Agenda — July 7, 1999

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

I.          Call to Order

 

II.         Welcome Guests, Members of the Press

 

III.       Opening Remarks

• To Be Announced

 

IV.   Employee Presentations

 

V.        Special Presentations

• Janet Tice, on Diners’ Club Card Policy

 

VI.       Human Resources Update

• Laurie Charest, Associate Vice Chancellor for Human Resources

 

VII.      Approval of Minutes of the June 2, 1999 meeting P

 

VIII.     Unfinished Business

• Discussion:  Insurance Tradeoffs:  Higher Premiums or Reduced Service?
• Discussion:  University Budget Situation

 

IX.    New Business

• Chancellor’s Passing

 

X.        Chair’s Report (Executive Committee):  Jane Stine P

• Resolved:  Question on Evening Classes Funding and Forum Appointment
• Employee Appreciation Fair Drawing and Survey Results
• Guidelines Review Process
• Direct Deposit Questions
• Sliding Parking Fee Scale Discussion:  Executive Committee Meeting with Carolyn Elfland, Derek Poarch
• Executive Committee Retreat
• Pending Special Presentations on Empower Human Resources Information System, InDepth Accounting System
• Written and E-Mail Questions from Community Meeting

 

 

XI.       Stretch Time   6

 

XII.      Committee/Task Force Reports

• Career Development—Bobbie Lesane

Þ     Employee/Manager Responsibilities in Staff Training/Education (draft)

Þ     New Careers Training Board:  Connie Boyce/Ken Perry

• Communications—Joanna Smith
• Employee Presentations—Vicki Pineles

Þ     Get the Inside Scoop:  Spring Community Meeting June 23 10-11:30 a.m. Hanes Art Center Auditorium

• Nominating—Lynn Ray

Þ     Forum Elections

• Orientation—Linda Drake P
• Personnel Issues—Martha Barbour

Þ     SPA Exempt Survey

Þ     Child Involvement Leave Expansion?

• Recognition and Awards—Betty Averette
• University Committee Assignments—Denise Childress

Þ     Committee Appointments?

 

XIII.     Task Force/University Committee Reports

• Buildings & Grounds—Ruthie Lawson
• Master Plan Executive Steering Team—Jane Stine
• Outsourcing Team Representatives—Bennie Griffin/Ann Hamner
• Transportation & Parking Advisory —Betty Averette
• University Priorities & Budget—Jane Stine
• Provost Search Committee—Jane Stine
• Faculty Council Liaison—Jane Stine

 

XIV.    Announcements/Questions

 

XV.      Adjournment

MINUTES

 

Call to Order, Welcome to Guests, Opening Remarks

The Chair called the meeting to order at 9:34 a.m.  She introduced Vice Chancellor for Administration Jim Ramsey to make opening remarks.

 

Ramsey noted his impending departure from the University, and said that Jack Evans of the Business School had agreed to serve in an interim role as Vice Chancellor for Administration.  Ramsey thanked Evans for agreeing to help the University in this way.

Ramsey noted that the University had been through quite a lot in the last couple of months.  He asked members to join his thought for Carmen Hooker, her daughter, and their family following Chancellor Michael Hooker’s death.  There had been a reception at the Ackland Art Museum and an assembly at Memorial Hall to celebrate Hooker’s memory, and Ramsey thought it important to continue to share one’s thoughts, prayers, and words of encouragement and support with Carmen.  Ramsey thanked Public Safety and Chief Derek Poarch, among others, for their work on behalf of the campus community during this difficult time.

Ramsey commented that the press had talked about a leadership void at the University, but he did not believe this perception.  The University has continued to hold its cabinet meetings following Hooker’s return to work, and had designated Provost Dick Richardson as the “team captain” of the University, to make decisions and call the shots.  Hooker had created a cabinet which Ramsey had believed had worked well in concert with the Faculty Council, the Employee Forum, the deans, and the University Priorities and Budget Committee.  Ramsey thought that the University’s leadership was in place and would function to the best of its ability.

President Broad has met with campus trustees and others to talk about the role of the interim chancellor.  Ramsey thought that Broad would look inside and outside the institution to appoint someone in this role, as it searches for a permanent chancellor.  He assured the Forum that the University’s leadership, while it missed Michael Hooker, would carry on and do the best that it can.

