September 14, 2023 Vice Chancellors’ Representatives’ Meeting
Attending: David Barnette, Randall Borror, Sharron Bouquin, Linc Butler, Shayla Evans-Hollingsworth, Adrianne Gibilisco, Leslie Heal Ray, Leah Hefner, Jessi Hill, Keith Hines, James Holman, Jacob Hurst, Brigitte Ironside, Kira Jones, Stephanie Morales, Katie Musgrove, Carly Perin, Jessica Pyjas, Audrey Shore, Lori Shamblin, Janice Singletary, James Stamey, Annetta Streater, Matthew Teal
As Katie Musgrove was unable to participate fully in the meeting, Forum Vice Chair Keith Hines called the meeting to order, noting that the meeting had a very full agenda. He asked Leah Hefner to read the first question of the meeting.
(Hefner) The Personnel Issues Committee has received several concerns about last week’s Alert Carolina and subsequent Condition 3 days.
The Alert Carolina messages that went out during the active shooter incident did not specify the location where the shots were fired, which caused anxiety among staff. Can you speak to why this information was not provided at the time?
George Battle responded to this question in an e-mail after the meeting. He wrote, “Although the incident happened in a specific location, the suspect had not been located and was still at large. It was important that everyone remain in a status of “lock down” until the suspect was located due to there still being a threat to the entire campus and the unknown location of the suspect. That information may have also given the impression that the threat only existed in one particular part of campus causing the University community not to act as needed during this emergency situation.”
Hefner read the second part of the question:
Initially, the University issued Condition 2 for the rest of Monday (8/28) and Tuesday (8/29). This made staff feel like their feelings were not being considered, despite classes having been canceled for faculty and students. Why was there a delay in issuing Condition 3? Does the University have to get permission from a higher authority to issue Condition 3? Moreover, since Condition 3 was not announced until just before 9am the following morning (8/30), some staff had already reported to work, which was inconvenient.
Linc Butler noted that the Chancellor has under his local authority to approve the status of campus up to Condition 2. Condition 3 status must be approved by the UNC System Office in conjunction with the Office of State Human Resources. UNC-Chapel Hill must submit this request through the System Office. The Chancellor used every bit of his authority that he could by moving the campus to Condition 2. He noted that in previous cases of adverse weather, the university has approved and applied Condition 3 retroactively. The university made its request as soon as it could to move to Condition 3. Once it received approval, the university notified campus as soon as possible.
Butler said that in both Condition 2 and Condition 3, only mandatory employees are supposed to report to work. All non-mandatory employees should not report to work. He was a bit confused as to why someone under Condition 2 would attend work and then turn around and leave under Condition 3. Non-mandatory employees should not have reported. He thought that there might be some confusion about what these statuses mean. Butler said that the University Office of Human Resources (OHR) has discussed ways to clarify these statuses and how they apply to different employment categories.
Leah Hefner thought perhaps that initially employees interpreted Condition 2 as an optional workday, with these non-mandatory employees deciding they would not have to work if they were not mandatory employees under Condition 3. Butler said that non-mandatory employees can continue to work if they have work that can be done remotely. This arrangement is a matter of work requirements established by an employee’s manager and supervisor that establishes this question. In any event, the campus is closed to non-mandatory employees.
Hefner read the third part of her question:
Staff who work remotely or hybrid were not sure whether Condition 3 applied to them or only to on-campus employees. Would you please clarify this? It seems that while some units honored Condition 3 and did not expect their (non-mandatory) employees to work, the expectations were less clear in other units, and staff felt pressured to work for fear of retaliation. How can the University better ensure Condition 3 is acknowledged consistently across campus units?
Butler granted that this question raised a fair point. He noted in the chat function during yesterday’s Forum general meeting that the last update to the adverse weather policy occurred in 2019, just before the pandemic and before fully remote and hybrid work arrangements became the norm. OHR has advocated with the UNC System Office that the policy needs new provisions on a number of fronts, but in particular needs to clarify how campus conditions will apply to fully remote and hybrid employees. Butler said that OHR will push forward to communicate with its local HR community and also with managers and supervisors so that they better understand their obligations under the various conditions. He said that his office has heard similar concerns about how these conditions were inconsistently applied across campus.
