Nursing), Kenan-Flagler Business School, and even for the School of Law.
Knuffman revisited how to think about the budget given the amount of frustration with the pace of passage. He noted a larger context around getting a state budget passed, as the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill has been very generously and consistently supported by the state over the last several years. Compared to our peer institutions, the level of support for Carolina from state funds is really generous. Knuffman encouraged delegates to read a recent Wall Street Journal article that looked at state funding declines for public flagship universities over the past 20 years.
Nationally, many flagships have had their funding cut, but they have offset that via large increases in tuition. Knuffman said that the really steady support from the state has allowed UNC-Chapel Hill to keep its tuition incredibly affordable, an exceptional value proposition.
The 24-25 budget process will begin in October with instructions being sent out asking units to send budget submissions by the end of November. Finance & Operations will meet with units in December and January with major deliberations on decision-making occurring in January or February. All of this effort goes to putting together a slate of recommendations for approval by the Board of Trustees in March 2024, and then the Board of Governors in May 2024.
One difference about the planning process this year is access to a new budget tool called Plan Carolina, which is expected to be live this fall. Central finance staff and ITS are now preparing training materials for users. A goal of this effort is to replace what has been a very manual process with spreadsheets. Knuffman hoped to see an increase in efficiency, improving the university’s ability to memorialize decision-making on budgets and to incorporate analysis through the increased access to data and history.
Another difference in this year’s budget from others’ past is that it will likely include some contextual information to accompany budget data. Knuffman recalled that to date, the university has really focused on incremental budget decisions in the budget numbers isolated by themselves. Knuffman thought that the focus is shifting a bit towards what the university is getting for dollars spent and being able to put that into context. Again, he said that Finance & Operations is on a journey in terms of how the university can make decisions and present information in this space.
Knuffman said that he really appreciated the opportunity to provide updates to the Forum, and looked forward to returning and sharing more as these discussions continue. The Chair thanked Knuffman for his remarks and commended him and his team for improving the transparency of the budget process. She looked forward to Knuffman continuing to demystify the budget process for staff via these quarterly updates.
Jake Stallard asked if Knuffman had more details regarding updating the allocation model. Knuffman said that this model studies how the university allocates tuition and appropriations on campus. Historically, the university has incrementally just rolled budgets forward without a tie toward activity or credit hours being taught. The Finance team will attempt to improve this lack of connectivity to provide better incentives and better alignment.
In addition, Knuffman said that the UNC System Office has finally released its new funding formula for the UNC System. This release provides the university clarity and an opportunity to align how we do our work here with how we attract funding at the UNC System level. Finance has engaged several different work groups to talk through how an allocation model would work. This effort is just beginning with meetings with departmental deans and finance leads as well as an implementation team. Knuffman said that Finance will work on this project, hoping to have something fleshed out by the end of the fall to increase effectiveness in this area.
Arlene Medder asked if Knuffman has numbers on how much of the deferred maintenance deficit is likely to get attention with the new state budget. Knuffman was encouraged that there seems to be a renewed emphasis on funding for repair and renovation needs across the UNC System.
Knuffman said that repair and renovation capital projects come in three buckets of funding. There are the big newer named projects, the larger comprehensive renovations which are usually in the $2-10 million range, and the smaller repair and renovation budgets which have historically not received predictable funding. The budget for these smaller projects has typically been in the $2-4 million range. He noted that UNC-Chapel Hill is receiving about $8 million per year, and he expected that level of funding to continue, which represents a marked improvement. This budget does help to address the university’s more than $1 billion backlog and is a step in the right direction, Knuffman said.
Matthew Teal asked how the university is prioritizing how this additional funding is spent, particularly noting the need for repairing elevators, for example. He understood that there is less a shortage of funding than a shortage of contractors to actually do this work. Knuffman said that there have been many challenges facing Facilities, from access to labor and contractors, to supply chain issues, to sizable inflation and escalation in prices. He said that even just the timing associated with getting necessary materials has been a challenge in this area. Knuffman praised how the university prioritizes needs by weighing various criteria through a methodology.
Through weighing these various factors, the university can develop a running priority list. Knuffman said that the good news from the legislature has been the allocation of more funds. However, the legislature has earmarked individual projects, even the smaller projects, providing the university less flexibility at the campus level, which does put a premium on prioritizing effectively.
The Chair followed up on that question, noting the discussion about leveraging and prioritizing donor funding to cover some of the gaps in important R&R accessibility updates. She asked how the university is progressing in this area. Knuffman said that it has been a real challenge to attract donor funds for just renovations. Typically, newer buildings seem to attract more donor interest. Still, Mike Andreason has engaged in several conversations about prioritizing this type of work and hiring senior level employees to focus on attracting dollars for renovation needs. Other universities have not made much of a dent in that space, providing UNC-Chapel Hill with a unique opportunity to show progress and lead in this area. He hoped to be able to report more in the future.