Last week, the State approved its budget, surprisingly before the end of the current fiscal year.  Associate Vice Chancellor for Human Resources Laurie Charest will make a report on the structure of staff salary increases during her report.  Ramsey noted that the Governor’s main budgetary priorities have been the increase of K-12 teacher salaries to the national average and the increased funding of Smart Start programs.  As a result, higher education has not fared as well as the University had wanted given budget cuts at the State level in base budget and continuation levels.  Altogether, these cuts have reduced the University budget by $2.8 million.

However, other pieces of the State budget are very positive.  Program funding of nearly one million dollars has been absorbed by the State, perhaps freeing up these dollars for other purposes.  The University also will keep half of the overhead dollars that it traditionally returns to the State and to General Administration.  The University will also look at how it can use these dollars.

With regard to reversion of funds, the University fared relatively well.  Historically, the University has reverted 2% of its funds back to the State treasury.  Last year, the University was allowed to retain this money for libraries and technology initiatives.  This year, it seems the University will revert only 1% of its funds, totaling around $1.3 million, although there are still issues to work though.  The impact of this reversion on the campus is yet to be determined.

At the State level, the major piece of business to take place is the issue of capital funding for higher education, a result of the Eva Klein study, which discovered significant space and capital needs on System campuses.  A bill to authorize a bond issue to fund improvements on all 16 campuses over a five year period was introduced late in the session.  The Senate Finance Committee approved this bill overwhelmingly and the State Senate approved the bill 42-7.  The bill has since been named the Chancellor Hooker Capital Construction Financing Act.  The House is now studying the bill, and the University is busy trying to gather legislative support.  Ramsey noted that the Legislature hopes to finish its work by July 15, so consideration of the bond issue is among the last of the major items in place for this year.

Ramsey commented that Evelyn Hawthorne, the University’s legislative liaison who works in Matt Kupec’s operation, is a top of the line worker and individual.  He thought that it would be useful for the Forum to meet with Hawthorne to get an overview of the University’s relationship with the Legislature.

Concerning local budget cuts, Ramsey noted that the Forum’s community meeting had addressed this subject in some detail.  He continues to receive e-mails on the cuts that he would try to answer as best as he could.  In addition, administrators are available to meet with departments on a smaller group basis to discuss the cuts.  Ramsey said that the University is not much further in the process than was discussed at the community meeting.  Department heads and deans were due to provide numbers for cuts to South Building by June 30, but this plan slipped during the activity following Chancellor Hooker’s death.  For now, the Provost’s Office is going through the materials received from various departments to see which have and have not submitted their numbers.  The Provost’s Office will then follow up with schools that have not submitted their work.

In addition, administrators will review the budget process from a technical perspective, to ensure schools have calculated their figures correctly from appropriate accounts.  The University cabinet will discuss these figures Monday, July 12.  Ramsey offered to answer questions on the budget or any other issue either that morning or afterwards.

 

The Special Olympics finished over the weekend, and were a great celebration on the part of the State.  The Chapel Hill campus had been a vital team member in the Special Olympics effort.  Ramsey thanked Employees for their help and patience leading up to the last week.  Ramsey particularly acknowledged Willie Scroggs and Aaron Nelson for leading the planning effort, as well as Athletics, Program Planning, Dining Services, Public Safety and Housing among those departments that worked to make the event go smoothly.  He also thanked the many Employees who served as volunteers on behalf of the campus.  Sherry Graham seconded this statement, noting that the event had run very smoothly in terms of its impact on the rest of campus.  Ramsey noted that Derek Poarch and Public Safety had had a particular role in assuring that things went smoothly, although it is hard to single out any group for the wonderful job done.

 

Ramsey noted that this is the last time that he would meet formally with the Forum as a group.  He appreciated the friendship, guidance, and advice the Forum had provided, and enjoyed the opportunity to meet with the assembly and its leaders.  He thought of Chair Jane Stine and 1998 Chair Linwood Futrelle as mentors in some way, and had found the Executive Committee to be very helpful as an advisor on many issues.

Ramsey said that his decision had stemmed from a February dinner with Kentucky Governor Paul Patton in Durham.  Patton indicated that he would be the first governor in Kentucky history to have the opportunity to succeed himself, given a change in the Kentucky State Constitution.  Furthermore, no one had filed to run against Patton his in party primary, and he will have only one fringe candidate to run against in the general election.  Patton asked Ramsey in February to be part of his governance team, subsequently offering him the chance to write his own job description.  Ramsey found the chance to teach at the University of Louisville with tenure, in addition to serving Patton’s administration in a high level position too good to refuse.

