Agenda — September 3, 1997
9:30 a.m.–Meeting, Assembly Room of Wilson Library
I. Call to Order
II. Welcome Guests, Members of the Press
* Welcome to New Delegate Al Jeter
III. Opening Remarks
* Chancellor Michael Hooker CHANGE
IV. Special Presentations
* Robert Culp, on the University Person ID System
V. Employee Presentations—Janet Tysinger
* Sandra Brooks-Mathers, on “Taste of the Arts”
VI. Human Resources Update
* Laurie Charest, Associate Vice Chancellor, Human Resources
VII. Approval of Minutes of the August 6, 1997 meeting
VIII. Unfinished Business
* Special Presentation from Management of Tar Heel Temporaries (First Reading)
* Special Presentation from Marian Moore, Chief Information Officer (Second Reading)
IX. New Business
* Discussion of TOP Position Paper (by Jack Stone, 2/4/94)
* Health Insurance Benefits Discussion
X. Chair’s Report (Executive Committee): Bob Schreiner
* Forum Guidelines Revisions Transmitted to Chancellor Hooker
* University Priorities and Budget Committee Report
* Greetings from Board of Trustees Chair Richard Stevens
* Request for Information on Payroll Deductions Options
* Discussion with Tim Sanford, Laurie Charest on EPA Non-Faculty Longevity Pay Tentatively Scheduled for September 16 Executive Committee Meeting
* Bag Lunch, Forum Photograph Scheduled for October 1
XI. Committee/Task Force Reports
* Nominating—Libby Evans
=> Forum Elections Process
* Orientation—Joyce Dalgleish/Jeffery Beam
=> October 24 Orientation Planning
=> Five Year Reunion
* Personnel Policies—Peter Schledorn
=> Exempt Employees Work Schedule (Comp Time) Discussions
=> Reclassification Question from UNC Physicians & Associates Employees
* Compensation and Benefits—Tommy Brickhouse
=> Revision & Distribution of In-Range Salary Adjustment Fact Sheet
* Public Affairs—Ruth Lewter/Anne Montgomery
* Recognition and Awards—Laura Grady/Nancy Klatt
=> University Day Planning
* University Committee Assignments—Anne Montgomery/Tommy Nixon
=> Vacancies on University Athletic Council, Buildings & Grounds, Excellence in Management Recognition, Transportation and Parking Advisory Committees
* Career Development—Norm Loewenthal
=> New Careers Training Board—George Sharp
* Employee Presentations—Janet Tysinger
=> Fall Community Meeting
* University Gazette Insert Task Force—Bob Schreiner
=> Story Assignments
* School Volunteerism Task Force—Libby Evans
* Faculty Council Liaisons
* Partner Benefits—Peter Schledorn
* Legislative Affairs—Tom Sullivan
* Transportation and Parking Advisory Committee Representative—Janet Tysinger
* Outsourcing Team Representatives—Bennie Griffin/Ann Hamner
September 3, 1997
Connie Dean McPherson
Archie Phillips, Jr.
Ann Hamner “
” = Ex-Officio
Call to Order, Welcome to Guests
Chair Bob Schreiner called the meeting to order at 9:32 a.m., asking members to sign in and to examine the routing file as it was passed around the room. He welcomed guests and members of the press. Finally, the Chair welcomed Chancellor Michael Hooker to give opening remarks.
Hooker wished the group good morning and said he began the new semester feeling as optimistic as he had ever felt during his time in Chapel Hill. Hooker thought that the University had emerged in wonderful shape from the adjournment of the long legislative session. University interests had fared far better than he had anticipated entering the session last spring.
Hooker noted that the 4% pay increase for State employees, retroactive to July 1, exceeded expectations for only 3-3.5% raise possibly to be deferred until January. He was pleased that SPA Employees would receive these retroactive monies in their September pay packets.
The University has not yet received guidelines from General Administration concerning administration of the 4% pay raise for EPA Employees, but this pool of funds will probably be administered on a merit basis, as it was last year. Hooker asked Laurie Charest to describe how SPA raises will be administered in her report.
The University also benefited from the Legislature’s approval of increased flexibility in purchasing and construction management projects. This flexibility will save the State money and will make it easier for the University to administer its financial affairs.
Hooker was pleased that in the second part of the biennium, the 10% of overhead that the State has captured from research grants will be returned to the University. This change represents a $5 million windfall for the campus that should increase over time. Hooker had promised the Legislature that the University will use these monies to “prime the pump” for more grants.
Happily, University research productivity this year exceeded $280 million, by far the most the University has received in one year. Hooker thought that this increase represented another point in the positive slope of University affairs in recent years. Since the environment for obtaining federal research grants is tight at present, Hooker was pleased that faculty have heeded his call to redouble their efforts to compete for research support.
Regarding the upcoming semester, Hooker was most excited about the many suggestions from the Intellectual Climate Task Force to improve the quality and character of undergraduate education at the University. He emphasized that undergraduate education is the University’s core business.
However, Hooker wished to ensure that observers do not conclude that there is some deficiency in the University that needs correction. He recalled the corporate re-engineering efforts of the last two decades (“the Denning Revolution”) that have resulted in increased productivity, and noted that rises in productivity have been a result of constant improvement in processes. Hooker saw the task force’s report as a blueprint for how the University can continuously improve the quality of its undergraduate education. He thought that if the University can implement most of the report’s recommendations, Carolina will lead the nation in the quality of undergraduate education. Hooker was proud and pleased about this prospect, and cited this possibility as the reason for his general optimism.
