202 Carr Building, Forum/Faculty Council Conference Room

Vice Chair Kathy Dutton called the meeting to order at 10:34 a.m. In the absence of a presenter to make opening remarks, Dutton asked if there were any changes to the March Executive Committee minutes. Tom Jenswold noted that he was present at the March meeting. The committee approved the minutes with this one change.

Dutton noted that the Forum had been asked to present an annual report to General Administration on its activities through the end of the academic year. As part of this report, the Forum was asked to make recommendations for action on issues that General Administration might beneficially address. Dutton thought that this request represented a positive step for staff organizations within the University system.

Chair Joanne Kucharski was unable to attend the day’s meeting due to a University budget hearing. However, she had asked that the Executive Committee forward its thoughts on what issues the Forum should recommend to General Administration. The Forum will also ask Delagates at the May meeting for their recommendations.

Dutton noted that these issues should be topics that transcend local campus concerns. Karen Geer said that the first concern should be staff salaries and benefits, particularly full funding of the comprehensive pay plan. Rickey Robinson noted a rumor that longevity pay for Employees would be cut this year. Geer replied that these kinds of rumors tend to emerge every three years or so when the State faces a budget crisis. She did not think that cutting longevity pay would go over well with State Employees already facing staffing and salary difficulties.

Suzan Deserres offered that the Forum could emphasize the cost of living in various areas of the State and how this factor affects staff salaries. Karen Geer noted that departments supported by State funding are typically unable to provide employment upgrades or substantial in-range salary adjustments. She advocated that the University create a centralized pool for salary upgrades. Geer noted that many departments are reluctant to pursue upgrades due to lack of funds. All campus departments for upgrades and in-range adjustments could use a centralized pool.

Matt Banks noted that the State takes 30% of funding for a position from the University when an Employee retires. Jill Mayer said that this subtraction moves some positions to below the standard hiring rate, and in turn adversely affects recruitment and retention.

Tom Jenswold advocated subsidies for childcare for lower income Employees. The committee generally agreed that the University could use a new classification system for its Employees to reflect changes in staff duties related to the rise of office and internet technology over the last ten years. Karen Jordan noted that the UNC Health Care System is no longer subject to State personnel policies. This change provides a hiring and salary flexibility for the HCS that did not exist before, but is thought to reduce protections for those employees.

Banks suggested that the Forum consult a list of the Human Resources Advisory Board agenda to see if there were items on which the Forum would also seek. Dutton said that she would mail out this list to the Executive Committee listserv. A member expressed a desire that the University move towards more decentralization of power away from the Office of State Personnel.

The Executive Committee also advocated action supporting staff career development, resolution of SPA exempt wage-hour difficulties, and raising or eliminating the cap on staff salaries.

Chris Barfield recalled discussion of the WPPR process on the Forum listserv. She noted that Human Resources had moved to redefine the standard of Employee performance as "Good" rather than "Very Good" or "Outstanding," reserving the latter terms for Employees who consistently achieve beyond the work plan. Barfield said that it would be nice to have a concrete incentive for Employees performing beyond the "Good" level to improve staff morale.

Suzan Deserres noted that the performance review process should have the Employee and supervisor sit down together to decide what they both want to accomplish in the coming year. The supervisor should write down tasks that the Employee could probably achieve to be successful. Deserres said that more of a joint effort between supervisors and Employees would be better. In her area, a "middle-person" meets with Employees to perform the evaluation instead of Employees’ direct supervisor and there is no face to face review.

Deserres said that reviews should concentrate on work accomplished over the last twelve months, not just the last thing to occur in the office. She had heard of many Employees who do not know what they are supposed to accomplish or have a feeling of participation in the creation of their work plan. Barfield agreed that some supervisors tend to speak in terms of Employee expectations, rather than Employee goals. She had heard of one work plan in which the Employee was supposed to "come to work regularly and on time." It was summed up that the improvement of faculty and staff relations was one area in which General Administration could make an impact.

