Skip to main content

Agenda — September 6, 1995

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


I.          Call to Order


II.         Welcome Guests


III.       Opening Remarks

            •Chancellor Michael Hooker

•Laurie Charest and Drake Maynard, Human Resources Update


IV.       Employee Presentations—Scott Blackwood


V.        Approval of Minutes of the August 2, 1995 meeting P


VI.       Chair’s Report:  Rachel Windham

  • Pan-University Allocations
  • Provost Search
  • Priority for Reduction in Hours to be Placed on Statewide Policy Task Force Agenda
  • Diversity Training Opportunity with Faculty Council
  • Welcome to Elson Floyd, Newly Appointed Vice Chancellor and Chief of Staff
  • Congratulations to Newly Elected University Managers Association Officers
  • Congratulations to Helen Iverson, SEANC Distinguished Service Award Winner for District 19
  • Congratulations to Billy Armfield, Newly Elected Chair of the Board of Trustees
  • From Division 2, Frank Alston Promoted to Delegate, Karen Torry to First Alternate—Need for New Representative to the Executive Committee from Division 2


VIII.     Committee/Task Force Reports

  • Nominating—Scott Blackwood
  • Career Development—Sharon Bowers P
  • Orientation—Debi Schledorn
  • Personnel Policies—Pat Staley
  • Compensation and Benefits—Archie Lassiter/Tom Hocking P
  • Public Affairs—Delores Bayless
  • Recognition and Awards—Ann Hamner P
  • University Committee Assignments—Libby Chenault
  • Salary Task Force—Delores Bayless/Trish Brockman
  • Faculty Council Liaisons
    • Partner Benefits—Linda Cook/Peter Schledorn
    • Legislative Affairs—Laresia Farrington/Tom Hocking
    • Land Use Planning—Ann Hamner





IX.       Unfinished Business

  • Employee Morale–Feedback on Homework Assignment–How Do We Address?  Employee Fair Booth Survey
  • Consideration of Recognition & Awards’ Recommendation Regarding Recognition of Deceased Employees/Moments of Silence Policy P


X.        New Business

  • Executive Committee’s Proposal for Guidelines Revisions; Executive Committee Special Meeting August 28, 5:30 p.m. P
  • Proposed Revisitation of Salary Task Force’s Initial Charge P
  • Concern about Lack of Evening Classes (from Career Development)
  • Informal Nationwide Survey of University Salary Increases


XI.       Announcements/Questions

  • September 26 and December 19 Executive Committee Meetings Relocated to Carr Building Conference Room P
  • Chilly Climate Discussion Group
  • OIT Can Now Provide Space for Personal WWW Home Pages for UNC Students, Faculty, Employees, Departments and Organizations


XI.       Adjournment


September 6, 1995

Delegates Present

Peggy Barber

Brenda Barnes

Nellie Baldwin

Bill Bates

Delores Bayless

Scott Blackwood

Lin Blalock

Sharon Bowers

Trish Brockman

Ned Brooks

Riley Carter

Libby Chenault

Sharon Cheek

Peggy Cotton

Mona Couts

Dianne Crabill

Lena Dean

Kathy Dutton

Laresia Farrington

Tommy Griffin

Ann Hamner

Tom Hocking

Helen Iverson

Archie Lassiter

Vicki Lotz

Wendy Mann

Dee Marley

Sue Morand

Gary Pearce

Jennifer Pendergast

Sarah Rimmer

Dean Rimmer

Pamela Shoaf

Alice Taylor

Marshall Wade

Cheryl Ward

Fran Ward

Rachel Windham

Margaret Balcom

Laurie Charest

= Ex-Officio


Delegates Absent

Linda Cook

Leon Hamlett

Debi Schledorn

Kay Spivey

Pat Staley

Cliff Stone


Alternates Present

Frank Alston

Peter Schledorn



Browen Clark

Blake Dickinson

Elson Floyd

Mike Hobbs

Michael Klein

Stewart Rust

Mark Schultz

Ryan Thornburg


Call to Order

Chair Rachel Windham called the meeting to order at 9:34 a.m.  She introduced Chancellor Hooker for his opening remarks and pointed out that Dr. Elson Floyd, the new Vice Chancellor and Chief of Staff was also present.


Opening Remarks

The Chancellor welcomed Dr. Floyd as well. He drew a parallel between Leon Panetta’s role as Chief of Staff in the White House and Dr. Floyd’s role, to make things less chaotic and better organized, particularly to coordinate cross-cutting activities among vice-chancellors and deans.

With respect to the housekeepers’ issue, the Chancellor said he would meet through September with representatives of different groups to address training concerns, job advancement prospects and management issues.  He hoped that by the end of the month he would have something definitive to announce on the subject.

On the issue of pay scales, Chancellor Hooker said that over the last month he had spent much time studying this issue.  He said that pay is a problem not just for housekeepers, but for clerical workers and many others who have been near the top of their pay scales for a long time.  He said this problem represents a significant challenge for the University, remaining competitive in the labor market for a large number of Employees.  Also, he said, assuming that the problem originates from inadequate legislative appropriations, the problem exists in all State agencies.  He said he was not sure at the moment how he would approach the problem, since it affects all State agencies and System campuses.  Yet, he wanted the Forum to know he views pay as a significant issue, particularly at the lower levels.  He said he was about to say entry level, but Employees who have been on the job eight years are also affected.

Chancellor Hooker noted that these concerns relate to the global shift to an information-based economy and the rapid change in world labor markets.  He referred to an editorial in that morning’s News & Observer that echoed an earlier New York Times piece describing the “outsourcing” of white-collar, information-based jobs to foreign labor markets, such as India.  The columnist noted that the median income for American workers has declined over the last three years.  The Chancellor explained that the median income is the point at which an equal number of workers’ incomes exists on each side.  Measuring with the median income prevents a skewing effect. For example, the median income of geography majors at UNC-CH might be around $25,000, with half earning less and half earning more than $25,000.  The average income for geography majors is hypothetically around $2 million, thanks to the extraordinary income of alumnus Michael Jordan.