Hooker offered to receive questions from the Forum. George Sharp thought that as the University makes more efforts to utilize computers more efficiently and in greater numbers, unanticipated consequences may arise. He conceded that it is essential for the University to get “up to speed” in campus-wide computer use, and observed that the Internet has created many benefits by providing easier access and storage of vast amounts of information.
However, Sharp thought that the rush into the computer age has exacerbated a tendency towards non-reflective action already evident in American—and increasingly in world—culture. Sharp thought that this tendency had become more prevalent in the last thirty years with the infusion of television into daily life. Sharp thought the cultural rush into the computer age was somewhat unbalanced because it ignores the need for time removed from mediated or electronic stimuli. Humans seem to require time for consideration and reflection to achieve optimum effectiveness and a sense of well-being. While computers may ease access to and storage of information, they have not yet advanced to replace human wisdom in decision-making. Sharp worried that expectations for the computer age might overwhelm this essential truth.
Hooker thanked Sharp for his question and comments. He had encouraged first-year students to take time to ponder, within their daily activities, what is happening around them. Reflecting on his time as a student at the University, Hooker felt some of his most significant experiences included simply sitting outside and pondering. He expressed concerned that society has stopped allowing time to ponder. Hooker did not feel this was the fault of computers themselves, since computers only can reflect the context in which they are used.
Hooker related his difficulty communicating with his mother in recent years because of the constant blare of television that inhibits their communication. In this sense he thought that television exercised an insidious and invasive influence on family life.
In the same vein, Hooker noted the plight of the “time-impoverished” who try to accomplish as much as possible without rest or reflection. Every individual must consciously decide to reserve free time apart from the urgent responsibilities of daily life. However, Hooker did not blame computers for this situation, saying that computers are an instrument that enable us to escape from wasted time that would otherwise be unavailable for self-reflection.
As a philosopher, Hooker observed that there is no end to which people will go to avoid the work of thinking. He thought that one unhappy convenience that computers provide is relief from the pain of thought—instead, computers compose a structured exercise in the use of one’s time that lacks built-in interstices/opportunities to disengage and think.
Hooker acknowledged the phenomenon in society that Sharp had highlighted, but thought that consider computers as the sole cause of this phenomenon would be incorrect. On the other hand, he worried that computers incorrectly produce the illusion of correctness or objectivity in our work. Nonetheless, people do not spend enough time pondering or interacting with others. He recommended those interested to consult the author Sherrie Terkel for additional insight on the effect of computers on human interaction, decision-making and problem-solving.
As a parent with a daughter enrolled at UNC-Chapel Hill, Tommy Brickhouse was proud of the Chancellor and the University for its issuance of the intellectual climate report and its recent anti-alcohol initiatives. Brickhouse noted that the positive publicity the University has received has led some of America’s wealthiest families to consider sending their children here. He asked if this change would adversely effect in-state students. Hooker replied that the University operates under a cap of 18% enrollment for out-of-state students. This figure, while under debate, has not changed. Carolina has become more competitive for out-of-state and in-state admissions as a result of this recent favorable publicity.
Hooker maintained strong misgivings about setting out-of-state tuition at a level less than the cost of providing that education, leaving North Carolina taxpayers to support the balance of cost. He noted that wealthy people are choosing to enroll their children in public universities because the value of public and private education does not justify the significant cost difference.
Hooker thought that discussion of tuition levels and percentage of out-of-state admissions could use more reflection as to what is in the best interests of the citizens of the State. Hooker had opinions about these issues but no strong convictions on tuition levels or the percentage of out-of-state students admitted.
Nancy Tannenbaum noted that most graduate students attend the University from out-of-state, and have suffered tuition hikes without corresponding increases in remissions. She worried that this fact will inevitably hurt the University in competition for top-quality students. Hooker said that graduate students are a different matter, as undergraduate students clearly derive more from the University than the University derives from them—a statement that does not necessarily hold for graduate students.
The University derives great benefit from its graduate students, and graduate students are part of what enables Carolina to recruit world-class research faculty to campus, which in turns leads to generous increases in the volume of externally funded research. The University also uses graduate students as teachers and instructors, enhancing undergraduate education programs.
Hooker was concerned that the University ranks last among the top 20 research universities in the nation in the amount of stipends granted graduate students. The University is thus not as competitive as it should be in attracting top-quality graduate students, and is only able to stay in this competition due to the quality of life and faculty at UNC-Chapel Hill. Hooker said that he and Tom Meyer have worked to educate the Legislature about the importance of graduate students to the quality of the State’s research institutions, and have largely succeeded in this task with the legislative leadership. This subject will be one of the University’s priorities in the next legislative session.
Hooker thanked the Forum for the opportunity to make remarks.
The Chair introduced Robert Culp, the Associate Director of Administrative Information Services, to make a special presentation concerning changes associated with the administrative use of social security numbers and the new University Person ID System.
Culp thanked the Forum for the chance to outline the changes that will accompany implementation of the new University Person ID System for students and Employees. Culp is chair of the Campus Coordinating Committee in charge of implementing this project; he noted that the Chair and several other attendees are also members of that group.
Before the meeting, Culp had provided the Forum with a document outlining the changes to take place. He began by clarifying what the conversion will affect. He noted a common misperception that the new UNC One Card number will be the same as the Person ID number for faculty, staff and students. This will not be the case, as the UNC One Card number contains sixteen digits while the Person ID number (PID) will have only nine digits. The new UNC One Card sixteen digit number will serve as an account number for telephone charges and other transactions, and will use number similar to those used on credit and bank cards. However, the Person ID number will have nothing to do with this account number.