Keith Hines read the next question on the agenda:
(Williams) The use of the Adverse Weather conditions declaration to provide an immediate and recognizable directive to shut down campus was understandable given the urgency. However, there were ways in which it left remote employees uncertain whether it applied to them. Are there efforts under way to revise or expand the Adverse Weather policy to apply to any broadly disruptive event, such as a shooting, and to provide clear direction for remote employees?
Hines thought that Butler had responded to this question in his previous remarks. He read the agenda’s next question:
(Williams) Students have commented that most faculty and staff were unprepared for the campus shooting on August 28th, including some whose professors tried to continue with class. Are there plans or efforts under way to provide active shooter training to faculty and staff and develop policies and reference materials to direct employees in how to respond during future incidences of violence?
George Battle subsequently replied to this question via email, writing “UNC PD has provided active shooter training to a number of entities on campus over the last few years. We have also provided a number of building security surveys across campus to help various departments better secure their buildings and develop emergency plans. We regularly receive requests for these services and as you can imagine have received a number of new request. This link is also provided on the University website which gives information on active shooter response and contact information for Sgt. James David who conducts the training.
Active Shooter and Critical Incident Response – Police (unc.edu)”
Hines read the next question:
(Howell) Last week was unusual and ‘mandatory’ employees as Condition 3 usually defines them didn’t really apply. Folks in Student Services were really the mandatory employees because we had to mobilize to provide a response to the events of Monday and create spaces/provide resources for students and employees. Since these staff typically aren’t listed as mandatory employees, they weren’t quite sure how to code the hours worked on those two Condition 3 days.
Bigger Picture: Perhaps there needs to be discussion about what “Mandatory” employees means so that it is a bit more nuanced given that there are situations where non-facilities employees will have to work when others do not.
Butler said that his office had discussed the policy with Amy Johnson of Student Affairs. In a typical weather emergency closing, current policy actually does provide for managers and supervisors to designate temporarily individuals as mandatory employees when they may not typically be designated that way, depending on the nature of the event. Adverse weather has been the main use of this process in Butler’s career. However, the incident on the 28th of August was very different. The Office of Human Resources has held conversations with the UNC System Office regarding future occurrences of this nature, as much as we do not want them to occur. Thinking through these scenarios will allow the university to provide staff, faculty, and students needed support in the aftermath of such an event.
Thus, the university had a real time designation of mandatory employees for which there must be corrections to catch up retroactively so that time recorded can be coded appropriately.
Keith Hines read the next question on the agenda:
(Anonymous) I have a concern regarding UNC faculty/staff consistency and compliance with condition 3. Some departments that were not critical services asked staff to work during condition 3 or informed staff to determine if they wanted to work. This caused concern and fear of retaliation to report non-compliance by their supervisor or an obligation among staff to work. Managers are not held accountable for non-compliance with condition 2/3.
Is there anything we can do to encourage better compliance when incidents like this happen moving forward?
Hines thought that this question had been addressed by the responses today and at yesterday’s Forum meeting. However, he asked about the inconsistency in that managers are not held accountable for noncompliance with conditions 2 and 3. Butler thought that better communication, educating, and preparing managers and supervisors to understand obligations under the policy would alleviate these concerns in the future.
Keith Hines read the next question on behalf of Jacob Hurst, whose microphone was not working:
(Hurst) Some staff are very concerned about campus safety, mental health, and overall morale. What is currently being done to address these concerns? More specifically, we are told department budgets are limiting our ability to provide things like an increase in technology for security purposes. Who should we contact directly to prompt change?
Regarding the mental health part of the question, Linc Butler mentioned that Jessica Pyjas had provided an update about services mobilized in the aftermath of the 28th through the Employee Assistance Program (EAP). Butler said that the university’s EAP partners had been super-responsive and great partners through this difficulty, providing dedicated on-site counseling support, as well as dedicated phone support for the campus. The EAP is also working to set up facilitated sessions around critical incident response and coping with trauma associated with the incident. The sessions have been conducted a few times with groups around campus and are available to units upon contacting Pyjas for assistance.
Butler added that OHR had a great partnership and support from Steve Agostini and Finance and Operations in these and other responses. He said that current costs are above and beyond what the university’s normal licensing contract is with the EAP. The central finance and operations team has been very encouraging in providing support for needed work.
Jessica Pyjas said that the EAP has offered two group sessions to university library staff, with two more in-person group sessions scheduled for tomorrow for first responders, including UNC police, dispatchers, and hotline employees. Pyjas said that these sessions are available to unit groups from 4-50 people, with no registration required.