Median income is declining not only for high school graduates, but for college graduates as well, the Chancellor said.  Currently, unless checked by outside forces, American wages will regress to the mean, the average of the world economy, a level much less than that which we currently enjoy.  A question facing the University is how we will understand and respond to these changes in the world economy.  Chancellor Hooker referred to the ability of community colleges to respond “like gazelles” to changes in the world economy, whereas research universities tend to resemble “dinosaurs.”  He said one of his big challenges as Chancellor will be to position the University to better adapt to these changes.

In the absence of any questions, the Chancellor bid farewell.  He noted in parting that the Chair works very hard on behalf of the ForumHe said that he is privy to many of the things that she does on campus and that he is very impressed.  The Chair thanked the Chancellor for his remarks.  She welcomed members of the press Mike Hobbs, Blake Dickinson, Browen Clark and Ryan Thornburg, Editorial Page editor for the Daily Tar Heel.

Laurie Charest from Human Resources ceded her time to Drake Maynard.  Drake reported that Human Resources policies activity has exploded in recent months.  One reason for this expansion is that the Legislature has amended the Administrative Procedures Act.  This law governs how State regulations are adopted, including the policies of the State Personnel Policies Commission, which affects the University.  The reason for this expansion is that this Commission will meet October 5 for the last opportunity to adopt, amend or repeal personnel policies under the old law.  The new law requires significantly greater notice requirements and that every personnel policy adopted (including any regulation or other body covered by the Commission) be approved by the entire General Assembly then approved by the Rules Revision Commission.  This rule, thus, significantly expands the time needed to adopt, amend or repeal regulations, including personnel policies.  The short-term result of this change is that all policies under debate now are brought to the Commission for consideration under the old law.  The situation gains even more urgency since the Legislature will not convene again until late May for a short session, leaving even less session time to pass policy changes.  If any of the policies are not considered by the Commission, after the October meeting, policies will face significantly more hurdles for passage.

Drake referred to changes before the Personnel Policies Commission, some of which had been mentioned at the last meeting.  Drake emphasized that handouts on these policies would be left with the Forum Assistant after the meeting.  First, effective he thought October 1, a change in the Employee Discipline and Dismissal Policy will eliminate the oral warning from the disciplinary procedure.  Now, two written warnings are necessary to pursue the process.  Second, the Grossly Inefficient Performance of Duties category is created to deal with instances of unintentional job dereliction that puts human life or large amounts of property in danger.  Third, the rule stating that Employees under investigation for disciplinary policies are suspended without pay is changed to include pay status.  This change presumes the Employee is innocent until proven guilty and, if the Employee is exonerated, he/she is not hurt financially.  Drake said that this situation has not been a problem at the University, but has appeared at other State agencies where an employee has been suspended without pay for up to one and a half years while under investigation.  Also, the new policy encourages departments to conclude investigations quickly.

Drake Maynard reported that the University is proceeding to draft a policy on how to train and inform Employees and supervisors about the policy and to communicate changes.  The State policy requires an annual University report to the Office of State Personnel on disciplinary actions in a format yet to be determined by the State.

The State Policies Commission has already approved this policy; it now moves to the Rules Review Commission this month, with a proposed effective date of October 1.

Drake Maynard read through other policies proposed for changes at the October 5 Commission meeting.  These include Policies on:  Separation, Layoffs and Reduction in Force; Affirmative Action; In-Range Salary Adjustments; Demotions and Reassignments; Transfers; the State’s Grievance Procedures; Reinstatement; Sick Leave; Other Forms of Leave Without Pay; Wage and Hour Administration; Civil Leave; Educational Assistance; the Service Awards Program; the Governor’s Award for Excellence Program; and the Public Managers’ Program.

Drake touched briefly on changes in each of these policies.  Shifts in priority for layoff policies and salary rates received by affected Employees constitute changes to the Layoff policyThe Affirmative Action Division at the Office of State Personnel now will be called the Equal Employment Opportunity Division and the Affirmative Action Policy now will be called the Equal Employment Opportunity Policy.  These changes add reporting requirements which include disciplinary processes (reported in a different format), harassment prevention, evaluation mechanisms and transfer and separations.

The In-Range Salary Adjustments policy has been under debate for a long time, subject to introduction of legislation in the General Assembly.  Since no such legislation was introduced this year, the way is clear for the Office of State Personnel to adopt a policy in this area.  This is a new policy which will allow universities and other State agencies to provide In-Range Salary Adjustments which are currently not possible except in very limited circumstances.  First, the policy would require the University to adopt its own Planned Policy Program for making In-Range Salary Adjustments, setting standards for administration.  Also, it would require a review by the Office of State Personnel of any increase over 20% in a year.  Adjustments might be based on compensating Employees assuming additional duties on a temporary or permanent basis which do not affect their salary level; moving from one occupation to another to benefit the organization, even within the same grade; Employees who enhance or broaden their competencies, knowledge, abilities and skills, subject to University review; the need to establish equitable salary levels for Employees doing the same level of work; and compensating Employees to reduce turnover, requiring an Employee to receive a concrete offer from another organization.  Drake lauded the recognition by the Office of State Personnel that local organizations may be able to manage some of their own affairs.

Planned changes in policies on Demotion, Rehiring and Transfers basically incorporate provisions relating to Employee pay after being laid-off.  The Grievance Procedure is a completely new policy, doing away with the current model policy.  It establishes minimum requirements for a University or agency to set up its own grievance procedure that matches the needs of that specific agency.  Drake said that the University’s procedure needs only to revise timing to come into compliance with the State.  Currently the University allows 60 days for a dismissal grievance and 90 days for any other grievance.