Jacob Womack said that the facilities side of his work is facing larger budget issues, particularly regarding things that were approved pre-pandemic that now must be resubmitted. These contracts’ costs of labor and materials have skyrocketed. Computer glitches have led to the need for manual entry of information, leading to approvals falling months and months behind. Womack asked if there were any light at the end of the tunnel regarding streamlining or centralizing these processes. He appreciated hearing about centralizing funding at the university, but asked if there is a way to fold ticketing and receipt-based decisions into this same movement. Knuffman thanked Womack for his question and he offered to follow up with Womack to get more information in order to be responsive.
Knuffman added that there have been various studies on what governs how we do facilities work, whether on the renovation side or in larger capital projects. He said that there has been some progress in increasing thresholds aimed at allowing the university to move more efficiently. However, he thought that there is an opportunity to organize more efficiently on these projects. The university can address state processes or restrictions that are causing these issues. He added that there may also be internal processes that might also bear study and possible action. He would follow up with Womack to obtain more details.
Womack said that his division has been stretched very thin. He said that these processes are creating backlogs that will continue to balloon. He worried that these concerns are not being elevated, possibly because facilities workers do not have as many avenues to conversations with higher-level administrators. He appreciated Knuffman’s attention to these questions.
Arlene Medder noted that part of the cost of renovations is being able to pay the staff doing the work. She did not know if this factor has been included in this conversation. Facilities has so many vacancies and has had trouble hiring. Knuffman agreed that the teams here are stretched. He said this is not a problem unique to Carolina, as other institutions have the same problem. He has been encouraged by the relief on the personnel side in which sign-on bonuses and retention bonuses are now available. Additionally, the state will approve a budget soon. However, UNC-Chapel Hill must work once again to make itself a place where everyone wants to work.
The Chair thanked Knuffman for his remarks. She then welcomed the University’s Vice Chancellor for Communications, Kamrhan Farwell. Farwell noted that her presentation is coming on the one-year anniversary of her hiring at UNC. She has had the chance to meet many employees here and hoped to meet more as time progresses.
Farwell recalled that the Chair had asked for an update on changes in University Communications. Farwell wanted to publicly thank her staff for their work carrying out protocols with emergency management and the police during the events of August 28th. Communications staff sheltered in place while doing their work. She was encouraged by all of the kind words from across campus as her staff try to help the university with its recovery. Farwell said that Communications is working on a story about how various members of the community stepped up to help both during the lockdown and in the recovery efforts since. She invited delegates to email her with any ideas for this article.
Farwell noted that Communications had relaunched The Well, the university’s online magazine, on August 22nd. She was grateful that The Well now communicates with students as well as faculty and staff in the aftermath of August 28th.
Farwell then turned to how Communications has expanded and improved The Well. The team moved to change the look and feel of the website, with the creative team putting together some new images that are a little faster formatting than before. Communications sought to share stories about Carolina with a wider audience, including students now along with faculty and staff. Students and other outside constituencies are interested in these stories about all of the things happening on campus.
Communications is placing a focus on storytelling. Farwell noted the different newsletters published by departments and schools, all of which cannot be included in The Well. Communications hopes to emphasize things everyone will be interested in, such as the recent university rankings. Additionally, Communications hopes to make readers more knowledgeable about all of the work done at UNC. Farwell noted some external audiences lack such knowledge about work done for students. Finally, Farwell said that The Well will focus on the people behind the work: the faculty, staff, and students.
Farwell said that The Well will also help to ensure the community can engage effectively. She cited examples of research dollars and scholarship done at Carolina. She said that stories about the people behind these programs are much more compelling than other types of stories. Farwell said that The Well hoped to capture the “whys,” i.e., the reasons why things are done a particular way here at UNC. Additionally, Communications loves to tell the stories of extraordinary journeys that people take on this campus. The Well will also reflect the history, tradition, and sense of place here at Carolina. The newsletter also plans to serve as a source for things to remember.
Farwell said that The Well was already popular and these plans only went to ensuring and broadening this appeal. The Well will highlight the work of Communications’ photo-video and social media teams to demonstrate the multi-platform nature of storytelling here on campus. The Well will also continue the promotion of governance meetings, letting people know about meetings ahead of time.
Farwell noted the new “Accolades” feature in The Well that will focus on particular achievements of faculty, staff, and students. She was also pleased to note the new campus-wide university calendar, which features a very easy interface and is also easily searchable. The calendar can also download items searched into Outlook and other calendars as well.
Farwell said that The Well began its re-publication with two editions a week but will move to four days a week once everything is fully in place. The Chair thanked Farwell for her remarks. She also acknowledged the Forum delegates and STACC representatives who helped provide feedback on The Well.