Ramsey emphasized that his reason for leaving had nothing to do with UNC-Chapel Hill, its community or its people.  He had found the University to be a wonderful professional opportunity, and the decision to leave had been gut wrenching.  Finally, family issues make it important to be closer to his and his wife’s parents in Kentucky.  Ramsey said that he would miss UNC a great deal, and that it had been a great year for him that would enhance his wisdom and knowledge upon returning to Kentucky.

Ramsey offered to take questions from the group, noting that Derek Poarch was available to answer questions on the elimination of daytime Point-to-Point service for abled Employees.  He noted that Jack Evans has worked with the University Priorities and Budget Committee and has served as a dean and interim dean of the Business School.  Ramsey thought that Evans would do a phenomenal job in the interim role of Vice Chancellor for Administration.  Evans will go to New York next week to talk about capital financing programs for the University as well as other bond issues, regardless of the outcome of the legislature’s decision on bond legislation.  He said that the University would do around $100-150 million in bond financing, to fund a 1000 bed residence hall, and new biomedical, nursing, and Student Union Buildings.  Renovations to the University golf course will also cost another $1-2 million.  Evans will be active on these programs and will meet with the bond ratings personnel in the next week.

In response to a question on University reversion dollars, Ramsey said a great deal of this money will not return to campus, and probably should not be considered recurring dollars.  The University has a permanent requirement to revert 2% of its grant dollars, approximately $6 million.  He noted that the State House had wanted to divert half of this money, 1% of University grant dollars to other priorities.  The Senate has been more sympathetic to the University’s request that the reversion requirement be reduced.  In the final analysis, the Legislature has enacted a System-wide reversion of $1.3 million, of which perhaps 25% or $400,000 will come from UNC-Chapel Hill.  In sum, he did not know if the University should treat this as recurring money, given that there will always be attempts from parts of the General Assembly to use the money for other purposes.  The fact of the matter is that the University has been allocated a full $6 million for technology and building wiring, and the University has dodged a cut by being able to retain these dollars.

In response to a question concerning the UNC Health Care System (HCS) and whether the HCS will be part of the University’s budget in the future, Ramsey said that the two will remain separate.  He recalled that the separate health care system had been given flexibility in its capital, human resources, and budgetary areas.  It is a separate organization that reports to its own board of directors.  The Chancellor has the authority to appoint two directors, and President Broad has the authority to make several appointments.  The HCS also has the ability to create its own classification system, and will probably compete with the University to fill vacancies in the current tough labor market.  Charest might provide more of a Human Resources perspective on the HCS in her update.

Ramsey thanked the Forum for the opportunity to speak.  The Chair thanked Ramsey for his remarks and his service to the University.

 

Special Presentations

            The Chair welcomed Janet Tice, University Travel Manager, to speak on the Diners’ Club card issue and the University’s new integrated travel program.  She acknowledged the number of questions about the Diners’ Club card program, but thought that these would benefit from being put into an overall context.

Tice said that the goal of her office is to make travel easier and travel payment more cost-efficient.  She stressed that the Travel Office will not take options away from travelers until new options are completely in place.  She hopes to find ways for departments to save in their travel expenses and for Employees not to use their own money when travelling on University business.

Triangle-based travel agencies, the individual Diners’ Club card for traveling Employees, and the on-line travel reimbursement system are part of plans for the University’s integrated travel program.  Future enhancements, such as the on-line system, will be part of the InDepth Accounting System, of which Rebecca Mabe will oversee implementation.

In April, the University redid its authorized travel agencies proposal due to continuing changes in the travel industry.  The University sent 27 proposal out and received 18 responses.  A selection team made a recommendation to administrators on these proposals which it expects to announce shortly.  University travel agencies are expected to provide services with no additional fees, and when the service is in place the University will no longer reimburse travel agencies for these fees.  The University expects to save $250,000-300,000 as a result of this reform, money that stays in departmental budgets.  Travel agencies also provide data on University travel patterns, which assist the University in its negotiation of travel contracts.  This data will enable the University to save another $500,000. 