The Reinstatement Policy also is being amended to deal with changes for laid-off Employees.  The Sick Leave Policy should be changed to allow Employees to take leave when a child is adopted, up to 30 days.  This change will be incorporated into other types of leave without pay.

Changes in Wage and Hour Administration will allow Employees 12 months in which compensatory time earned may be used.  Currently, the time allowed is two months.  This change would give a full cycle for someone to decide when to use accumulated overtime at the time and a half rate within the next 12 months.  If at the end of that time, the person has not used the time, they will be paid for it.  “The time can never be lost,” Drake emphasized.  He said that he was particularly proud of this State policy change since Human Resources initially pressed for the idea.

The Civil Leave policy is being rewritten, Drake said, apparently as the same policy in a different format, with no additional provisions or changes.

The Educational Assistance Policy is being updated for tax purposes, to provide more instruction on possible tax consequences for educational assistance programs.

The Service Awards Program is moving away from the “pens and jewelry” method of recognizing Employees to “other items adopted by the program on a biannual basis.”  He did not know what these items would be.

The Governor’s Award for Excellence sets up new criteria and sets up an administrative program component in the Office of State Personnel.

The Managers’ Training Program will require an absolute fee requirement rather than a voluntary payment by the trainee’s institution or agency.  Previously, too many State agencies have taken the “voluntary” route in providing for their trainees.  Employees still will not have to pay the fee themselves.

Drake Maynard said that he would be glad to answer any questions and said that he would leave summaries of these changes with the Forum Assistant.  Also, he said he would send the policy proposals to the Forum Assistant for distribution.  He repeated that the State Policies Commission will meet October 5 and that he would attend the Forum’s Personnel Policies Commission meeting September 20.  He asked that Forum members and others submit any comments or questions to him in advance of the September 20 meeting so that he can alert the Office of State Personnel.

Dee Marley asked why there is a move away from the pens and jewelry as recognition for Employees.  Drake Maynard responded that his former boss created the “pens and jewelry” program and would be glad to hear Dee defend it.  Drake thought the issue was of the “tastes great, less filling” variety about the items.  Some prefer the jewelry; others want a catalog choice approach.  Dee asked if criticisms of the change should go to him or other members of the Forum Personnel Policies Committee.  Drake responded in the affirmative, saying that if enough Employees disagree, he would be happy to defend the old policy before the Commission.  Laurie Charest asked if one could choose between the two factions.  Drake responded that he was not sure, but said that the new policy seemed to eliminate altogether the “pens and jewelry” faction from selection.

Sue Morand asked about the new Investigation with Pay policy, asking if Employees on leave without pay will begin receiving pay October 1.  Drake Maynard replied in sotto voce that Human Resources has not put Employees on leave without pay while under investigation.  Other parts of the current Disciplinary policy and relevant State court decisions have led Human Resources to conclude that removing Employees from the payroll while under investigation will not hold up.  Even if Employees are dismissed, they are dismissed prospectively, meaning they have not lost a penny during the time of their suspension.  For anyone on the October 1 cusp, Human Resources may send a letter noting that their continued receipt of pay is now official, under State policy.  Drake noted that Human Resources has suspended Employees pending investigation, with a ten calendar day turnover on these inquiries.  Additionally, Drake said, the time involved in submitting the PD-105 to remove or add an Employee to the payroll adds more difficulty to the process than necessary.  If a person is exonerated, that’s good; if dismissed, Human Resources does not have to argue with the Office of Administrative Hearings that they have dismissed an Employee retroactively, which the courts have disallowed.

Jennifer Pendergast asked if funding will be available to support the proposed In-Range Salary Adjustments.  Drake shared that there will be no monies appropriated for these adjustments, which are administrative and not legislative.  He felt that any funds available in the State Salary Reserve Fund will be gone within 30 minutes of availability.  In implementing this policy, the University must consider the entire funding issue in drafting its own policy and finding the money.  He thought it “pernicious” and an “empty promise” to say to departments “if you can find the money to fund the adjustments, fine; if not, tough luck.”

Helen Iverson asked if October 5 will be the day of the Commission’s vote.  Drake said that it was and that the Commission would vote all of these proposals up or down at the one meeting.  He said that the sooner members can send their comments to him the more chance they have to incorporate their ideas into the final product.  Drake stated that the Human Resources staff will go to a personnel directors’ roundtable in an opportunity to provide feedback before October 5.  This opportunity is valuable because departments have not seen the proposals put together before now.  He asked that members send their comments to him or any other member of the Forum Personnel Policies Commission before the September 20 meeting.

Trish Brockman asked if the In-Range Salary Adjustment Policy changes will impact the OSSOG study.  Drake Maynard replied that these policy changes should not affect any study. The In-Range Salary Adjustment Policy is not addressing study, reallocation, reclassification issues, but instead deals with Employees who “aren’t part of the classification system.”  The In-Range Adjustment is not to address that situation.  Laurie Charest agreed completely with Drake, saying that “the only impact is that clearly competition for the same funds is going on in terms of implementing studies and if we were to have the possibility of In-Range Salary Adjustments.  But in terms of a direct impact, no.”

In the absence of further questions, Drake Maynard thanked the Chair and the Forum for their time.  The Chair encouraged members to send their comments to Chair Pat Staley, Linwood Blalock or other members of the Personnel Policies Committee, since Drake and Human Resources have given the Forum the opportunity to respond to these proposals.

Employee Presentations

Scott Blackwood introduced Lori Casile, the team leader for the Human Information Resources (HIR) team.  Lori recalled Ann Dodd’s presentation on Carolina Quality in August, and thanked the Forum for the chance to speak.  She said that the HIR team has eight members, not including facilitator Ann Dodd, who has done a wonderful job.

Recalling her 10 years of Human Resources experience, Lori Casile recalled many unfortunate experiences with committees that have lost their focus and effectiveness.  However, she said she was thrilled with the vision and hardworking nature of her team members, and she said she had high hopes for the future.