Jacob Womack asked about contact methods associated with the events calendar. Farwell believed that there is an online platform through which people can submit their events directly.
The Chair thanked Farwell for her remarks. She then welcomed Vice Chancellor and General Counsel Charles Marshall and Executive Vice Provost Amy Locklear Hertel to discuss the Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA) v. UNC Supreme Court decision. The Chair thought it important to keep delegates fully informed about the context behind the decision and where to go from here in order to best advocate for staff.
Marshall said that he and Hertel have been very busy the last couple of months. Marshall praised Hertel’s tireless work on this case. He then framed the discussion and the presentation. He first of all noted the very difficult last couple of weeks facing community members here in Chapel Hill. He then noted discussions regarding process surrounding the SFFA decision and what the university is doing right now to ensure that its admissions teams receive advice and information to be fully compliant with this decision.
Marshall reiterated that everyone from Carolina had done a fantastic job representing the institution and its position throughout the litigation. He said that the result of the litigation was a change in the law with respect to race and admissions. Prior to the decision, the university operated under previous Supreme Court precedent. As a result of the SFFA decision, higher education is no longer allowed to use race itself as a factor. Previously, the Supreme Court had permitted the justification of the education benefits of diversity as a constitutionally permissible basis for the use of race in a limited fashion in admissions. Here, the court said that those benefits cannot justify consideration of race admissions because they are “inescapably imponderable” and cannot be measured by a court.
Furthermore, the court also said that because admissions is a zero-sum game, the use of race in favor of applicants of any racial group necessarily has a negative effect on applicants of other racial groups. Finally, the court said that certain racial categories are “imprecise,” over- or under-inclusive, and may work against an educational interest in diversity. “Categories” refers to the demographic categories that are referred to as the checkbox categories.
So, the key takeaway is that colleges and universities can no longer consider race as a factor in evaluation of applicants at any stage of the process. Institutions cannot award a tip, a plus, or anything else that is a benefit or advantage to an applicant based on their race. This also means that colleges cannot use the admissions process to try to achieve any racial diversity goals within a school or program. These goals include efforts to mirror racial demographics of a state or a particular community of service. Institutions also cannot track the racial status of applicants during the admissions process in order to assess the racial composition of the incoming class or to compare it to the racial composition of previous classes.
Relating to applicants’ essays, applicants can discuss their personal experiences related to their race in personal essays, but they cannot receive credit based solely upon their racial status. The court does not prohibit considering an individual’s discussion of a lived racial experience within their application process, but only if such experience is connected to a separate race-neutral achievement, character, trait, or other evaluation criteria that does not operate as a proxy for race.
Today, the university’s legal team is in the process of working through the proceedings to ensure that admissions has all the information needed to comply with this order. Hertel’s team is working to provide access to people needed from an academic compliance and legal standpoint.
Amy Locklear Hertel thanked Marshall for his remarks. She said that the university is approaching implementation of this decision and ensuring compliance along with every other institution of higher education in the country. She noted that UNC-Chapel Hill is also a named defendant in this case, which involves its own responsibilities.
Hertel spoke about the Chancellor and the Provost and their communications with campus leadership and admissions about the decision. Just after it was released, the Chancellor sent a campus-wide email on June 29th, stating that the university would remain true to its mission and values as an institution. This is now the guidepost, to remain true to the university’s mission, while complying with the recent Supreme Court decision.
In July and August, the Provost and University Council communicated initial guidance to university deans, and an update from the Provost was shared with faculty in August as well. August also saw many presentations made to deans, senior associate deans, and staff about current ongoing admissions practices and compliance with the law. Listeners can refer to these communications as they were captured online.
In the undergraduate admissions space, Vice Provost for Enrollment Rachel Feldman and her team are leading the effort for implementation of the decision. This means that the university has removed from admissions reviewers any access to racial demographic data that students may voluntarily provide as part of the application in the check box section. Applicants may still volunteer this information but it is masked, meaning the information is not viewable or communicated to anyone involved in reviewing those applications for admissions purposes. Feldman’s team has been preparing staff and readers to review applications, starting new applicant reviewer training as of last week, which will be completed this week.
The SFFA decision also applies to Carolina’s well over 100 graduate and professional school admissions processes. Similar to the undergraduate space, the university has removed the ability for graduate admissions reviewers to see racial demographic data that applicants may voluntarily disclose. University Counsel continues to meet with deans, admissions officers, and senior associate deans on this front.
Hertel mentioned that the Provost did launch and charge a small group to advise schools and programs on compliance matters. This group includes Beth Mayor-Davis, Kara Simmons, and Steve Keadey, our Senior University Counsel. Sarah Jacobson, the Assistant Dean for Admissions who handles Student Services in the Graduate School, and Nell Cooper, are also supporting this team in its work. Hertel thanked all who were involved in this project to turn the Supreme Court decision into administrative practice in such a quick time period. She noted that all were busy working through the summer on this task.