These sessions provide information on the body’s response to stress and trauma and how to coach oneself through self-care in these incidents. The sessions also feature an open discussion to hear everyone’s thoughts, feelings, and experiences, with an opportunity to make suggestions for changes to improve safety and comfort in the workplace. In addition, one-on-one sessions are also available, as the cost for these sessions is the same as for group sessions. Time allocated will be at least one hour but not to exceed two hours. The EAP will keep their counselor on site for one-on-one sessions afterwards.
Pyjas said that there are also a number of training courses available for in-person and webinar sessions as well. These provide more information about coping with trauma and also feature a question-and-answer session. All of these resources are available through Pyjas’ office and the EAP. She suggested those interested email totalwellbeing@unc.edu to make contact and schedule these sessions, with a 48-hour notice required for programming. Notably, the EAP was able to secure phone counselors for campus following yesterday’s incident less than an hour after lockdown release.
Carly Perin said that the university’s recently implemented annual budget process has allowed central finance to reserve funds for responses to emergencies like those occurring August 28th and September 13th. She encouraged delegates to reach out to finance and department leadership to obtain the technology needs described in this question, as the annual budget process will begin again in the fall.
Kira Jones asked the next question:
(Jones) Is there any update about raises for UNC employees? Not sure what the legislature landed on and now that August has passed folks are wondering if this will happen.
Butler said that there was no state budget signed as of yet. He thought that the big sticking point seems to be the legislators’ debates regarding gaming casinos. He understood that the legislature has already agreed on the level of state employee salary increases, but these details have not yet been released. Unfortunately, there was no further news, leaving the university to play a waiting game. Butler hoped that the budget would move forward sooner rather than later. Once the budget is approved, the university will seek guidance from OSHR and will move as quickly as possible to implement these increases.
Adrianne Gibilisco read the agenda’s next two questions:
(Gibilisco) Can we have an explanation about the mandatory 30-day off policy for temporary employees who are planning to return to their temp position? Why is this policy in place – it does NOT protect the employee by forcing them to be out of work for at least 30 days. It also forces them to reapply for their same position and increases the workload for HR who has to handle the process.
(Gibilisco) Follow-up to the first question: What is the policy of HR (or, in absence of an actual policy, what is the stance) regarding repeatedly hiring a person as a temp rather than hiring full-time?
Gibilisco granted that this is a UNC System issue but asked for an explanation regarding the university’s policy or stance regarding repeatedly hiring a person as a temporary employee rather than hiring them full-time. In other words, if a person is hired as a temporary employee for a year and then they’re hired for the same position for another year, for how many years is it considered okay to keep hiring someone as a temporary before hiring them outright in a permanent position?
Linc Butler spoke for himself, not officially on behalf of the university, on Gibilisco’s example. He said that this 31-day break requirement has been in place for as long as he could remember, over 26 years in the state system. He recalled that a temporary employee could work for twelve months and then was required to take a 31-day break. This policy has since been revised to set the requirement at eleven months worked before the 31-day mandatory break. Butler said that temporary employees are eligible to apply for unemployment insurance for that month, which provides at least some income replacement for these people.
Butler said that the university has instituted a waiver of recruitment process for temporary workers who are being re-employed coming off their 31-day break to make it a little easier for these folks. Similarly, the university has also made an exception to the background check for temporary employees who are terminating for their 31-day break and then returning.
As background, Butler recalled that in the early 2000s, there was a significant lawsuit filed against Microsoft on behalf of 8,000 temporary employees that the company referred to as permanent employees. These temporary employees worked for Microsoft for years with no kinds of breaks in service. Their lawsuit against the company argued that given these employees were being treated as permanent employees, they were owed the same benefits and perks paid to permanent employees. This lawsuit was settled but led to similar lawsuits around the nation.
There was one lawsuit against the North Carolina State Personnel Commission that prompted some revisions and changes to the state’s policy. Part of these changes included a more hardline stance taken to ensure agencies and universities adhere to the 31-day break rule. The purpose of this stance was that a temporary employee could not legally be considered a “permanent temporary employee” as was seen in the Microsoft case if that employee had a break in service of at least 31 days a year.