Lori noted that bands like the Grateful Dead have some similarities with administrative systems that have lasted over time.  Both have experience in changing to fit the needs of their audience and adapting to technology.  Both disseminate information, but successful rock bands have millions of dollars to devote to market research to stay current.  Lori saw the role of the Carolina Quality team to provide a similar market research role for these administrative systems.  These systems have had their “heyday,” but over time the systems have not kept up with their new customers.  Before, the audience for these systems was the different Human Resources departments who used information produced; today, everyone needs this information.

Lori reported that her team had needed several weeks to identify all the groups that utilize administrative systems information.  Her Top Three list of systems information customers are:  Human Resources Facilitator and EPA representatives; all Employees (changing address); and senior Administrators making high-level decisions.  These are diverse groups with different needs, requiring her team to proscribe different solutions for these groups and a long list of others.

Lori Casile asserted that one of the goals of her team is to reach Employees through a variety of communication plans, with correspondent feedback mechanisms.  She said her group had already addressed the Human Resources Facilitators group and hoped to consolidate their responses soon.  The group has spoken with senior Administrators in much the same way.  It hopes to ask everyone to present any ideas about how to make the information systems better.  She encouraged Employees to get in contact with the HIR team.  She brought a questionnaire for Forum members to examine and complete.  She asked that they encourage co-workers to provide feedback and join the focus group.  She said that the team had received much good feedback, encouraging respondents to include their name on the bottom of the questionnaires for follow-up.

The Chair thanked Lori for her presentation and again reminded Forum members that they have the opportunity now to provide feedback.  She urged members to provide their comments now instead of waiting until after the process is complete.  “We are the conduit” for getting this information to the appropriate people.  The Chair said that serving on focus groups is a very positive experience and is a chance to learn how others across campus think, approach problems and reach decisions.


Fall Community Meeting

Scott Blackwood announced that the Fall Community Meeting will take place Thursday, September 28, from 10-11:30 a.m. in the Institute of Government Auditorium.  The featured speaker will be Chancellor Michael Hooker; the topic, “Carolina On My Mind:  A Chat with Chancellor Michael Hooker.”  Scott said that flyers should arrive in all Employees’ mail boxes by the end of the week.  Scott said he realized that the Institute of Government Auditorium is not in the center of campus, but said it was the only hall available with air conditioning.  He encouraged members to bring their co-workers to find out what Chancellor Hooker has on his mind.  The Chair encouraged members to come early and make their presence known.  She praised Scott and the Employee Presentations Committee for doing the extra work involved to pull the Meeting together.


Approval of the Minutes of the August 2, 1995 Meeting

The Chair asked for a motion to approve the minutes of the last meeting.  Tom Hocking made such a motion with Laresia Farrington seconding.  There was no discussion, and the minutes were approved by acclamation.



Chair’s Report

The Chair reported that the Executive Committee had reviewed at its Special Meeting August 28 the proposed Pan-University Allocation budget sent by Vice Chancellor Wayne Jones.  She regretted that there was only a two week turnaround allotted for comments by the Forum, necessitating independent action by the Executive Committee rather than review by the full body.  The Committee’s comments were included in the Routing Folder for members’ review.

Regarding the Provost’s Search Committee, the Chair reported that she had been appointed to serve on that Committee, but no further action or information was available.  She thought possibly that movement by the Committee awaited Elson Floyd assuming his duties.

The Chair reported that Laurie Charest had asked Drake Maynard to place the Transfer Priority for Employees with Involuntarily Reduced Hours issue on the Statewide Policy Task Force Agenda.  She thanked Drake for his efforts to draw attention to this matter.

Jane Brown recently approached the Chair about joint Diversity Training sessions for the Faculty Council and the Forum.  She and Scott Blackwood advanced that this would be a wonderful opportunity for those who have not experienced Diversity Training.  Jane, the Chair reported, was working on some dates for the training that would take into account members’ child care and second job responsibilities.  Additional information would appear soon, she said.

The Chair welcomed Elson Floyd, encouraging those assembled to introduce themselves.  She was pleased to see the success that Elson has experienced and described him as a warm, receptive person.  She was pleased that the Forum would have the chance to work with him.

The Chair congratulated the recently elected officers of the University Managers’ Association.  They are President Beth Ward, Vice President Lydia Lewis, Betsy Faulkner as Secretary and Steve Jarrell as Treasurer.

The Chair also congratulated Delegate Helen Iverson, Recipient of the SEANC-District 19 Distinguished Service Award.  Helen received a round of applause.  The Chair asked that members provide information about awards and offices to the Forum Assistant for the Forum’s acknowledgment.

The Chair noted a letter of congratulations had been sent to Billy Armfield, newly elected Chair of the Board of Trustees.  She felt that Mr. Armfield will be a very active leader of the Board, noting the morning’s front-page article in the News & Observer with his comments about the tuition hike.  Billy Armfield’s last notable service to the University was as a member of the Chancellor’s Search Committee, which bodes well for relations between the Board and the Chancellor.

The Chair introduced Frank Alston, the new Delegate from Division 2 replacing Jon Thomas, who under the Guidelines was terminated for missing three consecutive meetings.  She welcomed Frank Alston and noted that Karen Torry becomes the First Alternate from Division 2.  Frank said he was happy to be on the Forum and looked forward to working with the other members.  The Chair asked that representatives from Division 2 assemble after the meeting to elect a new division representative to the Executive Committee, informing the Forum Assistant of their decision afterwards.

On October 12, University Day, Chancellor Hooker will be formally installed in Polk Place during a ceremony from 10-2 p.m.  Classes will be suspended during this time.  The University Installation Committee is in the process of disseminating letters to deans, directors and department heads asking each to select two Employees to walk in the Staff Processional.  The Forum is collaborating with the University Managers’ Association in this work and in selecting a Staff Marshal.  The Chair asked if members could support the idea that the Employee with the most years University service (not State service) would be the best choice for Staff Marshal.  Those assembled expressed no disagreement, and the Chair said she would proceed on this basis.

