Skip to main content

October 13, 2022 Vice Chancellors’ Representatives’ Meeting

Attending: Randall Borror, Sharron Bouquin, David Bragg, Linc Butler, Elizabeth Dubose, Shayla Evans-Hollingsworth, Stephanie Forman, Adrianne Gibilisco, Leah Hefner, Keith Hines, James Holman, Todd Hux, Joseph Jordan, Kira Jones, Nate Knuffman, Angenette McAdoo, Arlene Medder, Katie Musgrove, Sara Pettaway, Charlissa Rice, Lori Shamblin, James Stamey, Annetta Streater, Tracy Wetherby Williams, Tracey Wiley, Anna Wu

Katie Musgrove called the meeting to order at 10:01 a.m. She moved immediately to the first question on the agenda, regarding a memo sent to Facilities Services employees. The question stated:

The Forum recently learned of the memo sent out by Finance & Operations related to staff interactions with the media. While we understand the need for the university to relay press requests through the proper channel for university comment, the tone of this message seemed to strike a different, more chilling cord. Our fear is that the F&O memo could be misinterpreted (or misused). Our understanding to defer to Media Relations when approached to speak on behalf of the university might be different than speaking out about our roles at the university in general. The feedback provided was that the language in this memo could have been more explicit and softer in tone to avoid the perception from staff in marginalized positions that they can’t speak with media about their role in the university. Making the difference clear in the guidelines/memo would help both employees as well as management. For this memo and other similar departmental memos issued throughout campus, are there opportunities to work with University Communications, University Counsel, and others to ensure that the right balance is struck between communicating proper channels for press and encouragement of free speech and free expression amongst all in our community, including staff. All of this is especially important in the current environment on campus where those free expression/speech abilities are being questioned and examined carefully.

Todd Hux said that multiple people within Facilities have contacted him stating that they did receive the memo. He said that these employees were asked to sign the memo following a brief discussion. Those who refused to sign the paper were either brought into their supervisor’s office or the supervisor notified them that they would need to sign the paper. Employees who refused to sign the paper would be subject to disciplinary action for this refusal, without further explanation, Hux said.

Nate Knuffman offered to respond to this question. He sought to clarify the intention of the memo, saying that it was intended to address speaking on behalf of the University and to ensure coordination on these topics with University Communications. Knuffman said that in these instances the university and the F&O office does not prohibit the employee from speaking as an individual, for themselves. He added that the guidance in the memo is consistent with guidance or operating procedures in many units across campus.

Regarding Musgrove’s question as to whether the Administration has a willingness to work with Communications, University Counsel, or others on this subject, Knuffman said that this is possible for now or in the future. He said it was important to get the balance right about how the communication is received and distributed.

Knuffman also appreciated Hux’ comments about how this item was communicated within Facilities. He said that there is a standard practice in how policy changes are rolled out at the University. He asked Anna Wu to speak further about this subject. Wu said that in Housekeeping and other Operations units, including Building Services, obtaining signatures from those briefed about a policy is a common practice when training is rolled out. Wu cited safety trainings, ECA trainings, and communications from the Vice Chancellor as examples of this practice. Employees are asked to sign a training log to note who is present, who is not present, and who does not sign the training log. She said that this is one of the ways to obtain acknowledgment that an employee has received a message in this large organization.

Wu could not speak to the allegation that people were brought in and berated because they did not sign the memo. She said that it was noted that some people in Building Services chose not to sign the memo. How this was done will require a bit of investigation, Wu said. She was happy to look into this question. Musgrove said that the communication seemed a bit heavy-handed. She thought that the practice of having people sign a statement that they received such communication was not commonplace throughout the University. She worried that people who refused to sign could be subjection to retribution.

Wu recalled that the Employee Forum has often complained that a group of Facilities employees had not received or heard information from the university. For this reason and others, Facilities likes to have its employees acknowledge that this information was transmitted to them and that they did indeed receive it. This practice generates an acknowledgement from each manager that the relevant information was transmitted all the way down this large organization. She asked what other practice could serve this purpose in an organization with as many tiers as Facilities Services.

Musgrove asked if the intent of this message was strictly informational or whether other motivations were in place given reports that managers have collected reports on those who have refused to sign.

Keith Hines understood Wu’s point of view regarding training verification. He thought that the problem lies instead with the actual wording of the letter. He cautioned that employees may not be qualified to assimilate complicated written material. He imagined that others would be hesitant to sign something required by the University if they do not understand its intent.