Culp noted that the current identification number for students and Employees is their social security number. This number currently serves as part of students’ UNC One Card number, but Employees’ UNC One Card numbers do not carry the social security number and instead begin with the “860” prefix. Culp said that the current effort will replace the “860” number on Employees’ One Cards with a new sixteen digit account number. The Person ID number—the nine digit PID—will become the one identifier used in records to track students, faculty and staff forever afterward, replacing the current use of social security numbers for this purpose.
The University is implementing this change to protect the privacy of individual social security numbers from misuse or theft. Culp recalled that the current situation concerning the use of social security numbers arose from the Federal Privacy Act of 1974. This Act allowed universities to use social security numbers for internal record-keeping, but required that universities disclose to students and Employees that the number is only being used for this purpose, and obtain permission for this use. Institutions of higher education are held responsible for insuring that these numbers are only used for internal purposes.
Controlling access to these numbers has recently become very difficult with the rise of the Internet. In the 1970s, when this law was written, most such numbers were contained in large mainframes which made it very difficult to gain unauthorized access. However, today, there are a multitude of networks, servers and distributed systems throughout campuses and the world, making it is much easier to construct tools to locate and transfer files containing social security information. As a result, it has become very difficult for the University to guarantee that it is securely protecting these social security numbers.
Culp recalled that there have been several campus studies into the use of social security numbers and each has concluded that the University should end its use of these numbers for most record-keeping. Earlier this year, Executive Vice Chancellor Elson Floyd decided that the campus would discontinue this use of social security numbers in conjunction with implementation of the new Human Resources Information System in March 1998. New PID numbers will be assigned to students and Employees around this date. The conversion will affect everyone associated with the UNC-Chapel Hill campus—students, faculty, staff, alumni, and affiliates (visiting professors, scholars, vendors).
Culp conceded the conversion will not be an easy task, but thought there was a common recognition that there will be extensive difficulties, given the wide use of social security numbers across a range of different systems. Employees will have to convert many different systems that are now based on the use of social security numbers.
Bonnie Bowen, a member of Culp’s staff, will lead an Information Services team to develop a Person ID database. The PID database will be a relatively simple file that will carry records of every Employee at the University. The database will assign each Employee a PID number, then store that Employee’s social security number in that central closed file. This system has the advantage of reducing the number of systems with access to the latter numbers.
The PID database will be accessible by any application or system that had used social security numbers. The database will also provide for other administrative tasks, such as allowing those who know their social security number to learn their PID number, such as alumni desiring access to their records. There will be a way for alumni and others to obtain their PID number.
Culp said that the current plan is scheduled to be implemented in March 1998, at least for students. Since only a couple of opportunities exist through the year for the University to convert the student body—prior to fall and spring registration periods and spring issuance of UNC One Cards—the administration felt that March 1998 would be the best deadline to make the conversion simultaneously with the issuance of the new UNC One Cards. This date will precede registration periods for the fall and summer. The campus coordinating committee is working with Student Services and Admissions to minimize the conversion’s impact on their operations.
Conversion for Employees will occur in conjunction with the establishment of the Human Resources Information System, around the same time that students’ numbers are converted. Culp said that plans have not been finalized as to how departments will roll over their systems, but should be worked out in the next few weeks. Culp will keep the Forum updated concerning this timeline. He noted that the PID number will be printed on the UNC One Card for reference, along with the new UNC One Card account number.
Culp reiterated that the conversion will be a campus-wide effort, and that the administration had committed to its implementation. Administrative Information Services (AIS) will be responsible for converting all central administrative files that contain social security numbers. However, AIS cannot have direct knowledge of all the current files and databases in use across campus. Each individual organization will be responsible for keeping their information current; AIS, however, will help individuals or work units obtain copies of conversion files and establish a process for converting data. Departments will need to convert so that their data will match the rest of campus.
As a result, departments will need to plan for this process, and Culp hoped that Forum members would carry back word of the changeover to their work units. Individuals with questions should feel free to contact Culp, Bowen or anyone serving on the campus coordinating committee for more information conversion requirements.
Culp expressed his appreciation to members of the coordinating committee who have gathered input and publicized the results of this process. He offered to take any questions that listeners might have.
Libby Evans asked if forms like those used for travel reimbursement and tuition waivers will require a PID number, rather than a social security number, as a result of the conversion. Culp reiterated that the committee’s goal is to eliminate use of social security numbers from all forms and computer screens unless use is required by law.
Lucille Brooks asked if the committee had established mechanisms to prevent the misuse of social security number information through the PID database. Culp thought this was a good question and anticipated that abuses of the PID number would inevitably occur. The committee will implement every possible protection for this number. However, the centralized database should reduce opportunities for abuse of social security numbers. Culp said this subject had already been raised and the group was already in the process of establishing controls.
A Delegate noted also that social security numbers are used for a wide variety of purposes in the “outside world.” Use of PID numbers will make it more difficult for criminals to invade one’s transactions outside the University. Brooks granted this point, but thought that North Carolina retirement numbers also are subject to abuse and are not covered under the PID plan. Culp said that the Retirement Number would continue to be used by the Retirement System, but that the University has very few uses for this number. Nora Robbins added that Employees’ Retirement System number will not change—the number is a confidential piece of information that is used only for this one purpose.
Peter Schledorn asked if the UNC One Card number and the PID number will be encoded on the One Card. Culp replied that only the One Card number will be encoded on the Card, but that the PID number will probably be printed on the card. Schledorn asked how will the PID system will protect the One Card number in its uses as a UNC Library borrowers card, for example. Culp said the Library had consulted with the committee on its conversion of One Card numbers and PID numbers for internal purposes.