Margaret Balcom mentioned that Employees will receive an invitation to the Installation ceremony and to the luncheon afterwards to which they should R.S.V.P.  The Chair thanked Margaret for her comment, wondering how the caterers will handle such a large buffet luncheon.

The Chair announced that the annual Forum photograph will take place October 4 at 9:15 a.m. sharp on the steps of Wilson Library.  She encouraged members to be prompt in arrival before the October meeting and hoped for a good turnout.

Ned Brooks asked what the Forum had done in the past regarding the Pan-University Allocation.  He suggested that the Forum start now being very explicit about what its priorities are and why.  He even suggested finding ways to cooperate with the Faculty Council to present a unified front in the process.  The Chair agreed, asking if there was sentiment to create a Pan-University Allocation Task Force.  This idea met with general agreement, and Mona Couts, Ned Brooks and Ann Hamner expressed interest in working on the Task Force.  The Chair felt that establishing the Task Force would be a good idea since the window of opportunity for comment this time had been very small, with the request for feedback within two weeks and not coinciding with the Forum’s meeting time.  It was only happenstance that a Special Meeting of the Executive Committee had been scheduled at which the Allocation could be discussed; otherwise, there would have been no opportunity for comment.  Dee Marley stated that last year there had definitely been more time allowing discussion by the entire Forum on the issue.  The Chair said that the Forum had inquired several times this year about the schedule only to be told that the decision was behind schedule.  She surmised that the process may have been delayed by the transition to the new Chancellor.  By the time it was released to the Forum, the allocation decision was so far behind that it demanded a quick turnaround.

The Chair directed members to a letter sent to the Governor regarding the need for SPA salary increases.  She said she would continue to pursue these avenues when opportunities presented themselves.


Committee Reports

From the Nominating Committee, Chair Scott Blackwood reported that ballots for the 1996 election had been mailed.  Some members reported receiving their ballots already.  The ballots are due in the Forum Office by September 11.  Scott said he realized that this was a short turnaround, but he encouraged members to get their co-workers to submit their ballots.  One hundred-thirty Employees will vie for twenty-two open Delegate posts, Scott said, which should lead to some great competition.  He looked forward to meeting the new crop of Employees dedicated to making the University a better place.  The Chair lauded Scott and his Committee for accomplishing the huge task of carrying out the 1996 elections.

            From the Career Development Committee, Chair Sharon Bowers noted that the Committee had decided to proceed with its plans for a Training Library, subject to feedback and approval by the Forum.  Helen Iverson made a motion that the Committee’s recommendations regarding the Library be accepted by the Forum.

The Committee’s August 20 discussion of the Training Library and Surveys was read into the record:

After discussion of responses from surveys, it was decided to move forward with the Training Library.  Some general ideas expressed were:  a) to start as a 1-2 year pilot program and review at the end of the specified time; b) Training & Development has a person hired now that could accept this responsibility; tapes & materials would not be sent through the mail, but always hand delivered; d) a list of those available would be published in the Gazette; e) ask for responses on preference of titles, possibly through the Gazette also; f) tapes being considered for purchase would be reviewed at Training & Development by the Committee and approved by the Committee; g) a maximum of one-week check out time; h) person signing out tapes will be responsible for replacement should they not be returned or lost; and i) work toward a December start-up date.  Sharon Bowers was asked to present this issue to the Forum for approval to proceed.  This will be done at the September meeting.


Trish Brockman seconded this motion.  Margaret Balcom asked if the Bicentennial money to create this Library is available for this year only.  She asked what set amount was reserved for the Library of the $5,000 originally available.  Sharon Bowers responded that $5,500 is now available for the Library.  Margaret asked if there would be a set amount put aside for the Library, or if the entire $5,500 Staff Development Fund would be used.  Sharon said that the Committee had decided that the $5,500 would be used for the Training Library as an ongoing project.  Ken Manwaring would donate additional funds each year, Sharon Cheek added.  The Chair asked if the Committee was recommending that the allocation permanently support the Library, or if the Committee was proposing a $5,500 expenditure this year with any monies available next year going to something else.

Sharon Cheek stated that the Committee had discussed use of the $5,500 only for this year to establish the Library.  The Committee anticipated the need for additional funds for future years, she said, but had not discussed a specific amount.  The Chair asked whether the Forum would be expected to recommend permanent funding for the Library or whether support for the Library would pass to someone else.

Mona Couts noted that the initial suggestion included the condition that the Library start with a 1-2 year pilot program, with review at the end of the specified time.  The Chair asked Helen Iverson to incorporate Mona’s comments into her motion.  Helen, thus, made the motion that the $5,500 be allocated to fund the Training Library this year and that the Forum would revisit financial support for the Library on an annual basis.

Ned Brooks asked about the origin of the $5,500.  The Chair noted that the Forum has the money available now, allocated last year from the Bicentennial Campaign for Staff Development.  Ned then asked whether the choice before the Forum was to spend the money on the Library or for another project supporting staff development.  The Chair replied that the Forum had decided at a previous meeting to support the Committee’s recommendation to use the funds to create a Training Library.

Libby Chenault asked whether the Committee had considered storing the training materials in the Non-Print section of the campus library.  Also, she felt the Committee minutes were not clear about how the tapes would be selected initially.  She noted that Employees would be involved in the creation of an initial list from which “tapes being considered for purchase would be reviewed at Training and Development by the Committee and approved by the Committee.”  Libby felt this provision was a little amorphous.

Marshall Wade offered that Employees could be attracted to the Fred Pryor seminars, but could not afford to attend.  The taped seminars could be brought back to the office for study in that environment.  Suggestions for tapes to purchase would be based on areas of departmental need.  Sharon Cheek noted there were many brochures describing tapes that the Committee had not yet examined.  The Chair asked if the Committee or Ken Manwaring would select the tapes to be purchased.  Sharon Bowers replied that it would be a collaboration, noting that Ken has been working with the Committee on the idea since its inception.