            Also, travel agencies will work with the University’s central airline billing system that is currently being implemented.  Training and further information on this system will be offered soon.

The second part of the integrated travel program concerns the Diners’ Club card.  The major goal of implementing the card system is to reduce time for reimbursements to Employees and departments.  At any time, the University has around $2 million outstanding in travel advances.  The travel advance program is very time-consuming and labor-intensive, which slows the time frame in which reimbursements are paid.

Tice noted the campus viewpoint that the issuance of Diners’ Club cards to all Employees over salary grade 68 seemed rather hasty; on the contrary, quality teams have studied this issue for the past 3-4 years before selecting the Diners’ Club card system.  The Diners’ Club card was specifically selected because it offered more benefits to travelers.  Tice noted speculation that the University may have entered another ‘Nike deal’ or a kickback scheme, but she said that the program was chosen because the University would receive good benefits and a means to streamline its travel process.

When the card program is fully operations, travel forms and paper processes will remain the same.  These processes give departments control over its Employees’ travels.  Travelers must still provide receipts according to State policy.  Travelers will still be able to register six months in advance for conferences to qualify for lower rates.  In essence, from the point of view of the traveler things will remain the same.  However, these charges will go on the card rather than being charged to a central petty cash fund, making reservations prepaid rather than advance (for travel form purposes).

Travelers receiving advances for airline tickets will have other options once the integrated system is operational.  Travelers will be able to get their tickets through on-line agencies that centrally bill the University, through their University Diners’ Club card, or by paying for tickets directly and receiving reimbursement.  Hotels and rental cars charged to the Diners’ Club card will be reimbursed, as will cash advances on per diems and accompanying ATM fees, under the “Other” section of travel forms.  Cash advances on the cards will be allowed one every three days, with a maximum of $250.  However, the travel advance system will remain for students, temporaries, and foreign students.  The Diners’ Club card system will reduce travel advances by as much as 65-95%.

Tice said the next goal of her office was to get as many cards to applicable people as possible.  A similar memo followed a May 3 memo on the subject from Jim Ramsey’s office from Howard Gorman and Dennis Press.  These memos were sent to Human Resources facilitators, deans, directors and department heads, and were reproduced in the ‘Travel Talk’ listserv and in University Gazette articles.  On May 17 the packages were sent out, containing a Diners’ Club card and an activating PIN number.  Difficulties in communication about the program led some not to receive their card and others to immediately throw the card away.  There was a period of confusion which the Travel Office tried to alleviate through campus information sessions and other means.

The Chair asked if it was a conscious choice to have an Employee-based, rather than a University-based card.  Tice said that the Travel Office is bound by State constraints in the issuance of University-based cards.  She noted that because the card is University-sponsored, it has no annual fees and is not reflected on the Employee’s credit record, except in extreme circumstances.  Late payments are not reported on an Employee’s credit history unless their account is seriously delinquent, in excess of 180 days.

However, the card is the personal responsibility of the holder.  If an Employee charges $250 on a trip but can only justify $175 in receipts, the Employee must pay the rest.  The State will not allow the University to reimburse on these cards without accompanying receipts. 

            The Chair asked if State policy contributed to the University’s choice of Diners’ Club over other cards, such as Visa.  Tice said that the University wished to encourage use as a business card, not for personal use.  Credit authorities have found that when business cards are used for personal reasons, then the Employee begins to get into trouble.  Diners’ Club and American Express have widely accepted use for hotels, cars, restaurants, and airline reservations, but are less commonly used at grocery stores and boutiques.  This difference is the main reason why the University chose not to use Visa or MasterCard.  Between American Express and Diners’ Club, the latter provided more benefits and allowed use of their money for cash advances, and damage insurance on car rentals.

Lynn Ray asked if the central air billing for airlines on travel authorization would be paid via check request.  Tice said that the goal is for departments to continue to use the travel authorization form, as all the necessary questions are located in one place.  Until the system is on-line, departments should use the regular number for advance payments on the form.  Ray asked how long it would be before the service is on-line.  Tice hoped that the system would be in place in 1-3 years.

An Employee asked if travelers can use on-line reservation services such as Travelocity once the University system is on-line.  Tice said that options are open to Employees, although she asked that travelers please use their Diners’ Club card for these reservations so that the University can use this information to negotiate better airline deals.  An Employee using their payment of choice will not be reimbursed until after their trip.