Culp thanked the Forum for the chance to speak and offered to return at a later date to provide further information as the conversion process progresses.
Vice-Chair Janet Tysinger introduced Sandra Brooks-Mathers of the North Carolina Botanical Garden to make a presentation on “A Taste of the Arts at Carolina.” Brooks-Mathers noted that the Carolina Arts Network is made up of representatives from seven departments: the Ackland Art Museum, the Sonja Haynes Stone Black Cultural Center, the Carolina Union, the Morehead Planetarium, the UNC Music Department, the North Carolina Botanical Garden, and the Playmakers Repertory Company.
For many years, these groups have worked to make the arts a part of the daily life of students. This year, the network decided to make this discount package also available to staff and faculty. Brooks-Mathers hoped that members would share information about this package with their co-workers.
Brooks-Mathers referred members to the copy of the Taste of the Arts brochure in their monthly agenda packet. She thought that this program was germane to the Forum’s earlier discussion regarding the human need for introspection in the wake of increasing technological change. Whether one is creating or observing, the arts are a wonderful way to return a sense of tranquillity to one’s life.
“A Taste of the Arts” offers a package of these experiences on campus at a bargain price: a $90 value offered to staff and faculty for $50. Among events being offered are the Opeyoi Dance Troupe, Tar Heel Voices, the Parsons Dance Company, the Pan-African Orchestra, the Botanical Garden sculpture and garden tour, and a Duo Recital of Clarinet & Piano.
Brooks-Mathers encouraged listeners to make copies of the brochures available for their co-workers or to contact the Carolina Union at 966-3128 for more information.
Rosa Nolen asked if the program offered a discount rate for Employees’ children. Brooks-Mathers said that subscribers also could purchase tickets for spouses, children, or friends at the same price. The Carolina Arts Network may choose to modify this decision at a later date. She would take this question back to the Network for discussion.
Eddie Capel noted that only one of the events mentioned serves food, a fact that did not seem in keeping with a program entitled “A Taste of the Arts.” Brooks-Mathers would discuss this point with the group’s representatives.
Brooks-Mathers added that the program will employ various “quarks,” or unexpected artistic events, across campus, including an herbal tea stand that will also sell ticket packages.
Janet Tysinger asked if the group had mailed copies of the brochure to all campus Employees. Brooks-Mathers replied that the group had not made such a large mailing due to its limited budget and hoped rather to reach Employees through other means. The network hoped to have more money next year to print brochures and do mailings of this type.
Brooks-Mathers thanked the Forum for its time.
Human Resources Update
Associate Vice Chancellor for Human Resources Laurie Charest was pleased to have the chance to explain the recently salary increases. She noted reports in the media that the salary increases for SPA Employees of 4% retroactive to July 1. This increase was broken down as follows:
* All SPA Employees with a “Below Good” performance rating or better receive a 2% cost of living adjustment.
* SPA Employees with a “Good” performance rating or better and are not at the maximum of their salary range will receive a 2% career growth increase.
* There is a 2% one-time bonus (not added to base) to persons who would otherwise be eligible for career growth but are at the maximum of their salary range.
* SPA Employees within 2% of the maximum of their salary range will get a base salary increase up to the maximum of their range and a one-time bonus for the portion not included. (For instance, an Employee 1% below the maximum will receive a 1% base increase to reach the maximum and a 1% bonus.)
Tommy Brickhouse emphasized that this increase contains two of the three segments of the Comprehensive Compensation Pay Plan, and lacks only the merit component. Charest agreed with Brickhouse, and noted that the pay plan, which had been approved three years ago but never fully funded, contains three parts: cost of living adjustments, career growth, and performance bonus, or merit. This year’s increases incorporate the first two parts of the plan.
Laurie reported that no Employee in the final stages of disciplinary action will receive any of these increases until the action is resolved. Plans are to include these raises in the September 12 biweekly paychecks (for SPA) and September 30 (for EPA) monthly paychecks; in addition, Employees will see the cumulative sum of these increases as all aspects of the raise are retroactive to July 1. Employees at the maximum of their pay range and at the maximum of their pay range will receive the whole of their one-time pay check in their September 12 paycheck as well.
Eddie Capel commented that Administrative Information Services and the Payroll department work very hard to implement these salary increases on short notice from the Legislature. Once raises are approved, Employees naturally want to receive their increases very quickly. Capel thanked the efforts of these departments to implement adjustments quickly. Charest agreed and noted that many Employees had worked through the weekend to insure that the increases were included in the September 12 paychecks. In fact, by Friday afternoon at 6 p.m. these offices were still awaiting instructions from the Office of State Personnel.
Charest was gratified with the success of the department in anticipating adjustments. Nonetheless, administering these increases this year presented more difficulties than ever because the retroactive quality of adjustments. Any pay adjustment (in-range revisions, longevity pay, reclassifications, etc.) since July 1 had to be recalculated taking the 2-4% raise into account. Charest hoped that all would go well and everyone would receive their correct adjustment.
Stephanie Stadler asked if Charest could comment on the situation of Employees who have not yet received a work plan. Charest said that Employees who have not been under a work plan for four months will receive a cost of living adjustment but will not receive a career growth adjustment until they have a performance rating. Human Resources has already contacted departments with Employees in this situation to remind them of the procedure to submit ratings. Human Resources has sent extensive documentation about the entire plan to all department facilitators.