Wu thought that Hines had made a very fair point that the communication of a message is only as effective as the messenger’s understanding of intent. A manager who does not understand a message’s intent will have trouble communicating it well. She said that campus administrators must work to do a better job of ensuring that information communicated is also understood by directors, zone managers, and crew leaders.

Todd Hux said that over the past 3-4 years, the only thing that Facilities Services employees used to sign was upon attending training. He said that now every memo sent out seems to require a signature, with a refusal to sign being held over an employee’s head. James Holman thought that the memo seemed to come out following the Daily Tar Heel article on pay levels in Housekeeping. He noted perceptions that the memo had been directed against housekeepers to dissuade them from speaking out.

Knuffman sought to address the timing issue that Holman mentioned. He said that the memo had been drafted and distributed before the article’s comments were made about pay and housekeeping. He could not speak about the exact communications on when managers had spoken with their individual employees, but he said that the administration could dig into this question further. He reiterated that the intent was to help ensure consistency when employees speak on behalf of the University.

Elizabeth Dubose thanked all for their points. She noted that power imbalances between management and front-line employees may be exacerbated by inequitable and inconsistent communication about this policy. She said that people creating these communications should keep these concepts in mind. She urged that policy writers acknowledge the significant power imbalances between managers and employees in some units. She hoped that these memos would be written a bit more carefully.

Annetta Streater asked if there would be any corrections to the memo, or if there would be a follow-up memo sent to all staff. She asked about the closure point on this issue. Nate Knuffman observed that the meeting had generated good feedback on the memo’s language and its interpretation. He noted that improvements concerning the memo’s rollout could occur. He appreciated the group’s feedback on this question.

Knuffman also noted that when senior leadership hears feedback regarding a specific instance from the Forum as opposed to normal channels, this feedback puts leadership in a position in which it is difficult to address or return to the question. He said it would be helpful to have a little better understanding of the issue concentrated or focused in areas and going through those channels as well.

Katie Musgrove asked that the group move on to other questions on the agenda. She said that the group would not address all fifteen submitted questions in the hour scheduled for the meeting.

Musgrove asked Arlene Medder to read the group’s next question:

I recently had an emergency call to facilities to deal with a water pipe break. I entered an additional facilities ticket to deal with the damage to the carpet and the wall. It had been a day and a half since the damage started and the gentlemen who came to inspect the damage said an earlier ticket to them would have been a good idea, to stave off some of the issues from water sitting in the area for so many hours.

Would Facilities be able to investigate the idea of secondary tickets auto-generating in cases where an emergency ticket is likely to result in damage; i.e. water damage. In my case, the water interfered with my computer access, delaying the usual ticket process.

Medder asked if another emergency ticket should be started to deal with the consequences of the emergency. Anna Wu said that typically when a water pipe bursts Facilities assesses both immediate flood and subsequent water damage. She understood that Facilities had developed a pretty good protocol to deal with the after-effects of a burst pipe. Usually Environment, Health, and Safety (EHS) are brought into the picture soon afterward. Wu asked Medder to share the work order and location of the problem so that she could follow up. Medder did so, noting that Lenoir Hall is not a State-supported campus building. Wu was not certain that this point was included in the Facilities Services protocol. She ventured that perhaps Facilities management needs to follow up on evaluating the best emergency protocol.

Medder then raised a point regarding university-associated childcare:

With the rising issues regarding childcare, has Administration given any thought to revisiting the idea to provide childcare for students, staff, & faculty on or near campus? Considering the University research and resources regarding child development, it seems a rich source for practical experience for students in those fields.

Linc Butler addressed this question, noting that Bright Horizons, the university’s childcare center, provides services to UNC Health and the university. There are some other childcare resources available through referral services, such as the Heels Helping Heels list. These options can provide short-term coverage solutions. He was unaware of any conversations regarding expanding long-term childcare options. Butler recalled last year’s administrative transition within the childcare center, but he was unaware of any conversations about expanding services. He offered to bring this subject forward given hybrid and remote work have become more prominent, which in turn may free up possible campus locations for centers.

Katie Musgrove said that undergraduate and graduate students need childcare during their time on campus. Butler said that the Childcare Services Association resources are available for those students, as is the Heels Helping Heels list. He noted that the childcare center is designated specifically for employees.