In terms of the university’s policy, Butler said that there is no formal policy prohibiting re-employing temporary employees on a recurring basis in the way that Gibilisco described. Butler said that there are some instances in which employees would prefer to work as a temporary employee given their personal circumstances. He granted that this is not the case across all of the university’s temporary workforce. Butler preferred that individuals interested in seeking permanent employment at the university hopefully succeed in advancing through the university’s search process and are hired into a permanent role.
However, a department in which the temporary employee has finished their eleven-month stint may not have funding to support establishing a permanent benefits-eligible role. In this case, it may mean that particular temporary employee should look elsewhere at the university for a permanent position. Much will depend on that individual’s career goals, their current role, and whether they are hoping that there will be a permanent position offered in their current department. Butler preferred getting folks hired into permanent positions if that is their goal. However, he said that there is no real policy prohibition against re-hiring temporary employees after their 31-day breaks. He reiterated that some temporary workers are interested in retaining their status as temporary employees, with the breaks included.
Gibilisco noted that Butler mentioned a waiver of recruitment process and asked if this waiver was already in place. Butler said that it had been in place for a while. Gibilisco said that at least one person indicated that they had to undergo this process when they were re-hired. Butler said that there were unnecessary steps taken in this case. He said that OHR would be happy to work with that unit to ensure that they know about the waiver and its parameters.
Keith Hines read the next question on the agenda:
(Stallard) On August 30, 2023, the U.S. Department of Labor proposed a new rule (https://www.dol.gov/newsroom/releases/whd/whd20230830) that would extend overtime to salaried employees making less than $55,068 per year ($1,059 per week). The current overtime rules exclude salaried workers who make more than $35,568 per year ($684 per week) and who work in an executive, administrative, or professional capacity. (https://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/fact-sheets/17g-overtime-salary). Assuming the rule is implemented in its current form, how many additional University employees would qualify for overtime, both as a total number and as a percentage of the University’s workforce?
Butler said that OHR has paid attention to these changes, and he recalled that a few years ago, there had been an adjustment to the threshold that made more individuals eligible for overtime. He said it was a bit too early to study specific numbers because this policy is still in the comment period for rulemaking. Once that period closes, the federal government will develop its exact rules and thresholds and then roll out these changes. He did not think this rollout would occur until sometime next year, with many things likely to impact the composition of the affected population.
Butler noted that the state will probably have two legislative salary increases which will impact the composition of this population as well. The UNC System will also soon implement new salary ranges that will likely result in folks getting some increases that will impact this population. Thus, whatever number pulled today would be quite inaccurate once implementation eventually occurs. Once the implementation plan and its timeframe become clearer, OHR will pull these population numbers as close as possible to ensure they’ve captured all involved who fall under the threshold. OHR will not want to potentially pull numbers too soon only to have to change someone from one category to another due to changes in salary bumping them over the threshold. He applauded the question but said that it is too early to do this analysis yet.
Audrey Shore asked the next question on the agenda:
(Shore) Some departments are being told that they could lose access to office space if they do not meet new in-office work recommendations. Is this a new initiative or mandate? If so, is there a formal announcement that staff can review?
Shore said that her department is moving to a new building and has been told that if employees do not come in for a specific number of days a month that the department will be required to “hotel” desks. She was concerned about the department’s ability to hotel adequate spacing for a relatively small department of nine employees. Additionally, she was concerned about the lack of culture building in the department as the new building will not have enough space. She asked what exactly the university’s “hoteling” policy is.
Carly Perin was not aware of an official hoteling policy and noted that she was prepared to answer Shore’s question as originally written. She thought that perhaps Shore was describing a departmental policy rather than a unit-wide policy given the specificity of detail mentioned in the questions. She had planned to share information regarding a Finance and Operations unit initiative which dealt with space utilization and was led by Operational Excellence.
Regarding Shore’s question, however, Perin was uncertain which building her department would move into. She surmised that this building may be operating under the flexible work guidelines of a departmental policy.
On the space utilization project, Perin reported that initiative has a team that will study how the university is providing data on how we utilize space. She added that the initiative would use this data and perhaps have some governance so that the university can use less space moving forward.
Perin did not think that these were the same kinds of questions as the ones that Shore had raised. Shore said that she was concerned on an operations level how departments will be able to reserve office pods or office space in general. Her team is at 206 Franklin Street, with everyone being moved into the new space, technically next week although it remains to be seen whether the department will need to hotel its staff at that point. By the end of the year, the department is supposed to be hoteling. Renting conferences in their current space is proving challenging but renting desks for ten people to sit next to one another for collaboration seems insurmountable.