Peter Schledorn confirmed that the across the board portion of the raise will move all workers together across the pay range. He concluded that some Employees with an “Unsatisfactory” performance rating may find themselves below the minimum of their pay range. Charest said that was correct. Schledorn asked if any provision existed for in-range adjustments to occur after an “Unsatisfactory” level Employee’s performance improves or a disciplinary action is concluded. Charest said that there are regulations insuring that when these situations are resolved the appropriate adjustments would be enacted. She added that it would not be the intention of the State system to leave an Employee’s salary below the minimum of their position. The expectation is that the Employee will emerge from their “Unsatisfactory” performance level or leave the University if performance does not improve. Schledorn pointed out that the next processing difficulty occurs when the affected Employee emerges from the “Unsatisfactory” rating. Charest thought that the University’s data processing personnel will be able to coordinate with departments in this situation.
Concerning EPA increases, the University expected to receive instructions regarding their administration that afternoon. Assuming that past form will hold, these increases will be merit-based, necessitating a brief BD-119 process. Increases will also be retroactive to July 1 and, if all goes as expected, will be included in the September 30 paycheck.
Schledorn asked if all other salary adjustments, such as in-range adjustments granted by departments, granted since July 1 will be recalculated. Charest said that all of these adjustments will indeed be recalculated. She noted that the period between July 1 and when the Legislature makes its final decision on salary increases is a very difficult time for Human Resources in areas such as making job offers to prospective Employees. Fortunately, Human Resources made the correct decision to proceed with hires, adjustments, and other promotional actions instead of waiting two months for the General Assembly to finalize its budget. However, all of these actions now must be reexamined in light of these increases.
Regarding other legislative issues, Charest noted that the General Assembly is in a “mopping-up” stage following the flurry of last-minute activity that preceeded adjournment. As a result, the University does not have final copies of the bills that affect its operations.
Charest reported that the retirement factor for State Employees has increased to 1.80 which she said was a very significant increase, although not meeting the goal of 1.81. Retirees will notice this increase in their retirement checks, and Charest thought this was a very positive development.
Updating other bills of past discussion, Charest said that the State Employee Incentive Bonus bill, which allows teams of employees to share in the savings resulting from suggestions or improvements, has achieved passage. Charest has a number of concerns about administering this bill on campus, as the bill does not acknowledge that many University Employees are not paid from State-appropriated funds. This oversight will present difficulties for administrators in determining how the law’s provisions apply at Carolina. Human Resources awaits policy information on this question which it will communicate to the Forum in due course. Nevertheless, the new law completely changes the University’s Employee suggestion system in a still to be determined manner.
In the session’s final days, the Legislature passed a bill entitled “Hire Most Qualified.” This was one of many bills passed in reaction to patronage hiring concerns. The bill does not set out many specific changes in hiring practices; these changes will be set out in the implementing policies written by the Office of State Personnel and forwarded to the State Personnel Commission for approval, probably in October. Human Resources hopes to provide feedback during the course of these discussions.
The bill itself does not contain reference to civil service examinations, but does formally separate the screening and selection processes for State hiring. In this new system, one screening committee will nominate from of the five to ten most qualified candidates for a position, and then another selection committee, composed of a wholly different membership, makes the final selection from among the candidates. Charest had no information about which Employees might be required or barred from service on these two committees. Most of the rest of the bill should not impact University hiring procedures, depending on interpretations by the Office of State Personnel. Human Resources will continue to follow these developments closely.
Returning to the subject of salary increases, Eddie Capel asked about the situation of Employees 1% below the maximum of their pay range. Charest replied that these Employees would receive a base salary increase of 1%—up to the top of their pay range—and then would receive the rest of the 2% career growth increase—the other 1%—as a one-time bonus.
The University has completed the year’s health insurance subscription process. Charest had not yet received data on how many Employees have switched among plans, but hoped to provide this information at the Forum’s October meeting.
On August 22, ground-breaking occurred for the Joint Child Care Center located near the Friday Center. The Center should be opened next fall.
Charest announced that the University has hired Erika Phillips its Career Counselor/New Careers Training Program Coordinator. She recalled that the Forum has funded a half-time Career Counselor position for one year through the Staff Development fund. The New Career Training Board also has funds for a half-time position, and the two sources have been combined to support one full-time position.
Phillips has been hired into the career counselor position from the Employment Department. Phillips has a master’s in counseling and extensive informal career counseling experience, in addition to knowledge of the University and State job classifications. She will assume her new post September 29.
In the absence of further questions, Charest took her leave. The Chair thanked Charest for her report.
Approval of the Minutes
The Chair called for a motion to approve the minutes of the August 6, 1997 meeting. Tommy Nixon noted on the second paragraph of page 11 of those minutes should read, “This representative will not need to be a Forum member.” Nixon made a motion to approve the minutes with this amendment, with Stephanie Stadler seconding. There was no further discussion, and the minutes were approved unanimously as amended.
The Chair noted that the question of the Forum hearing a special presentation from the management of Tar Heel Temporaries had arisen for consideration on second reading. There was no discussion of this proposal, and the motion was approved on second reading.
The Chair called for a motion to approve hearing a special presentation from Marian Moore, Chief Information Officer for the University. Peter Schledorn made this motion, with Janet Tysinger seconding. There was no discussion, and the motion was approved.
The Chair referred members to a copy of a position paper written in 1994 by Jack Stone, Director of Employment, concerning the Transfer Opportunities Program (TOP). This document was distributed in response to concerns raised about the TOP program. He asked if the Forum wished to ask for an enhancement of this data, had additional questions, or simply wished to request an update of the report from Human Resources. Libby Evans moved that the Forum request an update of the report, and this motion was approved by acclamation.