Laurie Charest noted that the Forum, in considering this motion, is actually voting on forwarding a recommendation to the Chancellor to spend the money in this way.  The Chancellor had asked the Forum for recommendations on how to utilize the Staff Development Fund.  The Chair clarified the language of the motion stating that the Forum would make a recommendation to the Chancellor that the $5,500 in the Staff Development Fund be spent to create an Audio/Video Training Library housed and managed by Training and Development available for use by Employees.  The Forum will revisit recommending a continuing allocation of funds from this source to this project in subsequent years.  In the absence of further discussion, the motion was approved.

Ann Hamner spoke for the Orientation Committee, noting it had met quite often in its two sub-committees as it worked towards the October 18 Orientation date.  She said that the Committee will initiate a buddy system to pair experienced Delegates with incoming ones.  A draft of the letter to be sent to new and continuing Delegates will be circulated at the next meeting.  As soon as the election is finished, the Buddy Task Force will assemble, assign buddies and send letters to all concerned soliciting suggestions.  The Committee will notify new Delegates of their partners at the October 18 Orientation.

As seen in the July Executive Committee Minutes, the Orientation Committee will request funding for a reception held before the November Forum MeetingEntering Delegates will be encouraged to attend the November and December Forum Meetings, to give them a feeling for their forthcoming career on the body.

From the Personnel Policies Committee, Cheryl Ward reported that there was nothing to report, but that the Committee would meet with Drake Maynard on September 20 from 1:30-3:30 p.m. in the Giles Horney Building.

Co-Chair Tom Hocking of the Compensation and Benefits Committee directed members to the Committee’s minutes in the agenda packet.  He reported there had been a concern expressed by an Employee seeking additional benefits for Employees remaining with the University after more than 30 years service.  He reported that the Committee consulted with Nora Robbins and Human Resources to gain an understanding of State policies and practices.  The Committee will meet again on September 13 at 10 a.m. in the Morehead Planetarium Classroom.  The Chair congratulated Tom on his election as Chair of SEANC District 25 and Brenda Crockett on her election as Chair of SEANC 19.

Chair Delores Bayless of the Public Affairs Committee had nothing to report.

Chair Ann Hamner from the Recognition and Awards Committee made a motion that the Employee Forum adopt the following policy on Memorial Resolutions and Moments of Silence:

At the beginning of the regularly scheduled Forum meeting in February and in August, the Forum will hear resolutions presented in memory of the lives of UNC-CH staff Employees who have died within the past six months.  These resolutions should be no more than three minutes in length and may be brought forward by an individual or presented by a Forum Delegate.  The Vice-Chair of the Forum will be responsible for organizing the presentations at the two meetings each year.

We recommend that information regarding this new policy be distributed to the divisions by Delegates and by an article in the Gazette.


Marshall Wade seconded the motion.  Dee Marley asked that the motion would apply only to people currently employed at the University.  Ann Hamner replied that the policy was to apply only to current Employees.  Margaret Balcom suggested a friendly amendment that the policy include the word “current” before “UNC-CH staff Employees.”  Ann Hamner accepted the friendly amendment.  There being no further discussion, the Chair called the question.  The motion passed unanimously.  Ann reminded Delegates to distribute information on this policy to their divisions and noted that an article should be in an upcoming issue of the Gazette.  The Chair lauded Ann and the Recognition and Awards Committee for their fine work in seeing this project through to conclusion.

Chair Libby Chenault of the University Committee Assignments Committee reported that the Committee had met August 16.  The Committee had been in touch with Scott Blackwood in his capacity as Chair of the Employee Presentations Committee about Employee representatives to University Committees routinely giving reports to the Forum.  However, since the initial contact, the Committee has been distracted, having been approached twice to provide nominees on a tight timetable.  The first instance was the need for an Employee to serve on the Conflict of Interest Review Board.  The Committee, with the help of Chair Rachel Windham and Vice-Chair Scott Blackwood, forwarded a list of names to University Counsel Susan Ehringhaus.  The second case arose just the day before.  It involves Nora Robbins’ request from the University Insurance Committee Chancellor’s Advisory Board that a Delegate be appointed to serve a two-year term on the Board.  This Delegate must be able to meet monthly with the Committee, but the work should involve little time commitment beyond the monthly meetings, Libby Chenault said.  Since there was little time allotted to find a candidate for the post, Libby brought the appointment directly to the Forum for consideration.  She said she was interested in entertaining volunteers, particularly since the appointment needs to take place before the Committee would meet again September 20.

To facilitate the process, Libby Chenault asked if the Forum wished to give her Committee the power to act on the Forum’s behalf, or whether it preferred other solutions.  Margaret Balcom noted that the Executive Committee was created to act when the full Forum could not.  She posited that the Assignments Committee could make a recommendation to the Executive Committee which could then act procedurally on the Forum’s behalf.  Dee Marley asked whether the two-year appointment could be extended to experienced Delegates who had only one year left to serve or fit the experience level of incoming Delegates who would be on the Forum for those two years.  The Chair asked that the Committee take these thoughts under advisement and proceed as it sees fit.

Chair Delores Bayless of the Salary Task Force asked to postpone discussion until later in the meeting.

Peter Schledorn, liaison to the Partner Benefits Committee, reported that the Committee was working on statements, definitions and market policies.  He hoped to have a statement and a set of goals from the Committee for the next meeting.  The Chair applauded this news.

From Legislative Affairs, liaison Tom Hocking reported that the Committee will meet for the first time Wednesday, September 13, at noon in West House.

Ann Hamner, liaison to the Land Use Planning Committee, reported that the group will meet again September 20 with consultants about different parties moving off campus.  After the meeting, the Committee will create a report for Wayne Jones that soon after should be distributed to the campus.