Perin advised that Shore share these concerns with departmental leadership. She said that Facilities does have some working models of flexible scheduling or hybrid work environments in which hoteling does take place. One of these models is in Finance and Operations and that example could serve as a template for use of technology and selection and management of spaces. She granted that other such spaces are available on campus to aid in effective management of shared spaces.
Matthew Teal read the next question of the meeting, which was similar to Shore’s previous question:
(Teal) Does UNC-Chapel Hill have a “hoteling” policy that employees can review? If not, is there a plan to create one as some departments are being told they will not have any other option other than to “hotel” desks and offices.
Teal then read the next question:
(Teal) Some managers are trying to post jobs and are getting pushback that, under a new UNC System requirement, their edits to existing job descriptions (no matter how minor) must be approved by the Chancellor’s Office. This can add an additional 1-2 weeks of time to get a job posted. Can you please clarify if this UNC System Office requirement is real, to which jobs it applies, and how this was communicated to front-line supervisors? In this current era where the University already struggles to hire candidates for many positions, this seems to make hiring even more difficult, has created confusion among front-line supervisors, and conflicts with the University’s Strategic Initiative #8 to Optimize Operations.
Butler said that the UNC System Office does require confirmation of approval from the Chancellor for certain types of executive positions, namely Tier 1 and 2 positions. Previously, the university had to decide whether to obtain that approval on the front end (prior to posting) or back end (when trying to hire). The university chose to acquire this approval on the front end in order to save valuable time once a candidate is selected. In addition, Tier 1 and 2 appointments must be approved by the Board of Trustees, and the UNC System Office must approve salaries.
As far as front-line managers and supervisors are concerned, the university uses the same model and sets this expectation when communicating these initiatives with HR officers, who in turn educate managers and supervisors on these requirements. Butler encouraged the employees mentioned to continue to work with their local HR officers to get more familiar with what external approvals might be required for certain types of position requests.
Teal thanked Butler for this response. He clarified that the concern shared with him was that the manager was not told of this requirement until they brought the approval forward. Additionally, he commented that even minor grammatical changes must go to the Chancellor’s Office for approval. Teal asked the actual threshold for these changes requiring the Chancellor’s approval.
Butler said that the comment that even minor grammatical changes require the Chancellor’s Office approval was not accurate. Substantive edits would need to come before the Chancellor’s Office, usually edits in the content of the position description. Teal commented that there is a lack of clarity regarding this threshold and asked who makes the ultimate call as to whether something is substantive or not, the front-line supervisor or the HR officer?
Teal read the next question on the agenda:
(Teal) Some staff employees received an Informational email from the University in early August advertising the “2023-24 CFE Faculty Leadership Programs.” The advertised classes included “Leadership Fundamentals,” “Faculty Administrator Orientation at Carolina,” and “Women ADVANCE Leadership.” Can the University please develop equivalent “Staff Leadership Programs,” or open some of the faculty-only classes to staff? For example, it is not clear why the “Leadership Fundamentals” class offered through that program is restricted to only faculty. Giving all employees an opportunity to develop their leadership skills through formal instruction and on-the-job training seems like it would be in the University’s best interest.
Butler reminded listeners that the university has a number of leadership development programs already available to staff employees, not only through central HR but also through schools and divisions’ specific leadership development training programs. He cited the BEST and ULEAD training for supervisors, Leading Change, and Initiating Difficult Conversations, all of which can be found in Carolina Talent. In addition, OHR is working on a middle managers type training program that hopes to launch next year. Also, there are programs provided in some schools and divisions which are not tracked centrally by OHR but are on offer.
Butler clarified that the university still needs to do more in this space, but also needs to correct the view that there are no programs available currently. Teal said that his unit, Institutional Integrity and Risk Management, does not have such a program to his knowledge. Teal noted that BEST and ULEAD trainings are limited to only existing managers. He worried about the effects of this dearth of options upon non-managers desiring to eventually become managers. He asked how a non-managers can get started down an informal leadership path before obtaining a position of real authority. He said that the Forum’s Personnel Issues committee shared this concern about the need to develop leadership opportunities for all employees, not just for managers.