The Chair recalled the broad range of health insurance concerns that the Forum had raised over the past year, and the general wish to make information move available to Employees assessing the different plans. The Forum and the Executive Committee have discussed this topic, and have made Laurie Charest aware of this concern. The Chair asked if Forum members wished to add further comments or concerns to this discussion.
The Chair noted that the News & Observer had mentioned possible federal legislation requiring health care providers to make public more information about their performance. This legislation should help Employees obtain more information when deciding among health plans. Nora Robbins commented on the national debate about how to measure the effectiveness of health care providers, particularly Health Maintenance Organizations (HMOs), given perceived rises in cost and cutbacks in service. Assessing effectiveness has been difficult given the incompatibility of data, namely the coding of various medical diagnoses. There is not yet a uniform way to define and code diagnoses and thus track treatments and outcomes, especially in the mental health area.
In addition, there is little information measuring customer satisfaction with the quality of services received from HMOs. Robbins had seen more communication of that nature, addressing how long it takes one to obtain an appointment or emergency care. The State is attempting to institute requirements for information into its administrative plans and the Requests for Proposals (RFP) process.
Robbins hoped that federal studies and legislation would add more quantitative information to this mix. Specifically, the proposed federal study will determine uniform coding for diagnoses, procedure recovery and recurrence rates, means to track diagnoses, and other measures of provider effectiveness. She did not know the status of the federal legislation but recalled that there had been a great deal of discussion in this direction.
Tommy Brickhouse recalled sentiment that the Compensation and Benefits Committee should study this concern. The Chair thought that further study would depend upon data made available as a result of legislation.
The Chair reported that revisions to the Forum Guidelines have been transmitted to the Chancellor. He anticipated the Forum would receive a response from the Chancellor soon.
Concerning the University Priorities & Budget Committee (UPBC), the Chair noted that this new group is composed of around a dozen people including himself. The group has been charged to advise the chancellor on spending priorities for University programs. The group has met twice, primarily to obtain background on budgetary sources, terms and principles.
The committee will meet every Wednesday for two hours which the Chair thought indicated an intention towards serious discussion. The Chair felt fortunate to serve as the Forum’s one representative, and requested input and advice on this subject from Delegates and Employees, particularly about how to solicit suggestions systematically about prioritize spending on campus. He proposed that the Executive Committee involve itself in fielding these concerns, and asked the Forum’s thoughts on this proposal.
Janet Tysinger recalled that in the past, a separate task force was assigned to examine these issues. In response to a question, it was noted that the task force was mainly composed of volunteers. The Chair thought that the Forum should establish a committee to deal with these issues, as a task force is commonly conceived only for short-term projects. George Sharp thought that the Chair’s suggestion for the Executive Committee to oversee this topic would be a workable idea, as it contained all of the Forum’s officers and representatives of every electoral division.
Norm Loewenthal proposed that the Forum continue to utilize its committee structure to address issues of specific concern, such as consulting with the Career Development Committee about the career counselor position. The Chair anticipated that the Executive Committee’s meetings would be a good place to bring together these different concerns. He would work to produce summaries of UPBC meetings, but added that these are closed meetings at which sensitive materials are discussed. He would, however, distribute public records and keep members informed of events.
Richard Stevens, Chair of the University Board of Trustees, had responded to a letter of welcome by stating that one of the year’s trustee meetings would deal with areas of Employee concern, and solicited the Forum’s input. The Chair has not yet responded to this invitation, but will shortly.
On behalf of a constituent, the Forum Office wrote Associate Vice Chancellor of Finance Roger Patterson inquiring what items are subject to payroll deduction options. Patterson has agreed to forward a copy of the University’s new policy on this topic and examples of what items have been payroll deducted in the past.
At the next Executive Committee meeting, the group will meet with Tim Sanford, Director of Institutional Research and Laurie Charest to discuss general EPA non-faculty issues. Sanford has requested that the Forum pass a resolution calling for the implementation of longevity pay for EPA non-faculty Employees similar to that in place for SPA Employees. Tommy Brickhouse asked that that the date of this meeting be made generally known, so that others may attend. The Chair said that anyone else can attend this meeting, as it is held under the open meetings Law. He noted that there had been some question that the subject of EPA non-faculty longevity pay may attract adverse attention to the provision of longevity pay for SPA Employees. The committee thus hoped to gather interested parties to discuss in detail all sides of this issue (September 16, 10-11:30 a.m., Forum/Faculty Council Conference Room, 202 Carr Building). He suggested that members or others planning to attend the meeting contact the Forum Office so that the group may find a larger room, if necessary.
The Chair noted that the Forum will have its annual portrait made Wednesday morning at 9:15 a.m. October 1, on the steps of Wilson Library. Also, following the meeting, the Forum will hold another bag lunch for its members on the wall facing Wilson Library.
In addition, the Chair directed members’ attention to the application for the Forum’s Community Award (the 3-Legged Stool). Only Delagates may make nominations for the Community Award, and nominations must be received in the Forum Office by November 15.
Joseph Ellison was recently forced to leave the Forum due to accumulated absences. Since Ellison served as Division 2’s representative on the Executive Committee, the Chair asked that Delagates from Division 2 (Service/Maintenance) convene briefly after the meeting to select a new representative to the Executive Committee. The Chair noted that Executive Committee meetings are generally held on the third Tuesday of each month, from 10-11:30 a.m. in the Forum/Faculty Council Conference Room, 202 Carr Building. (Ed. Note: Thomas Holmes was selected after the meeting to serve on the Executive Committee.)