Hertel said that University Counsel, the Office of the Provost, the Graduate School, and other campus offices have received numerous questions from those we have been working with in the schools regarding admissions responsibilities. These questions span from applications, to review, to recruitment efforts, and scholarships. Most of these questions are very specific to the school involved. Thus, the teams have worked to answer these questions and apply the court’s decision to the circumstances and processes underway in the schools, through specialized feedback and guidance. UNC is also working closely with the UNC System Office on this process.
For now, the university is exploring commissioning a training module for admissions, readers, and committee participants across the various schools and degree offerings. Hertel laid out what has been a four-part process. First, after the decision was published in July, university teams reviewed specific applications across all degree programs, from check boxes to essay prompts. This process is complete. Applications processes for graduate and professional programs opened nearly on time in early to mid-August. Hertel thanked staff for their work to secure a quick turnaround.
Secondly, the process involves application reviewer training, reviewing rubrics for application reviews and interview prompts. This work will continue through September into early October.
Thirdly, the process must deal with scholarships and funding, and what that space looks like with respect to applicants. Fourth, the university is receiving questions around recruitment efforts and pipeline programming and is providing schools and admissions officers guidance in that space as well. Hertel was grateful for everyone’s patience as the university works through these very specific guidelines for each school or program. She assured listeners that the university is working closely with individuals in each of the schools to answer questions in as timely a way as possible.
Hertel closed by noting the Chancellor’s commitment to the mission and values of the university. She recalled the Provost’s finding that the university is making opportunities out of this change before us. She commended those who work in schools and degree programs for working not only to comply with the court’s decision, but also to streamline or improve admissions practices all across campus.
The Chair thanked Marshall and Hertel for their timely updates on this matter. The first question raised in the chat was the communication strategy behind sitting Board of Governors members tweeting their support of the Supreme Court decision as the Chancellor seems to be indicating otherwise, expressing disappointment with this decision.
Kamrhan Farwell directed listeners to the UNC website which features an entire history of the case. This site contains all of the statements from the Chancellor and the Provost. Farwell said that these are the statements to consult in terms of what the university’s leadership is discussing. Audrey Shore noted that tweets from Board of Governors members seem to say pretty wild things about the case and its decision. She was curious as staff are not encouraged to discuss these questions publicly while BOG members can go against whatever the formal communication processes are to say what they feel.
Farwell thought that there are many opinions about this decision. Faculty and staff members have their own thoughts and have the freedom to talk about the decision in their own capacity, rather than speaking for the university.
Audrey Shore asked if the university is planning to track any changes in student demographics over the next 5 to 10 years. If there is an impact on student diversity based on this decision, what can and will the university do to address this impact?
Amy Locklear Hertel said that the university will comply with the decision of the Supreme Court. That said, applicants can continue to provide this information voluntarily, and the university is still collecting that information as an institution, within reporting requirements around racial and demographic data. So, the university will continue to maintain this information and can provide these reporting requirements but will only do so after application processes close. The university will not have this feedback and information available as quickly as it has been in the past. The university will need to work through its first season to see what the overall effect will be. There are professional organizations across the country which are having these conversations nationwide.
Keith Hines asked if the decision applied to other diversity metrics such as sexuality, gender identity or religion. Marshall said that this is indeed a narrow opinion given what was presented to the court. He said that these next level questions will now require study. Again, Marshall said that the university will comply with the new constitutional standard introduced by the court on June 29th with respect to race. The university has other legal requirements regarding non-discrimination and other protected classes that we are required to follow and that we will continue to follow.
The Chair relayed a question from the chat in which a person writes that they believe that they saw the Board of Trustees also approved a resolution that this decision also applies to hiring at UNC. The questioner asked if this resolution is accurate or enforceable. Marshall said that the university will follow the law with regard to admissions. It will also follow Title VII and all employment laws. The UNC System has a non-discrimination policy that applies to admissions and employment at the UNC System level.
Vice Chancellor for Human Resources, Equal Opportunity, and Compliance Becci Menghini said that the lawsuit could lead to some anticipated changes, probably at the federal level, but not as a result of the university’s own board activity. The university will follow employment laws as it has done with a number of existing state and federal laws. UNC System policy follows this adherence.
The Chair asked about legacy admissions at UNC, granting that these make up a fairly small number of Carolina’s applicants. She asked if there is any thought or stance from the university with regard to allowing legacy admissions. She said that this conversation seems to be occurring across the nation.
Marshall said that a response to this question is not part of the team’s compliance work coming out of the decision. The Chair thanked Hertel and Marshall for their great update and feedback on the process as it stands.
The Chair then turned to Becci Menghini to provide the Forum’s customary Human Resources updates. Menghini said that the last few weeks have been very difficult as the campus navigates its “new normal.” She encouraged employees to be kind to one another as trauma affects all of us differently.