Keith Hines read the next two questions regarding Housekeeping pay, retention, and recruitment:

What is UNC-Chapel Hill doing to raise salaries in the housekeeping department for the staff that will not create wage compression? We cannot compete with the hospital. Our understanding is they are starting staff at $20 per hr. When Holden Thorp was chancellor, he raised starting salaries to $25,000 annually. Can this be repeated by raising starting salaries to $20 an hour (approximately $41,600 annually)? This great university can always find funding for upper management and senior administrators. For some reason change comes slow when it comes to correcting issues in Facilities services especially in the housekeeping department. When we bring housekeeping issues it seems like they are not important enough for immediate action. We can’t recruit and retain qualified applicants because of low wages. The staff that I represent believe it is time to find out if this university actually appreciates the work from our facilities workers. It’s time for change. Do you have a plan? Housekeepers will continue speak out that as that is their constitutional right. I would like to say thank you for the effort put forward this past year to address wage compression. However, this compensation falls short because of inflation. (Holman)

In what manner is the University or UNC System attracting or retaining housekeeping employees? So many are leaving and seeking employment elsewhere, for example UNC Hospital starting pay is $20 per hour + 240 hours vacation walking in the door, and Duke is $19-20 per hour. (Williams)

Linc Butler addressed the structural issue raised by these questions. He recalled that the Governor mandated a couple of years ago that the minimum hourly rate for State employees be raised to $15/hour. This action in effect chopped in half the salary band associated with building services technicians and others in that class.

Butler said that housekeepers are currently classified as a contributing level position. Under the current career banding rules, salary may not exceed the market rate of the next higher competency level, as $30,120 is actually now the new journey level market rate. Butler said that the University has pressed this point with the UNC System Office, and the office has pushed forward with the Office of State Human Resources (OSHR) to try to adjust the career banding ranges. As of now, no mechanism exists to provide a market increase for these positions in the Housekeeping department.

Butler recalled that when the Governor raised minimum State salaries, this move created significant compression issues that were unfortunately caught up in the pause on human resources actions related to the pandemic. Butler recalled that some work was done to try to address this question. He asked everyone present to continue to work with the Staff Assembly regarding the career banding range adjustments to provide room for campuses to do something about this problem. He said that career banding ranges represent a structural issue that preventing campuses from raising salaries.

Anna Wu added that recent raises, 6.5% over the last two fiscal years, still do nothing to adjust salary bands. Butler said that recently introduced bonus programs on the SHRA side might lead to sign-on and retention bonuses that do not currently exist. Butler said that while salary bands have been adjusted traditionally by legislative mandate, these adjustments have not occurred the last couple of years.

Wu offered to drill down more deeply about what Facilities Services is doing in terms of sign-on and retention bonuses for positions with a significant number of vacancies. The building environmental services technical class, which is composed of housekeeping and grounds divisions, is one of the identified positions Facilities will target with sign-on and retention bonuses. Wu cited Knuffman’s support for this initiative but noted that the idea must receive approval from the Office of State Human Resources. Once the proposals are finalized, Facilities will have the justifications for the targeted positions and will seek approval for the actions, expediting as possible.

Wu said that building environmental services, tech facilities, maintenance technicians, electronics technicians, engineers, and architects form a partial list of position classifications for which Facilities will seek approval for sign-on and retention bonuses. Facilities, in conjunction with Human Resources, will need to communicate with staff regarding individual qualification for these bonuses.

James Holman observed that not everyone in his department will receive these bonuses, which he said would be unfair to everyone else and detrimental to morale. Holman noted that housekeeping staff already do double the work that they would normally do, such as testing water for COVID contamination and shoveling snow during the winter. He understood why these staff employees are upset, particularly given other institutions are paying more money in salary.

Holman recalled a conversation he had with System President Peter Hans on this subject asking him to push these issues forward. Butler said that OHR is in constant contact with the System Office. He said there is no disagreement from his office at all on this point.

James Stamey confirmed that the Office of State Human Resources has the authority to make career banding rate adjustments. He then asked the next question:

When will revisions to the current employee banding scheme be implemented and what will that look like? (Hawley)

Butler said that he did not have any new information on this front. He recalled that the System Office has already been engaged with OSHR regarding what these potential changes might look like in the UNC System. Butler said that points of conversation include 1) the pay rates that agencies currently are using and their appropriateness for a University environment, and 2) some job classifications specific to the University environment do not exist in other State agencies, meaning that obtaining appropriate classifications might take more time to create. He offered to keep the group updated as he learned more. Butler noted that Adam Beck, the University’s senior director for classification and compensation, oversees this work in the SHRA area and is part of a working group with System Office and other UNC campus representatives.