Margaret Balcom stated that September 21 from 11-1 p.m. the JJR group will hold a public meeting to receive suggestions for high-, low- and medium-density use for the Horace Williams tract.


Old Business

The Chair asked to postpone consideration of the Employee Morale/Fair Booth Survey until after the Forum considered its new business.  She advanced that the Forum had covered the Recognition of Deceased Employees/Moments of Silence Policy in the Recognition & Awards Committee report.  The Forum concurred with both of these procedural alterations.


New Business


Guideline Revisions

At a Special Meeting held August 28 from 5:30-8 p.m., the Executive Committee finished its proposed Guidelines revisions after much long, hard work, the Chair reported.  She noted the Special Meeting allowed the Committee to include the proposed revisions in the September agenda packet to meet the required 28 days before approval of revisions.  The Chair asked that members carefully review and annotate their revised copy to prepare for October’s final deliberations and decisions on the subject.


Salary Task Force Charge/Report

Appointed in August 1994, the Salary Task Force recently brought a preliminary report of its findings and recommendations to the July 18 Executive Committee meeting.  Reviewing the Task Force’s genesis, it was found that the Forum specifically requested the Task Force not to make recommendations.  The Executive Committee felt it would be prudent to ask the entire Forum to reexamine the initial charge of the Task Force before accepting its final report, because of the very specific recommendations contained in its preliminary report.  Since the Forum empowered the Task Force only to gather information, not make recommendations, in its initial charge, it should decide whether to expand that charge.  The Forum should not accept recommendations from the Task Force, the Chair asserted, unless the Forum revisits and revises the initial charge.

Accordingly, the Chair asked the Forum to decide whether or not to adhere to the initial charge of the Forum or to revise the charge to include the recommendations.  Laresia Farrington thought it would be beneficial to move on to the recommendations, to hear what the group had to say.  Ann Hamner asked if anyone knew why the charge was formulated so strictly.  Margaret Balcom, the Chair during the Task Force’s formation, said she had asked why also, adding she wanted to hear recommendations.  However, she said that the Forum at that time wanted only the facts for the entire Forum to consider.  Delores Bayless said that the Task Force, based on how difficult it has been to obtain and analyze the data and its interpretation of its initial charge, felt it best to present recommendations.  Matt Banks reported that he had heard in the August Executive Committee meeting there had been some concern that the Task Force may find some information detrimental to the University or its Employees.  Margaret Balcom replied that may be so, but that reason had not been discussed on the floor at the Task Force’s creation.

Libby Chenault recalled part of the concern was the availability of data and the Task Force’s ability to derive the data in comparison with other sectors within the University.  Libby said she would like to see the Task Force’s findings and data-gathering processes before entertaining recommendations.  Sue Morand asked if the report could be read.  Delores Bayless read an Executive Summary of the report, which would be distributed with the October agenda packet.  The report was read into the record:

UNC-CH Employee Forum  Salary Task Force Report

The Employee Forum Salary Task Force was originally charged to gather data on salary comparisons and to research data comparing University SPA Employee salary information to other comparable salary information.

The Salary Task Force began by looking at Chambers of Commerce information from comparable localities and was surprised that we found no grounds for geographical pay or reasons to continue to pursue that direction.  Attempts were also made to gather pertinent reclassification salary information here at the University.  Some of the information needed was not available by automated means.  The decision was made not to pursue this because we had no information with which to compare.

The Task Force decided that it would be impossible to pursue comparisons within the 16 campus areas and surrounding areas with the little information we had.  Determinations were then made that Angell Beza (Senior Associate Director of the Institute for Research in Social Science) would pursue examination of several salary comparison studies that had been identified to our Task Force by Human Resources staff.

Angell went through months of trying to gather data, determine what kind of data was available and discuss with various persons and agencies what he was finding in regards to UNC-CH’s needs.  Specific examination of two independent compensation surveys reveals major differences between SPA staff compensation and private and/or not-for-profit organizations in the Triangle and surrounding states.

One of the surveys examined was conducted in 1994-95 and the other survey appears to have been conducted in 1994.  Combined, the surveys examined clerical, accounting/payroll, human resources, purchasing/property control, safety/security, library services, contract administration, customer service, editing/writing, graphics, photography, information systems/data processing, social/statistical sciences, animal care, engineering, maintenance and other service jobs in the Research Triangle area.  Technical, administrative and professional jobs were surveyed regionally.  More than seventy-one organizations participated in these studies, including the Office of State Personnel and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

Not all SPA categories were included in the surveys so it was difficult to calculate an exact percentage difference without further information.  Furthermore, differences in compensation vary by occupational categories.

The Salary Task Force found reviewing this material to be complex, that some of the information appeared to be misleading and more appropriately should be completed by compensation experts.  Therefore, the Salary Task Force finds itself at a point that it is unable to pursue its charge any further.

Since the original charge of the Salary Task Force was for data collection and data research we, therefore, return to the Forum with this report and ask for conclusion of this Task Force.

If the Forum so wishes, the Salary Task Force can present its recommendations for consideration of an established commission to pursue this further.


The Chair praised what she said was an “excellent report” in terms of what the Task Force was asked to accomplish and the obstacles that it has faced in carrying out its initial charge.  She thought the Task Force report was on target according to its initial charge and that it was now time to decide if recommendations, detailed in the July 18 Executive Committee minutes were appropriate.  The Chair asked members to read those minutes and be prepared to discuss the Task Force report and likely recommendations.  Members agreed with the Chair’s proposal to distribute this final report in the October agenda packet and to initiate deliberations on whether the Task Force’s recommendations contained in the July 18 minutes were appropriate and would be received by the Forum.  This item is scheduled to appear on the October Forum agenda.