Menghini noted that previous speakers have given tentative updates on the status of the state budget. She was aware of having given optimistic statements about the budget’s approval but has now decided to adopt a more neutral stance regarding its eventual passage.
Menghini noted language from a bill passed through the legislature related to diversity and inclusion training. This language seemingly follows up on some of the requests that have come regarding the types of training administered across the UNC System. Menghini said that a larger group is convening to discuss this law. However, from her first read, it did not seem to suggest that the legislature is limiting the university from doing anything that it currently is doing. The law has language excluding statements that one gender is better than another, or that the university encourages people to overthrow the government. These are not parts of existing training here at the university, and this language will not lead to large changes in how the university does things.
Still, Menghini said that OHR will convene a larger group to discuss this legislation and will ask University Counsel to help interpret its language correctly. Also, OHR will consult with the UNC System Office to ensure that their interpretations line up. Following that process, OHR will update the Forum and other groups.
Menghini said that the SHRA ranges are expected to go to the Office of State Human Resources (OSHR) in the month of October for approval. This package will be sent with a request for blanket approval, which would allow UNC-CH OHR to figure out implementation of these ranges. She reiterated that just because the university will get changes in salary ranges does not mean that everyone on campus will be getting a raise. She said that these ranges have not been updated in a long time, and many more people are in a compressed percentage of range now.
The goal is redoing the ranges is to extend and actually have a range, so that people can progress through the range. That is the way that they are supposed to work but have not here due to this compression of ranges previously. So, that process is complete and OHR will soon supply timelines on implementation.
Menghini said that the SHRA/EHRA conversion for exempt employees is now also underway, with the university receiving some additional guidance about how these conversions will occur and what timeline they will follow. She recalled that this would be a voluntary transition for those in these roles now. When a position is reposted, it would automatically be reposted as an EHRA position.
Menghini also anticipates a transition for those enrolled in the optional retirement program (ORP). The UNC System Office went to bid to move to a single record keeper, which will be TIAA alone in beginning next year. People invested in Fidelity will experience no immediate change but will receive communications about transfers that will occur with the changeover.
Menghini said that this decision has been a long time in the making, following standard industry practice to move to a single record keeper. This move also reduces the risk to employees in that fewer people will handle their documents. Finally, there is also a financial savings. The university is following best practices to move to a single record keeper.
Menghini then welcomed Senior Director of Benefits and Leave Administration Joe Williams to speak on open enrollment matters. First though, she offered to take questions from the body. The Chair asked if the university has any plans to couple its flu vaccinations with COVID booster vaccinations at its campus clinics. Menghini did not know of any such plans. She said that historically, the crucial question has been how vaccines are stored and whether they require refrigeration. She would find out more if needed, but she did not know if there are plans for COVID booster vaccinations at campus clinics.
Keith Hines thanked Menghini for her conversation the previous week and also for directing him to Joe Williams, who helped Hines plan for retirement. He asked if once the state budget is approved, would raises become retroactive, and would longevity pay be retroactive as well? Linc Butler was uncertain, noting that the state budget is late. He then said that longevity pay would generally be paid off one’s current salary once the legislative increase is implemented. There is an entire process OHR uses to correct any subsequent actions, including longevity, and ensure payment based off one’s new salary.
Jacob Womack asked about Student Affairs not providing time and a half pay for people who were requested to work during Condition 3 as outlined after the active shooter incident. Additionally, he asked about bonuses only given to severe weather mandatory employees, even though an entire group of people were told to come in on Condition 3 without any of the accompanying bonuses.
Menghini said that there is guidance regarding how Condition 3 is intended to be rolled out. She advised Womack to discuss this matter with his HR Officer and TIM coordinator about how this structure was managed. There are options. Menghini said that this case sounds rather specific and so should be addressed separately.
Womack was curious about the range of units who dealt with this situation in this way. He understood that Condition 3 is not particularly tailored for this incident. He asked his question on behalf of several employees who were curious about the reasons behind these decisions. Linc Butler said that the majority of the time this policy is used for adverse weather events and it is rare to use the policy for another purpose. However, the policy is called the “Adverse Weather and Emergency Closing Policy” and is thus designed to cover these events.
Butler said that there is a provision in the policy that allows management to designate individuals as mandatory employees in the moment of need. This designation thus allows these employees eligibility for the equal time off provisions of the policy when the university goes to Condition 3. Butler said that likely there will need to be some catch up and correction of these designations after the fact. He thought that one’s departmental TIM administrator and local HR folks will probably work through an audit of everyone who is designated in the moment real time is mandatory. Then, OHR will do some retroactive corrections to ensure these employees receive everything that they should get from an equal time off standpoint.