Keith Hines raised the next question:

An issue was posed from an anonymous employee regarding the upcoming Auditing, Business, and Finance Professionals conversion to EHRA-NF. They state: “EHRA jobs have a minimum education requirement of a Baccalaureate degree. I have an Associate degree and took continuing education courses to learn accounting. The attached FAQ about the conversion states, “During the one-time conversion option, for currently filled positions, an employee without a Baccalaureate degree may be grandfathered into the converted position, since they otherwise qualified for the position as SHRA.” (question #18). What this means for me is that I must go back to school and get a bachelor’s if I want to ever have another accounting or finance job at UNC other than the one I am in now. This a drawback for me to continue my career within the UNC system. I’m certain there are others in a similar situation, and I would hope this would be taken into consideration.”

Linc Butler said that the question described this situation accurately, and this situation has been expressed as a concern to the System Office and other UNC campuses. OHR at UNC hopes to see an equivalent combination of education, experience, language, and minimum requirements be used to substitute for a B.A. degree in these fields. So far, these efforts have not yet been successful. Butler said that the University has a number of employees who are in the exact same position of holding an associate degree or a great deal of experience without an associate degree.

Keith Hines then read the next question:

Is the University working on improving data systems and data accessibility for staff members? Our current systems seem to make data very difficult to access even for those who have the clearance or permission to see the data. The process of pulling data tends to be tedious and manual. Is this something the University is working to improve? (Stallard)

Linc Butler asked the particular kind of data the questioner was interested in accessing. Financial data differs from OHR personnel data. On the Human Resources side, Butler said that area has done a lot of work to make more reports available, with more options to pull data available to HR representatives. He added that historically there have been challenges on the financial reporting side which he could not authoritatively address. He asked for clarification on the particular type of data requested.

Lori Shamblin posed the next question:

UNC Chapel Hill was recently included in a Dallas News and Pulitzer Center’s AI Accountability Network investigative piece about Social Sentinel. Link: 

 How is the university addressing this violation of privacy and free speech? Will they continue their relationship with Social Sentinel, and if so, how can the university insure that employees are not being surveilled? How does this surveillance work in relation to the Chancellor’s recent statements about free speech and first amendment policies?

Butler said that he was not familiar with this particular software and how it was used. He imagined that the group could get someone who worked with this project to come speak, or possibly someone from Communications. Katie Musgrove recalled that Chief of Police Brian James spoke to this question at last week’s Faculty Council meeting regarding the contract ending in October.

Shamblin added that she had emailed the author of the Dallas news article and received a bounce-back from her UNC address saying that it was blocked by this organization. She was able to contact the author through her personal address but was very concerned about this block of her work email.  Tracy Wetherby Williams commented that one could contact the ITS group that manages email for Shamblin’s area for clarification.

Leah Hefner read several questions from the Personnel Issues Committee:

Regarding the EHRA sign-on and retention guidelines, a News & Observer article stated: “The system wanted to rely less on permanent, recurring base salary adjustments and use more flexible pay incentives that are based on real-time performance and can use non-recurring funding sources.” Do you have the sense that, if this statement is true, it is mostly to address short-term problems with recruitment and retention? Or, do you think the System/State would like to move in a direction to permanently do away with permanent [bi]annual [cost-of-living] raises in favor of less regular merit-based salary increases? 

Read more at:

Butler said that he had not heard any talk to this effect. He thought such a move would be incredibly detrimental. He said that the more tools the University has to meet these challenges, the better. He was heartened that the University finally will be able to provide sign-on and retention bonuses after other organizations and companies have introduced the practice. He advocated maintaining the ability to provide salary adjustments in conjunction with leveraging bonus programs in which it makes sense to do so.

The next two questions read:

For SHRA employee sign-on and retention bonuses, is there a definition of or criteria for what the “SHRA Sign-On and Retention Bonuses Policy” refers to as “hard-to-fill occupations,” “SHRA positions carrying out mission-critical services and initiatives,” and “hard-to-fill positions”? The current language in the policy does not define those terms or describe who gets to decide which positions/employees qualify. 

For SHRA employee sign-on and retention bonuses, does bonus money have to come from the unit? Or is there a central campus fund?  The current language in the “SHRA Sign-On and Retention Bonuses Policy” is unclear.

Butler said that the University works with hiring units on across-the-board classifications or on specific positions that might have a specialized skill set for which it is difficult to recruit. On occasion, OHR has had a couple of failed searches in which only one application was filed for a position. Some jobs have always been difficult to recruit for, for example nurses or dental technical assistants. Specifications for these positions are usually determined locally here at UNC-Chapel Hill OHR with a particular unit that may be having some difficulty in recruiting.