Tice said that the Diners’ Club card had been distributed to the 4,500 SPA Employees at salary grade 68 and above, but the card is also available to anyone who travels at least once a year.  An application form for the card is on the travel accounting home page, and applicants using this means will receive their card in 2-3 weeks.  Employees needing a card immediately should contact Tice or Phil Easler. 

            An Employee asked what Employees who tore up the application mistakenly should do.  Tice said that these Employees should call 1-800-2-DINERS until September 30.  They should tell the operator on duty that they have inadvertently destroyed the application and ask to receive another one.

The Chair noted that some Employees resent the perception that under the card system they will in effect have to advance the University money to travel.  This perception particularly irks those used to having advance funds for hotels and meals.  Tice said that Employees should have no need to advance traveler money to the University.  Ideally, the traveler will not advance any money at all, as the travel system will pay in advance for prepaid registration and central airline billings.  Diners’ Club accounts will allow 60 days for payment, with travelers receiving their bill in two weeks.  If a traveler cannot pay the full amount due by the due date due to a delay in University reimbursement, nothing happens.  If the traveler cannot pay the second bill, there is no penalty as long as the bill is paid before the third bill is sent.  Thus, an Employee could charge for travel in the middle of June and not pay until August or September.  This system will allow travel accounting to reduce cash advances and free up personnel to speed up the reimbursement process.  Employees with an account outstanding will have a personal interest in pointing out where problems are, so that the reimbursement time of 30 days is met.  Tice said that people should be pleased with this system once it is in place around six months.

Sherry Graham asked what would happen if the reimbursement does not arrive before the third bill.  Tice said that Employees should go to the trouble to track down their reimbursement before the third bill.  She reiterated that the University will not pay interest on delinquent accounts, and so Employees must go to the trouble to track down their reimbursement to avoid these penalties.  Graham asked if the University would track when Employees have to pay interest on their accounts.  Tice said that the University will receive reports when Employees have to pay interest on their accounts, and said that it is crucial that Employees not have to pay these charges through excessive delay.  The Travel Office and the Controllers’ Office will work together to make sure that these interest payments are not necessary.

Graham asked how people would be able to report that they have not received their reimbursements.  Tice suggested that Employees contact the Travel Office to register their complaint.  She noted that once the on-line system is in place, Employees would be able to see exactly at what stage their reimbursement is in the process.

The Chair thanked Tice for her remarks.

 

Human Resources Update

Associate Vice Chancellor for Human Resources Laurie Charest noted that SPA Employees will receive a 1% cost of living increase and a 2% career growth increase by the decision of the General Assembly.  Employees at the maximum of their salary range will receive a 2% one-time career growth bonus in lieu of a salary increase for career growth.  The University will implement these increases on a current basis, with the July 16 paycheck to include two days of the pay period including these raises.  Charest said that this year is the first in a long while in which Employees have received their increase on a current basis.

A non-recurring $125 bonus will be paid in the July 30 paycheck by statute.  This bonus is not subject to retirement reductions, which is different than past years.  It was noted that retirement reductions will be taken from the career growth bonus for Employees at the maximum of their salary range.

Charest said that EPA Employees would draw from a 3% pool of departmental money, with a $125 bonus average, distributed by rules established by General Administration.  The University has not yet received these rules but would communicate them to departments when available.

Charest noted that UNC Health Care System Employees will no longer receive legislative salary increases, but rather will receive increases according to a pay plan from the health care board.  HCS Employees will get paid on a completely different basis than University Employees.  Rules governing HCS Employees are still in transition.  Employees that are now University Employees in clinical areas will receive the HCS raise instead of the SPA raise.  Lynn Ray asked if departments with a combination of HCS and SPA have a list differentiating the two, and Charest said that these departments should already be aware of a list.

Dorothy Grant confirmed that pay raises will be combined with normal University paychecks.

Charest noted that the University would host its annual blood drive on July 22.  Employees interested in donating can contact their departmental recruiter or call 96-BLOOD.  One does not need to be a University Employee to donate blood, and the drive will accept walk-ins.  Efforts are being made to keep the process moving quickly and smoothly.  The drive is the second largest one-day event of its kind in the country, and meets a desperate need for units in the region.