Womack thanked Butler for letting him know about the possibility of retroactive alteration of this situation. The Chair read a chat question stating that the policy very badly needs to be updated to provide clear guidance regarding how different conditions apply to remote and hybrid employees. She thought that this point involved many remote and hybrid employees who were away from campus and had a lot of uncertainty whether the declaration of Condition 3 applied to them. These employees were confused about what they were expected to do and whether they were expected to work during Condition 3. Communications from supervisors across campus seemed to be very different, depending on one’s unit.
Menghini thought it a fair point that the policy has not been updated. She thought that the suggestion that people are not expected to report and that one will be compensated for not reporting and not working is present and needs updating. She added that the messages OHR sent out purposefully instructed people to the policy which actually applied to them.
The university again does not have local authority to name Condition 3 on its own, without going to the UNC System Office in a process that often takes several days. Menghini said that OHR worked as quickly as it could to get the System Office to approve this designation, which was communicated to employees early the following morning. Switching to Condition 3 is not like flipping a switch, it requires time to do. People may then say, “well, I worked, and I’m not getting compensated for this time.” Menghini said that these are the realities of the circumstances. None of us would choose to have more time off and have another terrible incident occur. Reality seems to be that we are all doing the best we can to uphold the policy and get information out to all as quickly as possible.
The Chair thought that the question went more to the consistency of application of Condition 3, not the timing of the announcement. She thought that perhaps additional training and understanding among supervisors about what Condition 3 means would be helpful. At least two Forum delegates had to explain to their leadership the difference between the various conditions.
Menghini asked that the Forum do its part to share information gathered in these meetings with others. She asked that delegates use this agency to communicate with fellow employees as elected representatives, and she asked delegates to communicate the details of this policy with the people they represent.
Theresa Silsby said that from the standpoint of working with supporting administrative users on campus, and the fact that the university was on a payroll lockout that week, she felt for her coworkers greatly in her status as a remote worker. She thought that there needs to be some consideration for remote employees in the new world in which we live now. She said that HR processors and originators were working because the business system help desk was busy that day.
Menghini thought that Silsby made a fair point. She recalled that several people in her office were working during Condition 3 and the intention was to give people the opportunity to receive and take advantage of resources available to them. She said that an emergency situation looks a bit different administratively than an adverse weather event. She said that OHR can do a better job of communicating to leadership and to supervisors. However, she agreed with Silsby’s point that there were many employees who were working during Condition 3, even without the knowledge of their supervisors. Again, the university did its best to apply the policy to the situations in front of us then.
Vanessa Blake asked if Condition 3 is coded under one’s TIM timesheet, are these hours paid out? She said that this question had not been explained previously. The Chair thought that these are paid out hours. Linc Butler said that under Condition 3 mandatory employees are compensated for hours actually worked. Non-exempt employees are eligible for equal time off. Under that provision, all other non-mandatory employees are compensated for that time and do not have to use personal leave for that amount. The policy does not cover student and temporary workers, who are only paid for the hours that they work. All other leave earning permanent employees would be compensated for time under Condition 3 if they do not work, and do not have to use their own personal leave.
Blake asked about exempt employees, as these workers were coded in TIM this way also. Butler said that under Condition 3, exempt employees are compensated for work that they performed but are not eligible for equal time off under the policy. Blake confirmed that non-exempt employees are indeed eligible for equal time off. Blake thanked Butler for his response.
Joe Williams then provided a presentation on open enrollment for the State Health Plan and some of the retirement planning updates. Open enrollment will occur from October 9-27th, with no premium increases for the State Health Plan. There is a small increase in two of the three dental plans, the low and the high option. The classic option of these plans will not see an increase this year.
Williams noted that everyone will default to the 70/30 plan in State Health plan enrollment. Those wanting to enroll in the 80/20 plan must take some action during open enrollment. Also, employees must complete their tobacco attestation to avoid the $60/month tobacco surcharge. Tobacco users can avoid this charge by doing a tobacco cessation visit with a primary care provider or CVS Minute Clinic. One must do that prior to November 30th to avoid this charge.
Williams said that employees interested in a flexible spending account for 2024, be it healthcare, flexible spending, or dependent daycare, must re-enroll as this program does not continue automatically.
This year, Williams said that the UNC portal has grown, with everything other than health insurance and the tobacco attestation now on the UNC System enrollment portal. Enrollees will go to ConnectCarolina self-service, then enter benefit enrollment then find the two portals on the left side drop-down.
Additionally, the UNC System has moved to a single vendor, TIAA, to administer its retirement accounts. He noted one chat question in which a person enrolled in Fidelity then found out a day or two later that the System will move to TIAA. Williams said that OHR had heard that a request for proposals (RFP) had been issued in this area, but these negotiations were very closely guarded. The university only heard about this changeover at the last possible instant.