Hefner asked if technical research positions would now fall into this category. Butler said that would be the case, particularly now as these positions are very difficult to retain and recruit. Hefner confirmed with Butler that money for these bonuses must come from the unit and not from a central campus fund. Hefner noted questions about the equity of requiring bonuses to come from units rather than a central allocation fund.

The next question posed stated:

An article published in The Well on September 26 highlighted the University’s Employee Assistance Program (EAP) as a “free confidential counseling and resource service designed for employees and their families.” Yet as we have discussed here and in other venues, EAP is overwhelmed and not able to provide the level of support needed to everyone who reaches out. It does no good to direct more University employees to a service that cannot meet their needs. 

    • What is the University doing to provide additional resources for those employees and their families who are not getting the level of quality service needed from the EAP’s third-party vendor, ComPsych? 
    • I understand that UNC-Wilmington, in coordination with the UNC System, will soon partner with a new, “on demand” platform for emotional and mental health called Ginger. Are there also plans for the entire UNC System, or at least UNC-Chapel Hill specifically, to also offer Ginger to supplement the UNC-Chapel Hill’s existing EAP services? (Teal)

Butler asked for more information regarding this question. He noted that there has yet to be data reinforcing the reports that Teal cites regarding EAP’s problems meeting demand. Butler said that EAP’s utilization rate is around 23% of current employee population, down a bit from last year’s 26% figure. He proposed getting more details and perhaps setting up a meeting with EAP providers and Senior Work/Life Manager Jessica Pyjas to work on challenges. He said that UNC-Chapel Hill has no plans to implement replacement system Ginger at this time. He noted concerns that Ginger’s offerings were not as robust as those offered by EAP. This arrangement could change, however.

Elizabeth Dubose asked the metrics for finding utilization of EAP, either through phone calls or referrals. She had heard from people who have not received useful referrals for issues. Butler directed Dubose to a research website that provides a robust quarterly report on utilization metrics addressing many of her concerns.

Katie Musgrove asked that the additional questions on the agenda be emailed to members of the group for a written response following the meeting, given time had run out. Otherwise, if emailed responses aren’t available, the questions will be posed at the next Vice Chancellor’s meeting in December.

The meeting was adjourned by acclamation at 11 a.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Matt Banks, Recording Secretary


Emailed Questions & Responses:

  1. For SHRA employee sign-on and retention bonuses, is there a definition of or criteria for what the “SHRA Sign-On and Retention Bonuses Policy” refers to as “hard-to-fill occupations,” “SHRA positions carrying out mission-critical services and initiatives,” and “hard-to-fill positions”? The current language in the policy does not define those terms or describe who gets to decide which positions/employees qualify. (Teal)


Follow-up questions: You indicated during the meeting that HR would talk to each unit to identify which positions are considered “hard-to-fill” or “mission-critical.” While this might work for the short term, what is the longer-term process for identifying these types of positions? Is it data driven? Are you consulting with peer institutions? Are you factoring in what is happening in the private sector? How are you ensuring equity across units?

Linc: There are some job classifications that are always considered difficult to fill based on the labor market data and trends, turnover rates, and our day-to-day experience working with campus units on their recruitment and hiring efforts. A few examples of these include but are not limited to certain healthcare positions (e.g., nurses, dental assistants, dental hygienists, physician assistants, etc.) and some IT positions. Other job types may fall into this category based on not only local, but state and national job data, which not only includes looking at public and private peer institutions, but also evaluating trends in the local job markets as well. There are also occasions, as I mentioned in the meeting, when campus units will engage with us on certain job classifications where they are experiencing recruitment difficulties, which usually triggers a deeper analysis into the market for that type of job. Our recruiting system, PeopleAdmin, also allows us to access metrics that can help us determine when a given position or title has fewer applicants than normal or requires multiple re-postings due to failed recruitments, and we can easily determine when we have a high vacancy rate in a title with data from ConnectCarolina, which also helps us to determine if a position is “hard to fill.” These efforts cut across the university, since hard to fill positions are campus-unit agnostic. Also, while the argument could be made that all jobs are mission critical, those that create risk to patient health and wellness or safety and security of the campus community if not filled are typically the ones that fall into this category for this purpose (as an example).