Libby Evans, Chair of the Nominating Committee, reported that ballots have been delivered to Administrative Information Services for processing and distribution across campus. The Forum had established a complete slate of nominees for each electoral division except for Division 3 (Skilled Craft). Evans explained that each division required enough nominees to cover the number of vacant delegate positions in addition to one alternate for every delegate position in that division. Division 3 fell one short of the number of nominees required.
Evans thanked the members of the Nominating Committee, including Linda Drake, Anne Montgomery (ad hoc), Margaret Moore, Tommy Nixon, Diana Saxon, and Dail White. She noted that Drake and Moore served on the committee as alternates, and thanked them especially for their service. In addition, she thanked Janet Tysinger, Bob Schreiner, and Nancy Tannenbaum, who volunteered to phone nominees to confirm that they would be willing to run.
Evans said that Employees should receive their ballots soon, and should have a couple of weeks to submit votes to the Forum Office by September 19. The Chair thanked Evans and the committee for their efforts these past weeks.
In the absence of Orientation Committee Co-Chairs Jeffery Beam and Joyce Dalgleish, Stephanie Stadler said that everything was in order for planning the October Orientation, the November reunion reception, and the January retreat. The Chair thanked Stadler and her group for following through with these efforts.
Peter Schledorn, Chair of the Personnel Policies Committee, said the group had been discussing compensatory time issues, and had scheduled two meetings to deal with these issues in September. Drake Maynard, Director of Human Resources Administration, will meet with the group on September 26 from 11:30-1 p.m. in the Forum/Faculty Council Conference Room, 202 Carr Building. In addition, the group will discuss reclassification questions at its regularly scheduled meeting to be held September 19 from 11:30-1 p.m. at the same location. The group hoped to have its recommendations ready on the comp time issue at the October meeting.
Tommy Brickhouse, Chair of the Compensation and Benefits Committee, reported the group had not met in August. However, Brickhouse referred members to the committee’s revised minutes from its July 10 meeting which incorporate Laurie Charest’s comments and concerns. Interested parties may wish to examine these minutes for clarification on certain points. The In-Range salary adjustment fact sheet has been delivered to Libby Evans, Secretary of the Forum; the two have met to discuss ways to summarize this document. Brickhouse was looking forward to completing this project.
Anne Montgomery, Co-Chair of the Public Affairs Committee, had no report.
Nancy Klatt, Co-Chair of the Recognition and Awards Committee, said a copy of the group’s minutes was included in the monthly agenda packet. Klatt stated that a first draft of the Recognition and Awards booklet has been distributed to committee members for their review. The committee will meet again September 24 and hopes to complete the booklet, in cooperation with Patti Smith of Human Resources, by this fall.
The Chair asked Klatt for a status report on the University Day planning. Klatt recalled that the planning committee had held organizational meetings for the event to ready campus-wide communications and event logistics. The planning committee will meet again September 16 and Klatt will relay further arrangements to the Recognition and Awards committee on September 24.
The Chair, also a member of the University Day planning committee, reminded the Forum that University Day will be held in Memorial Hall on 2 p.m. Sunday, October 12. At 3:30 p.m., a statue of President Polk will be unveiled in the Rotunda of the Morehead Building. There will also be a birthday party marking the 25th reunion of the Class of 1972, among other activities. President Molly Broad will deliver the year’s University Day address.
Laurie Charest reminded listeners that those chosen to represent their departments in the processional may claim the event as work time, and should adjust their weekly hours accordingly. The Chair confirmed that the event will count as worktime even for those not normally scheduled to work on Sundays; Charest said this was the case. Libby Evans was concerned that this requirement may discourage departments from nominating Employees to walk in the processional. Charest said there had never been a problem of this nature with departmental participation in the processional although there had sometimes been difficulties finding enough people to process.
The Chair noted that two Employee representatives are designated to process from each department. He encouraged Employees to attend the event even if they are not selected as their department’s representatives in the processional, given the quality of the event and the chance to hear one of President Broad’s first major public addresses. The University has reserved parking that day for faculty and staff near the Hanes Art Center and the Bynum Building.
Co-Chair Tommy Nixon of the University Committee Assignments Committee reported the group was still soliciting candidates for several University committee slots, including positions with the Athletic Council and the Buildings & Grounds committee. Nixon hoped that an announcement of these opportunities in the next University Gazette would attract candidates.
Nixon has made a couple of postings concerning the Excellence in Management Award Selection Committee which he imagined would be very similar to the Chancellor’s Award Committee. This would be a two year appointment to a group that would meet one day a year to decide among nominees. As the award is a new one, members will meet this fall to establish guidelines and criteria, but Nixon anticipated these criteria will closely resemble those of the Chancellor’s Award. Those interested in serving should contact Nixon or another member of the University Committee Assignments Committee.
In addition, there is a need to replace Marshall Wade, the Forum’s second representative to the Transportation and Parking Advisory Committee. This person will need to be a first year Forum delegate. Janet Tysinger, the Forum’s other representative on the committee, said she had experienced most rewarding work with the group. Connie McPherson stated that since the Forum had obtained representation on the long-range Transportation and Parking Task Force, an advisory body, it may not be necessary to make an appointment to fill Wade’s position with the Transportation and Parking Advisory Committee. She had forwarded Nixon’s email to Chief Don Gold to gain his opinion on this subject.