Butler shared a further emailed comment from Mark Haapala after the meeting on this subject, asking that delegates spread word about additional opportunities available to staff employees:
“Staff interested in developing their supervisory, management, and leadership skills can take advantage of content available through central HR (OHR), the Office of State Human Resources (OSHR), as well as programs designed, developed, and delivered through UNC schools and divisions:
- OHR: Examples of existing programs include: Blueprint for Engaged Supervisor Training (BEST) and University Leadership Education and Development (ULEAD). Additional leadership courses available include: MBTI, Leading Change, Initiating Difficult Conversations, and others that can be found in Carolina Talent Learning. The Organization and Professional Development Team is in the process of developing a mid-level manager program that includes foundational leadership topics such as emotional intelligence, ethical leadership, coaching, team dynamics, conflict resolution, managing remote teams, and providing effective feedback.
- OSHR: Examples of leadership programs available to our staff members from the Office of State Human Resources include: Leading at All Levels, Advanced Skills for Managers and the Certified Public Manager Program.
- Schools/Divisions: Several schools and divisions offer leadership training for their staff members. While these are not centrally managed, they are still available for staff members looking to grow their leadership skills.
All of these are examples of formal instruction available to staff members. There are some limitations as to capacity so not every program will be able to meet the demand for available training. In those cases, we offer free, on-demand access to LinkedIn Learning content which includes hundreds of leadership-related courses and videos. Additionally, on-the-job leadership opportunities and experiences are provided for staff members across the university but are not tracked centrally.”
Teal read the next question on the agenda:
(Teal) Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 states that employers must accommodate their employees’ religious practices unless the accommodation would create an “undue hardship on the conduct of the employer’s business.” Since 1977, courts have interpreted “undue hardship” as “de minimis,” which means “a trifling consequence” and “so small” as to not even be worth noticing. The practical effect of that standard was that employers could deny religious accommodation requests for seemingly any reason. However, on June 29, 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled in Groff v. DeJoy that the decades-old de minimis standard is no longer allowed under Title VII. The court’s opinion states that “undue burden” is “very different” from de minimis and that “an employer must show that the burden of granting an accommodation would result in substantial increased costs in relation to the conduct of its particular business.”
- How is the University implementing the changes required by the U.S. Supreme Court in Groff v. DeJoy and communicating those changes to its employees?
- Since the U.S. Supreme Court did not provide a clear test to establish “substantial increased costs,” what criteria are the University using to make that determination?
Butler said that he had consulted with Elizabeth Hall, the Associate Vice Chancellor for Equal Opportunity and Compliance, on this question. He noted that the university has already worked to revise its policy and accommodations to be consistent with the decision. The university’s policy language is thus consistent with the outcome of that particular court case. Specifically, this language follows the definition of “undue hardship,” which is significant legally.
“Undue hardship” is said to be significant difficulty or expense when considered in light of the nature of the net cost of the accommodation on the university’s overall financial resources, size and operations, and impact of the accommodation on university operations. Teal asked about the university’s progress in communicating these changes. He said that as a front-line supervisor he had not heard anything, although he had received these communications through his position in the Policy Office. He was aware of updates to the accommodations policy but had not heard anything through his local HR person or through central OHR saying that the rules around religious accommodations have changed and here is what one needs to know.
Butler said that he would pass this concern onto Elizabeth Hall. Teal asked if there is a response from OHR’s perspective regarding communication, rather than the legal question itself. Butler asked if Teal was referring to the Equal Opportunity Compliance office, which would be responsible for any communications about policies that fall under that office. Teal conceded that he had used the wrong acronym in this instance.
Teal read the last question of the agenda:
(Teal) How many requests for religious accommodations does the University get annually? How many of those are granted/denied?
Butler said that he did not have this number available. He understood from Elizabeth Hall that the vast number of requested accommodations are granted, with only rare denials. Teal thanked Butler for his responses.
Keith Hines thanked all for their presence and participation in the morning’s discussions. He wished all a wonderful Thursday evening and he hoped that Friday would be wonderful as well.
James Stamey asked one more question, whether the university is close to naming a candidate for the Vice Chancellor for Facilities position. Carly Perin said that this search is still in process and is working towards final selection. She could not share more information at that time. Stamey thanked Perin for her update.
With this, Hines bid the group farewell at 2:48 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,