Charest noted that Human Resources will stop updating the paper version of the Human Resources Manual, in order to save paper and administration time.  Employees maintaining manuals should print off transmittals from the web to keep their materials up to date.

Charest thanked the Employees who volunteered for the Special Olympics and said that Employees should contact their Human Resources facilitators to find out how to code their hours on timesheets.

Charest introduced the new director of benefits Joanne Pitts, who joined Human Resources in this capacity last month.  She thanked Anne Pittard who served as acting director.

Denise Childress noted the prescription drug card that had been approved for State Health plan Employees.  She asked if the State’s share of covering costs for the card would also be applied to costs for HMO members.  Charest said that the State should cover the full Employee-only share of increases for the State Health plan, but would not absorb the 30% increase for dependent coverage.  The University is awaiting word on the plans of HMOs to submit increases, but it is thought that most all HMOs will submit increases above those allowed by the State contract.  This situation will force the State either to force all current HMOs off the State roles, or to allow the increases along with additional bids from non-covering HMOs.  Employees should expect enrollment letters in late August.

Joanne Kucharski asked how Employees would know when the Human Resources manual has changed.  Ken Litowsky said that his department will notify Human Resources facilitators and will ask facilitators to notify other manual holders.  All emails on this subject will be archived on the Human Resources website.  Employees with an interest in the manual can access it on-line, via office or library computers.  Litowsky said that Human Resources officials would print out relevant sections of the manual upon request.  This change will eliminate an enormous cost involved in keeping the manuals up to date.  Litowsky urged manual holders to consult with the website to insure that their information is up to date.

Robert Thoma asked if the University had found a permanent source of funding for the HEELS for Health program.  Charest said that the program will continue, and might possibly find a permanent source of funding as a result of budget negotiations.

 

At this point, the Forum took a five minute stretch break.

 

Approval of the Minutes

The Chair called for a motion to approve the minutes.  Kathy Dutton made this motion, seconded by Michael Hawkins.

 

Unfinished Business

Nora Robbins noted that the University will receive a presentation from David Devries on the State Health Plan and HMOs at a University Community Forum, to be held Wednesday, July 21, from 2-3 p.m. 121 Hanes Art Center.  Devries will give an update on plan developments and issues involving the Legislature.  There will also be a Question and Answer session.  The meeting will be co-sponsored by Human Resources, the Faculty Council, and the Employee Forum.  Robbins hoped that this meeting would be well attended.

Concerning University budget cuts, the University has come to know bits and pieces about how the cuts will affect departments.  The Forum elected to defer further discussion until more information about the cuts was available.

 

New Business

The Chair said she had spoken with Carmen Hooker at her reception Wednesday afternoon.  She invited Forum members and Employees in general to keep Carmen and Alexandra in their thoughts and prayers.  She noted that the University still has strong leaders to continue in his place, including Jack Evans and Pete Andrews.  She noted that she held representation on the Vice Chancellor for Administration search committee, and could possibly obtain staff representation on the Chancellor Search Committee.

Linwood Futrelle asked if the University planned to slow down the Provost Search committee’s work until a new chancellor is found.  The Chair said that committee had adjourned its work for the summer, and would meet again to hear presentations in September.  She thanked Joanne Kucharski who came to represent the staff viewpoint at a Provost Search committee meeting that month.

The Chair noted that Vicki Pineles had been forced to resign from the Forum effective August 1.  The Forum will thus need to find a new Vice Chair.  Lynn Ray, the Forum Secretary, has chosen not to succeed to that post, so the Chair opened the floor for nominations for this position.  Jill Mayer nominated Kathy Dutton to be the Forum’s new Vice Chair.  There were no other nominations.  The Chair said that the election for this position would take place at the August 4 meeting, at which nominations from the floor will be entertained.

Chair’s Report

The Chair had appointed Libby Evans as the Forum representative to study the future of evening classes at the University.  It has been reported in the media that funding for these classes will continue.

Survey results from the Employee Appreciation Fair were not yet available.

The Executive Committee will study the Forum Guidelines for possible revisions at its July meeting.  The Chair noted that Division [4] needs a new representative to replace Ruthie Lawson, who was forced to resign from the Forum in June.