Williams was pleased that TIAA was selected as he characterized this company as a great vendor to work with. He said that for any newly eligible or newly hired employee, as of September 1st, now has 30 days to enroll in retirement and benefits, a compressed timeframe from before. These employees can select either the TSERS plan, which is the State pension plan, or the Optional Retirement Plan (ORP). TIAA is the only company that will be offered for that mandatory retirement option. Employees also have the opportunity to enroll in a UNC 403(b) or UNC 457 supplemental or voluntary retirement plans.
Williams said that employees enrolled in Fidelity or who have a 403(b) or 457 plan through the UNC System, which is Fidelity, have some changes on the horizon. He said that these plans will automatically move and be mapped over to TIAA so that investments can just stay as before, with the vendor simply changing to TIAA. Employees will receive a lot of information about this changeover before it occurs.
The Chair noted the chat questioner asked if current Fidelity funds will stay in Fidelity. Williams said that this would be true for now and perhaps as long as April or May 2024. Eventually though, these funds will come out of Fidelity and map over to TIAA. Williams confirmed that personal IRAs with Fidelity will not move over, only UNC accounts will undergo this changeover.
The Chair said that there have been several chat questions around the shift in the State Health Plan Administrator in 2025. She asked if there will be changes to providers who are options under the State Plan. Williams said that the State Plan is a self-funded plan, with nothing to do with who the administrative vendor is. The State Plan sets in motion what it will cover and not cover, how much procedures will cost, what copays and deductibles are, and even has some say over providers.
Aetna is now working in a very close partnership with the State Health Plan towards the 2025 changeover from Blue Cross/Blue Shield. Ultimately, there will be 600 Aetna employees who will work solely on the State Health Plan. Williams said that Blue Cross sent over the entire 2022 claims file, hundreds of thousands of claims, which Aetna ran through its system. In a simulation, 98% of all claims would have been covered in Aetna’s network because of the extensive network that Aetna already has. Aetna still has time to beef up its network providers’ list even further before 2025. Over 700,000 people are enrolled in the State Plan, meaning that providers want to be in-network providers. Williams reiterated that the State Health Plan is vendor neutral.
The Chair raised a chat question asking how gender-affirming care for minors will be handled in terms of coverage? Has the General Assembly banned this type of care, or would it be out of network? If a family seeks treatment out of state, will this treatment be completely uncovered?
Williams responded that OHR is not 100% certain regarding these questions as this policy remains very fluid at this point. He said that he would need to wait and see, but that he would keep the Forum up to date as more information is revealed. Rebecca Howell asked how soon these questions would be answered, as the answers will significantly impact whether her child is placed on her policy or her husband’s policy. Williams would consult the information again to see if anything has changed. However, there does not appear to be a timeframe announced yet. He thought that these policies will be planned under the purview of the State Treasurer’s Office and announced with little notice.
Howell asked if an employee chooses a plan based on this lack of information, would future negative information qualify to allow an employee to switch health plans? Williams said that it would not, as the State Plan must follow federal guidelines for qualifying life events under tax rules. Again, a qualified life event is required to make a change. The State Health Plan decides what will be covered, not Aetna.
Arlene Medder asked about emails she has received from strange companies regarding her retirement. Williams advised Medder to regard these emails as spam. He said that UNC’s public directory is a public record, meaning that any business can obtain our email list and blast emails to employees. He said that these offers are not necessarily a scam, but these companies are probably not ones that employees will want to work with. UNC already has TIAA and Captrust advisors who can help provide guidance to employees in the State Retirement System.
Williams added that employees can use independent financial advisors but asked them to consider if their advice is worth the payment. Each employee must answer this question for themselves. He wished there was some way that the university could block these messages. He cautioned employees not to share personal data right from the start of these discussions. He said that most of these offers just want to charge some money to advise the employee receiving the email.
The Chair thanked Williams for his remarks. She welcomed Senior Work/Life Manager Jessica Pyjas to present her monthly updates. Pyjas spoke about the Employee Assistance Program (EAP) critical incident response to the August 28th She praised the EAP vendor as doing a wonderful job, providing on-site counselors, Tuesday through Friday, 8 – 5 p.m. These were crisis specific counselors who are available over the phone from 8 – 8 p.m. Tuesday through Friday. Seventy-six employees were reached by these counselors who provided services. The 877 phone number for EAP received 35 calls that week, compared to the week before, which was just 8 calls.
Onsite group counseling sessions began last week for Library staff who encountered first responding officers clearing the building with their guns, which proved traumatic for many. OHR has updated the EAP site with feedback received that first week.
One on one counseling sessions are also available on site or over the phone. Informational training sessions are available on site or virtually as well. Training sessions can cover managerial topics, communication skills, talking with children about these types of incidents, resilience, and much more.