Lack of Evening Course Offerings

The Chair moved to the concern about the lack of evening classes forwarded to her from Sharon Bowers, Chair of the Career Development Committee.  Sharon asked that the Chair express this concern to Chancellor Hooker.  The Chair asked if this was a general concern of the Forum.  Dee Marley felt there is a perception among Employees that there is a limited number of such classes.  Peggy Barber asserted that it was more than a perception, that evening courses offered by the University have decreased from around 30 offered a few years ago to around 15-16 today.  (She said that the Evening College changed its name to Continuing Education about the time these cuts began).  These courses are funded by allocations to Continuing Studies from Arts & Sciences.  Peggy said that there are some shared courses that other departments pay for, but very few tickets are allocated for these courses.  Peggy said that having heard the Chancellor speak about the importance of undergraduate education, she was very interested in undergraduate and graduate education for citizens looking to better themselves.  However, in spite of the wide range of courses offered, very few are offered at night.  She felt it ironic that citizens support the University, yet cannot obtain an undergraduate degree here at night because none of the core curriculum courses occur in the evenings.

Dee Marley asked if the only courses available from the Evening College are the very basics from the General College.  The Chair felt that was the direction the College had taken recently.  Peggy Barber offered the example that the only language offered now in the Evening College is Spanish, whereas before French and Spanish were available.

Margaret Balcom wondered if the Forum should send a general letter of concern to the Chancellor, create a specific recommendation or explore the issue further.  She felt a letter expressing concern could meet with a minimal response.  The Chair asked if this concern was shared among all Employees.  Dee Marley asked what were the “several reasons” why evening classes had dwindled.  The Chair noted there were no specifics in the letter, but Sharon Bowers stated that there has been difficulty in getting faculty to teach night courses and that there has been difficulty finding supporting funds.

The Chair asked if the Forum wished to merely express its concern or to create a resolution recording the hardship this educational opportunity limitation places on Employees with recommendations for possible action.  Sharon Cheek thought the Forum should explore the issue further, as the information now available was only hearsay.  The Chair asked if the Forum wished to send the issue back to the Career Development Committee for more study, in an attempt to explain both the reasons for the diminishing number of courses and the effects of these cuts on Employees.  The Chair felt a more concrete presentation of these two aspects of the problem, marrying the reasons for these cuts and Employees’ need for the classes, will help the Forum make a better case for change.

Peggy Barber asserted that the decrease in funding is definitely an issue, along with faculty members’ unwillingness to teach at night.  Continuing Education has taken surveys over several years that indicate a need for Chemistry, Biology and Pre-Med classes, Peggy said.

Marshall Wade inquired if the Forum should ask new Chief of Staff Elson Floyd to work together with the Career Development Committee to find a solution to this dilemma.  Scott Blackwood made a motion that the Career Development Committee come back with a recommendation regarding the lack of core courses in the Evening College.  Laresia Farrington seconded the motion.  Ned Brooks offered a friendly amendment that the Committee explore why things have changed, the history of the issue and perceptions of these changes, leading to a recommendation or resolution.  Dee Marley further offered as a friendly amendment that Peggy Barber would be an excellent resource for the Committee in its research.  Scott Blackwood accepted both amendments and in the absence of further discussion, the question was called and the motion passed by acclamation.


Informal Survey on Salary Increases

            The Chair brought forth the idea that Forum members ask their compatriots on other campuses across the nation whether they have received salary increases, and if so, how much.  She asked that members send this information to the Forum Assistant for compilation.  Laurie Charest said that the University is a member of the College and University Personnel Association and thus has access to nationwide surveys gathering such information.  The Chair thanked Laurie for providing an immediate avenue for compiling this information.  The Chair and Laurie agreed this data would need analysis before presentation to the Forum.



The Chair announced that the September 26 and December 19 Executive Committee meetings will take place in the Forum Conference Room, Room 202 Carr Building.  The October and November meetings will take place as originally scheduled in the Health Affairs Conference Room, 214 South Building.

The first Chilly Climate for Minorities Discussion will be held on Sunday, September 10 at 6 p.m. on Polk Place.

Matt Banks noted that OIT now has the capability to provide space for personal Web pages for UNC students, faculty, Employees, departments and organizations.  Interested parties should contact the Office of Information Technologies.

Tom Hocking has been nominated for the president-elect position of the North Carolina Teachers’ Association.

Margaret Balcom noted that Angell Beza is an EPA non-faculty Employee, not a faculty member as described in recent minutes.

Peggy Cotton’s daughter recently graduated from law school and passed the North Carolina Bar, it was announced.  Dianne Crabill’s daughter-in-law also recently passed the Bar, adding another lawyer to the family.

The Chair produced a compilation of the Employee Fair Booth Survey Data (Attachment 1).  The Forum agreed to discuss the implications of this data in the context of the morale issue at the October meeting.

In the absence of further discussion, Dianne Crabill made a motion to adjourn.  Dee Marley seconded.  There was no discussion, and the motion was passed unanimously.  The meeting adjourned at 11:40 a.m.


Respectfully submitted

Matt Banks, Recording Secretary



Attachment 1





Employee Appreciation Fair Survey

May, 1995





Total Number of Responses = 221




Number of Responses by Division

Percentage of Total


































Do you know who your Division Delegates are?







Would you like to be a Delegate?







Areas of Greatest Concern



Current Salary

Pay Plan



Budget Cuts

Greatest Concern     1

77 (35%)

53 (24%)

 20 ( 9%)

46 (20%)

 32 (12%)


59 (26%)

77 (35%)

 18 ( 8%)

20 ( 9%)

 48 (22%)


30 (14%)

61 (28%)

  9 ( 4%)

  5 ( 2%)

113 (52%)


39 (18%)

24 (11%)

 11 ( 5%)

130 (59%)

 14 ( 7%)

Least Concern         5

16 ( 7%)

 6 ( 3%)

163 (74%)

20 ( 9%)

 14 ( 7%)

221 221  221 221  221




Comments are closed.