  1. For SHRA employee sign-on and retention bonuses, does bonus money have to come from the unit? Or is there a central campus fund?  The current language in the “SHRA Sign-On and Retention Bonuses Policy” is unclear. (Teal)


Follow-up questions: You responded during the meeting that funding would have to come from the unit. This raises equity concerns. What about job classifications that can be found across units—for example, HR or IT Specialists? How would you ensure that these positions are being compensated equitably/fairly across units, regardless of each unit’s ability to fund competitive salaries and/or bonuses?


Linc: Campus budgets have been historically managed in a decentralized environment, and it would be no different in this case. As with any effort, campus units can work with their local finance leads on necessary funding for any sign-on or retention bonuses they may need to implement. As for maintaining equity across campus, we review equity on both the local campus unit and campus-wide level to ensure equity across job classifications that show up in various units on campus. Funding plays a big role in terms of what individual units may be able to pay for certain job classes, so partnership between local HR and finance teams is critical for budgetary planning in support of recruitment and retention efforts. Through the annual budget planning process, campus units also can request additional resources based on their business needs. This isn’t to say they will receive 100% of what they request, but there is a mechanism for advocating for additional resources.


  1. Employee Forum Resolution 22-02 called on the Chancellor to address concerns about low morale, low pay, staff turnover, and fears of retaliation among the University’s Housekeeping staff. The resolution asked that significant portions of this work be completed by August 2022.


Can you please provide specific steps University leadership has taken to address these concerns and any updated data you have regarding Housekeeping staff morale, pay, and turnover since the Employee Forum passed Resolution 22-02 back in April? (Teal)


Follow-up question: While the issues of improving pay and morale were addressed by your responses to questions #3 and #4 during the meeting, these are the other issues raised in the resolution that housekeeping staff feel haven’t been addressed:

  • Facilitate separate small-group meetings with front-line Housekeeping staff and Zone Managers with a mutually agreed upon facilitator in a safe, welcoming, and non-intimidating environment.
  • Commit to monthly meetings with Housekeeping Zone Managers and front-line employees beginning in August of 2022 to ensure the Housekeeping staffing problem is improving.
  • Hold senior Housekeeping, Facilities, Finance and Operations, and Human Resources leadership accountable for the implementation and outcome of this plan.
  1. A recent Daily Tar Heel article highlighted the University’s ongoing $988 million maintenance backlog. According to the article, “UNC Media Relations said addressing the backlog of deferred maintenance remains a priority for the University, but cited supply chain issues and staff vacancies as factors impacting repairs.” What is the University’s plan to improve its supply chain management and address staff vacancies related to the maintenance backlog?


Given the limited available funds, supplies, and staffing, will the University prioritize repairs that improve accessibility and move the University back into compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act? (Teal)


  1. The Knight Foundation recently surveyed the top 50 wealthiest higher education institutions in America. The goal of the survey was to measure the diversity of the asset management firms responsible for managing those institutions’ endowments. (For the purposes of the study, “diversity” was defined as “asset management firms owned by women and racial or ethnic minorities.”) UNC-Chapel Hill was surveyed but, according to the Knight Foundation and press reporting, did not respond to the survey. (To be clear: some institutions responded to the survey by declining to participate. UNC-Chapel Hill was one of nine institutions that never responded.) According to the UNC Investment Fund, LLC’s website, one of the Fund’s three “Investment Principles” is to “partner with best-in-class investment managers.” The website goes on to say that “The Fund invests its assets with third-party investment managers. We are steadfast in our pursuit of exceptional investment managers with our research process taking us across the globe as we seek to partner with managers that possess highly specialized skills, an ability to think independently, and have a demonstrated track record of adding value.”


Why did UNC-Chapel Hill not respond to the survey? Using the Knight Foundation’s definition of “diversity,” how diverse are UNC-Chapel Hill’s/UNC Investment Fund, LLC’s asset management firms? (Teal)


  1. Although we’ve covered this in a recent Employee Forum session, can we unpack the decision to eliminate health coverage for retirees who were hired after 2020? This seems like a) a truly inconsiderate decision that doesn’t value our employees’ health and well-being at all, and b) diametrically opposed to our plan to recruit talented employees. Can we delve into how this decision is made for the UNC System and what it would take to change it? (Gibilisco)


Linc: This decision was made by the state legislature for all state employees and went against the advocacy of the UNC System and I believe SEANC as well. The only way for it to change would be for the general assembly to take legislative action to reinstate the benefit and fund it. To my knowledge, this was purely a cost cutting measure on the part to the legislature, as they felt continuing the benefit was cost-prohibitive and unsustainable.


Comments are closed.