Karen Geer said that recruitment and retention issues generally affect campus Employees. In urban areas of the State, University campuses are competing with blue-chip technical firms which can offer much higher salaries and benefits.

Dutton suggested that General Administration could now assist creation of a UNC System Staff Council given the President’s order that all campuses should commission staff organizations by the end of 1998? She thought that the Forum might try to host a daylong meeting with other staff councils toward this end.

Matt Banks suggested that the annual report include items brought up at the Forum Personnel Issues committee meeting that month.

Dutton said that the Forum would consider this item at its May meeting.

Dutton said that the Executive Committee had tentatively found a representative from Division 4.

Karen Geer reported that the Forum budget has plenty of money to absorb projected costs of newsletter distribution and office materials. There is also enough money available for the Forum to purchase needed computer hardware and reference materials, if necessary. Finally, in the trust fund budget, there is enough money that the Forum can cover purchase of the Forum pins, which were tentatively approved at the April meeting. Dutton asked that the Forum Office provide Executive Committee members a copy of the Forum budget for their reference.

Matt Banks presented a draft proposal for purchase of the Forum pins from Adsinfinitum of Raleigh. He noted that the Forum would receive a price break if it purchased 1,000 pins instead of 500. Karen Geer noted that the Forum would need to pay a setup fee for the pins anyway so the overall cost per pin would be lowered. Banks also said that purchasing 1,000 units would allow the Forum Office to present pins to past members and future Delagates without worries over running out for the foreseeable future. The Executive Committee agreed to authorize purchase of 1,000 units.

The Executive Committee agreed that the pins should have a colored background rather than black and white. The committee also preferred a shield design with the Forum logo in the middle and UNC-Chapel Hill written across the bottom. Committee members preferred a light blue background, with either a dark blue or gold inscription.

The committee agreed to postpone ordering "Officer" bars for the pins until the first order was completed. The committee thought that a round bar circling under the shield inscription would be best but was undecided whether the word "Officer" was appropriate.

Dutton said that the Employee Presentations committee had made progress on scheduling the spring community meeting. The meeting is scheduled for April 27 at 10 a.m. in the Wilson Library Pleasents Family Assembly Room. Ayres Saint Gross will be the presenters at the meeting and will review the University master plan process. The committee chose the Wilson Library location because it best met the audio-visual needs of the Ayres Saint Gross team.

LuAnn Green, Adam Gross and Chris Rice will be the main presenters for the program. The Employee Presentations committee has created a handout for Employee reference and will have an evaluation form available for attendees. In addition, Carolyn Elfland, Gordon Rutherford, Bruce Runberg and Laurie Charest are expected to attend.

Jill Mayer noted that the committee had asked its presenters to cut their presentation to 40-45 minutes in order to allow for Employee questions. Matt Banks had worked with AIS to produce a hot memo on the event and would publicize the event also via the Forum’s various listservs. Employees desiring more information can investigate the plan drawings in the design studio of the Morehead Planetarium or at the Giles Horney building.

Dutton noted that the Forum Office had produced a resolution honoring Provost Richard Richardson upon his retirement from the University. She asked if Delagates had any suggestions for changes to the resolution. The Executive Committee agreed to present the resolution to the Forum its May meeting. Dutton asked that members keep this item secret in order to save the surprise for Richardson.

Matt Banks was still working on the Personnel Issues Committee minutes from April 10. The Communications Committee will use these minutes to form a Question and Answer session with Laurie Charest in an upcoming InTouch Policy Response.

Dutton noted that a SEANC representative had raised the question of recalibrated WPPR standards on the Forum listserv. An Employee had contacted the Forum Office with questions about the recalibration and rumors that departments planned to limit the number of "Outstandings" and "Very Goods" given to their Employees.