The Executive Committee held a lengthy discussion on the sliding scale issue for campus parking permits at its June meeting.  Carolyn Elfland and Derek Poarch indicated that the programming costs associated with implementing a sliding scale would preclude implementation.  Elfland said that this cost would only raise permit expenses for higher salary grade Employees without realizing savings for Employees at lower salary grades.  Other campuses around the country also advised not implementing a sliding scale due to tracking and matching problems, among other difficulties.  The full transcript of this discussion will be including in the June Executive Committee minutes.

The Executive Committee held a retreat to talk about its goals for the remaining six months.

The Executive Committee has tentatively scheduled special presentations from the InPower Human Resources Information System team and InDepth Accounting System team for later this year.

The Chair noted that there has been a meeting of the 27^th payroll prevention team.  This group harkened back to Governor Martin’s administration, which forced a payroll period to be moved back to balance the State budget.  The Chair hoped to get Dennis Press or Kate McGaughey to provide a better explanation.  She noted that budget flexibility and the cap on carryovers have inhibited plans to move back to an accrual system of accounting for salaries.  The Chair will try to get an outline of factors that led to the 27^th pay period for Employee reference.

 

Ken Litowsky asked leave to call for volunteers to serve on the WPPR appeals review board, specifically requesting men, minorities, and non-supervisory people.  Board rules call for more non-supervisory than supervisory personnel to serve on these panels, which slightly resemble jury pools.  Applicants should be fair and objective, with organizational and communication skills, who are able to reason and determine if regulations have been followed and reasonable conclusions met.  Applicants also should be able to put into writing the reasons for their application in letters to Litowsky’s office.  Accepted Employees will undergo training, and should consult with their supervisor before applying.

 

Committee and Task Force Reports

Bobbie Lesane, Chair of the Career Development Committee, thanked Ann Dodd, Mary Shaver, Norm Loewenthal, and Ron Strauss for their continued support of their group’s effort.  She noted that the committee would meet to design a flier related to campus recruiting for vacancies.

Ken Perry noted that the New Careers Training Board will see the Employee computer lab fully operational in the beginning of the fall semester.  The lab will be located in the Cheek-Clark-Tate building.

There was no report from the Communications Committee.

Kathy Dutton reported from the Employee Presentation Committee on the spring community meeting.  She felt that the meeting had been a success, and hoped to get responses to Employee questions in the next month or so.  She thought that the Hanes Art Center Auditorium had been a good location, and she thanked Jim Ramsey, Ned Brooks, Laurie Charest, Derek Poarch, Nora Robbins and Dennis Press for their appearance.  In addition, she thanked the members of her committee and the Forum for appearing to support the event.  The committee had received many evaluations following the meeting.  The Chair commented that the meeting had been among the best attended in a long while.

Lynn Ray, Chair of the Nominating Committee, reported the solicitation letter for the group would go out around July 15.  The committee will verify nomination letters as they come in through the beginning of August.

The Orientation Committee will meet August 23 at 10:30 a.m. in 202 Carr.  Linda Drake, Chair of the committee, directed members to the minutes in the packet for recent committee activities.

Martha Barbour, Chair of the Personnel Issues Committee, praised the tremendous participation of members of that group.  She noted that the group has created a subcommittee to deal with salary cap issues, led by Lucille Brooks and Terry Barker.  The subcommittee will approach SEANC to move this issue to the top of their lobbying agenda.

Barbour read a condensed analysis of the SPA work rate survey.  This analysis is available from the Forum office and will soon be published on the Forum web page.  Barbour thanked Kevin Moss and Peter Schledorn for their work on the analysis.

Denise Childress, Chair of the University Committee Assignments Committee, noted that the group is working on filling four committee appointments.  The committee is also developing an Employee information sheet and committee information sheet to provide data on commitments and expectations.

 

The Chair noted that the Outsourcing Steering team has been disbanded.

The Chair noted that the University Priorities and Budget Committee has recently fallen afoul of the open meetings law.  Since Susan Ehringhaus has been unable to certify all members as administrative employees, the committee is in the midst of replacing members and discussions have shifted to the University cabinet.

 

Members interested in contributing to the Chancellor’s Memorial Fund should consult the University web page at http://www.unc.edu.

The Forum wished Forum Assistant Matt Banks all the best with his wedding that month.

 

In the absence of any further discussion, the meeting adjourned at 11:20 a.m.

Respectfully submitted,

 

 

Matt Banks, Recording Secretary