Finally, Nixon noted that Joe Totten and the Counseling Service are seeking nominees to serve on grievance panels for SPA Employees. The list of nominees will be forwarded to Chancellor Hooker who will make the final selections for the panels. Term of service will range from October 1, 1997 to September 30, 1998, and any Employee not associated with Human Resources may serve. Co-Chair Anne Montgomery hoped that Employees would take advantage of the opportunities to serve on these committees and panels, as they are the fruit of efforts to allow more Employees to fully participate in the life of the University. The Chair agreed that it is very important for the Forum to find good nominees to serve on these groups relatively quickly. He suggested that the Forum work to advertise these openings through the Gazette, the Forum’s web site, its Gazette insert, and other ways.
Norm Loewenthal, Chair of the Career Development Committee, noted the group’s report was included in the monthly agenda packet. The committee was very pleased to hear of Erica Phillips’ appointment to the career counselor position. Loewenthal said that the Career Development Committee hoped to have an opportunity to work closely with her in this new position.
The committee will meet September 18, from 1:30-3 p.m., in the Forum/Faculty Council Conference Room, 202 Carr Building with Provost Dick Richardson, Chair of the Faculty Pete Andrews and faculty liaison Ron Strauss to discuss academic credit opportunities for University Employees. At its August meeting, the group laid the groundwork for the September meeting, establishing tentative guidelines for discussion. Loewenthal also would meet with Richardson in advance of this meeting to clarify issues. All interested parties are invited to attend the meeting and make the most of this valuable opportunity.
George Sharp reported on the work of the New Careers Training Board, noting a synopsis of developments was included in the recent Career Development Committee minutes. The Board had achieved a quorum at its last meeting, and continued to wrestle with the issue of Employee internships. Director of Training & Development Ken Manwaring is still working to acquire confirmations from departments to provide partial funding for these internships.
The Board has investigated obtaining Plato, a self-instruction software program. Sharp noted that a group of North Carolina community colleges might buy this program, saving UNC from the need to make a separate purchase. (The Plato package costs around $10,000.) The Board is awaiting more information on this and other options.
Sharp felt that the August meeting had been a valuable one, similar to the session in July. He praised Harold Wallace, the Special Assistant for Minority Affairs, as a stabilizing and unifying presence with background in the long history of issues involved.
Janet Tysinger, Chair of the Employee Presentations Committee, announced that the Forum will hold its Fall Community Meeting from 9-10:30 a.m. Tuesday, October 21, at a location to be determined. The group had researched surveys distributed at the recent Employee Appreciation Fair. Beyond parking issues, which were addressed at the Spring Community Meeting, the area of most concern to Employees seemed to be Human Resources issues such as benefits. The committee has approached Laurie Charest and other Human Resources representatives to work out a theme to market the fall meeting. Tysinger will bring posters describing the event to the Forum’s October 1 meeting for members to distribute to their departments. The Chair thanked Tysinger and the committee for their hard work.
The Chair reported the University Gazette Insert Task Force was moving along in its work, having gathered the majority of its material. The group will meet in the next month to discuss layout and other issues before consulting with Mike Hobbs of the University Gazette.
Libby Evans of the School Volunteerism Task Force said the group had not assembled that month, however she had personally met with Pam Bailey, Volunteer Coordinator for Chapel Hill/Carrboro Public Schools, and Becky Irwin of the Public School Foundation. Evans had sent out e-mail to Forum listserv inviting Employees to the Walk for Education September 20. While this event occurs on a Saturday, and thus is not subject to Child Involvement Leave provisions for most Employees, she hoped that listeners will consider marching nonetheless. She challenged members to march and to contact two people asking them to march in the event. She encouraged the Chair to contact Chancellor Hooker and Elson Floyd to invite them to the event. Evans will send out a reminder as the walk grows closer.
Evans had been trying to contact Ken Litowsky for the answers to several questions, but the two of them have had to leave messages instead. She hoped to contact him soon.
Evans said that Bailey, who had addressed the Forum in May, had agreed with the Forum’s suggestion to establish specific areas in which Employees might volunteer. One of these areas is the “Computer Petting Zoo” that Academic Technology and Networks (formerly Office of Information Technology) has created several times over the past ten years. The zoo gets a good response rate from children interested in seeing how computers work. In addition, Evans hoped to create a database of Employees willing to address a classroom about areas of personal expertise. She emphasized that these areas need not be job-related. Finally, Evans suggested that Employees attending the September 20 walk wear UNC-related t-shirts to demonstrate their association with the University.
Liaisons to Faculty Council committees had no report.
Janet Tysinger of the Transportation and Parking Advisory Committee had no report but noted the first meeting of the long range task force will occur in September. The work of the task force is envisioned to last until March 1998.
Ann Hamner reported that the Outsourcing Steering Team had not met yet that month but would convene again Monday September 8 at 11 a.m. in the Business and Finance Conference Room, on the Third Floor South Building.
Announcements & Questions
George Sharp reiterated his point that he had made in an earlier meeting that it would be appropriate to obtain some innocuous information about fellow Forum members to promote social familiarity within the group. Forum Assistant Matt Banks has produced such a document for distribution in the October agenda packet for current Delegates and October Orientation for incoming members. Banks hoped to compile this information for members’ reference prior to the 5th Year Reunion of the Forum to be held November 5.
In the absence of further discussion, the Chair called for a motion to adjourn. Anne Montgomery so moved, seconded by Rosa Nolen There was no discussion, and the meeting adjourned at 11:16 a.m.
Matt Banks, Recording Secretary