Pyjas would share with the Forum in a forthcoming email details about how to submit a request for these services. Services are available for all employees. However, EAP’s 877 phone number is available just to permanent employees. EAP runs a triage process to shift calls to the appropriate person.
The Chair thanked Pyjas for these updates and for her work on incident response. Linc Butler also praised Pyjas for her work with the EAP in the aftermath of the incident. He praised Pyjas as the kind of person who can simply take an idea and make it happen. He thanked Pyjas for her insightful work during this crisis.
The Chair turned to the consent agenda. She asked that committee updates go in an email for distribution to the Forum, in the interest of time. She asked for a motion to approve the consent agenda. Arlene Medder made this motion, seconded by David Bragg. The motion was approved by acclamation with no votes abstaining or opposing.
The Chair said that community meeting planning is continuing in Executive Committee meetings. She invited delegates to attend these meetings if they are interested in this topic. The next meeting will be September 19th at 11:30 a.m. The Chair noted that the Forum’s Vice Chancellors’ representatives’ meeting will take place Thursday, September 14th from 2 – 3 p.m. via Zoom.
Keith Hines said that those who requested football tickets for the Forum recognition event on Saturday should have received an email from the UNC ticket office with their tickets. Those who did not receive an email should contact Hines directly. Hines said that the recognition event will take place prior to the game. He asked that delegates arrive at the stadium early, before the 3 p.m. scheduled start.
The Chair echoed Elizabeth DuBose’s point in the chat that Saturday is Rosh Hashana, an unfortunate coincidence. She said that the Forum had no say in which game it was to be recognized. DuBose hoped that the football scheduler would do better in the future when Rosh Hashana falls on a Saturday. The Chair pledged to share this feedback with UNC Athletics.
The Chair asked delegates to stay on another ten minutes to maintain a quorum for the meeting, so that it could consider a proposed resolution on first reading. Leah Hefner read the resolution regarding designating Juneteenth an official university holiday. Lisa Petersen moved that the resolution be approved on first reading, seconded by Arlene Medder.
Petersen then asked about taking away the spring holiday or Good Friday. She asked why the university would ask for a substitution instead of an additional holiday. She thought it important to ask for the additional holiday rather than have something taken away from employees. The Chair recalled that the university does not have authority from the state to add an additional holiday. Thus, discussion revolved around an ability to designate one of the allotted twelve holidays.
In addition, the Chair said that people of non-Christian religious faiths have to take personal observance leave for their respective religious holidays. The same is not expected or required of Christian faculty or staff employees. Thus, the thought was that these employees could use personal observance leave for this purpose. She said that this change would put folks of the Christian faith on a level playing field with folks of other faiths that have had to use personal leave to recognize their own holidays.
She said that these comments represent the conversation in the Personnel Issues committee meeting. She asked if other delegates had feedback about the origin of the resolution. Keith Hines was uncertain about how this resolution would land or how the Forum would look at the end of this process. He was all for employees receiving Juneteenth as a designated holiday. However, taking away the spring holiday would also be doing that to students, who are mostly not on campus on Juneteenth. He asked about using one of the wellness days for this purpose. Otherwise, the Forum might look self-serving, like it does not care about students. It also may appear as if we had completely taken away a day to have a break and prepare for exams because it wants to move the holiday to the summer.
The Chair said that the Personnel Issues committee did discuss this line of thinking. She granted that the timing of the move is not great, as it takes away one of a very few paid spring university holidays and moves it closer to other paid holidays in the summer.
Leah Hefner said that the committee has reached out to a student group for comment on this resolution but has not heard anything back yet. The committee will be in touch with other campus partners to obtain their feedback. The Chair said that the committee was open to substituting other holidays for Juneteenth if necessary. The committee landed on the Spring Holiday because it is aligned with a religious holiday.
Shavon Carey-Hicks said that the resolution does not necessarily take the holiday away from students because their calendar is different than the staff calendar. She recalled that staff did not have Good Friday off at NC State, but students there still had the day. Classes were cancelled at NC State that day.
Carey-Hicks asked if the resolution would affect the academic calendar or just the faculty/staff leave and holiday calendar. The Chair thought that the employee leave calendar is not tied directly to the academic calendar. However, there are some synergies, with this proposal probably addressed in future years of planning academic calendars, should this change occur.
In the interest of time, the Chair encouraged delegates to attend the September 28th Personnel Issues committee meeting which will work on revisions of this document before the October meeting. James Holman said that the Carolina Black Caucus is fully on board with this resolution. He did not see a significant problem in asking people to use personal observance leave for Good Friday. The motion to approve the resolution was thus tabled until October’s general meeting where the resolution would be taken up on second reading.
Arlene Medder moved that the meeting adjourn, seconded by David Bragg. The meeting was thus adjourned by acclamation at 11:43 a.m.
Respectfully submitted, Matt Banks, Recording Secretary