Suzan Deserres said that rating an Employee only "Good" for work previously considered "Very Good" or "Outstanding" would have a detrimental effect on morale, particularly given that many Employees are covering for work of other vacant positions. Karen Geer agreed that the movement to recalibrate ratings would receive a lot of grief from staff. She noted that of the 600 vacant campus positions, 94 of these are facilities services positions.

Chris Barfield said that Human Resources Administration director Ken Litowsky was planning to do a presentation on the WPPR process to Student Health, along with Dean Bresciani of Student Affairs. Karen Geer thought that it would be wise to make sure that the Forum is well aware of the dimensions of the issue before responding to Employee concerns. She suggested that the Forum invite Litowsky to make a presentation on the performance review process to address Employee issues. Since performance reviews are due by the end of May, the committee agreed that Litowsky should be invited to speak at the May meeting if possible.

Dutton advised that Delagates inform themselves about the performance review process in order to answer Employee questions. She asked Banks to forward the web address of the University’s performance review standards to Executive Committee members.

In addition to the possible Litowsky presentation and the request of concerns for General Administration, Carolyn Elfland is also scheduled to speak in May on prospects for a fare-free transit system.

Dutton complimented Suzan Deserres and the Communications Committee for their work on InTouch, the Forum newsletter. Deserres said that Delagates or Employees with ideas for stories should contact her or the Forum Office. She said that the Forum might produce an article on the performance review standards, since that seems to be a hot topic.

Campus budget hearings are continuing.

Jill Mayer said that the pedestrian safety committee met April 12 at the University design studios to look at the University master plan and develop strategic principles around the plan. The committee is scheduled to report to the chancellor on its work in June, but Mayer thought that the committee’s mission would continue into a standing committee.

Mayer said that Public Safety Chief Derek Poarch had produced a very nice article on the committee’s work for the Forum University Gazette insert. The article includes a history of happenings to date and plans for the future. Karen Geer asked if the committee planned to address pedestrian education. Mayer said that the committee had given this concern a great deal of thought.

Tom Jenswold noted that facilities services personnel were irritated about a presentation from Bill Burston that implied that campus drivers have no rights when pedestrians enter the street, even illegally. Geer said that North Carolina State law protects pedestrians who cross in a cross walk, even if they do so against the lights. Jenswold noted that many students use "imagined" crosswalks and walk in front of cars with impunity. Mayer said that the Transportation and Parking Advisory committee has proposed a $50 fine for jaywalking to go with a $200 fine for not stopping in a crosswalk. However, Public Safety does not have enough officers to enforce these strictures full time. The department reports giving a lot of tickets to pedestrians and motorists since fines were increased.

Mayer proposed that the Forum invite Poarch and Burston to make a special presentation on pedestrian safety proposals and how these affect staff Employees. She distributed a diagram that showed where pedestrian and bicycle crashes tend to occur on campus. She noted that a technical subcommittee had dealt with State and local laws governing rules on pedestrian safety. Deserres noted that different campus roads are controlled by different government entities, making the process of setting rules even more difficult. Mayer said that the committee’s recommendations may be very expensive, but that different agencies had agreed to fund substantial portions of the bill. She praised the dentistry faculty for their passionate work on this problem.

Dutton noted that the University had selected its Chancellor-Elect, James Moeser, from the University of Nebraska at Lincoln. The search for the Provost and the Vice Chancellor for Administration and Finance will now kick into gear. Former Forum Chair Jane Stine will serve on the former committee, and Chair Joanne Kucharski will serve on the latter.

Dutton thought that the distribution of the Highlights page had synchronized well with the publication of InTouch.

The Forum is still waiting for data requested concerning staff retention requested by the Faculty Council Executive Committee. The Forum is also waiting for minutes from a meeting between Claire Miller, Pete Andrews and Joanne Kucharski on faculty supervisory training.

In the absence of any further discussion, the meeting adjourned at 12:04 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Matt Banks, Recording Secretary