February 3, 2005 Provost/Vice Chancellor meeting

Provost Robert Shelton and Associate Vice Chancellor Laurie Charest welcomed Forum delegates Keith Fogleman, Bradley Bone, Tom Arnel, Tommy Griffin, Ernie Patterson, John Adams, Bob Lesser and Patty Prentice to the monthly administrative meeting. 

Shelton said that the Board of Governors has indicated that it wants to hold the line on tuition, even though members have conceded that the University has built an iron-clad case for tuition increases.  He said that the University has a big political hill to climb to build the case for an increase in funds this session. 

Shelton recalled the controversy over funding of athletic teams at Carolina and said that the University had made an honest statement in increasing its athletic fee to fund athletics.  Ernie Patterson asked how much Title IX had added to the cost of running the Athletics Department.

Charest said that she had not had an opportunity to compile responses from the last Provost/Vice Chancellor meeting.  She would have more information in March. 

John Adams asked about the progress towards developing Carolina North, particularly resolving the airport issue.  Shelton recalled that the Legislature had passed language that the Town of Chapel Hill will not close its airport until it can find a suitable alternative available to accommodate MedAir, AHEC and other private interests.  Until the University can satisfy this legislative language, things are at a standstill.  Shelton said that the key player in this question is House Majority Leader Joe Hackney, a legislator who works hard to balance the needs of the University and the Town.

The University has tried to look at alternative sites such as RDU.  Shelton said that many personal and corporate interests want the airport kept open.  Until it is closed, development at Carolina North will not begin. 

Ernie Patterson asked if the University might build another airport.  He suggested an area near White Cross that might be a suitable site.  The area had been landlocked and would require an eminent domain action to obtain land for the airport.  Bob Lesser said that someone owns a private airstrip near there.  Attendees suggested other locations in Chatham and Alamance counties that might be suitable.  Shelton said that he would ask about these locations, particularly the White Cross site. 

Keith Fogleman asked if Carolina North would take in enough revenue to cover the costs of lost hangar rental fees and construction of the new airport.  Shelton said that the finances are complicated.  He said that the federal government usually pays around 80% of airport construction costs, but not up front and not guaranteed.  The University would need to address safety issues such as the approach angle and location of the runway.  Griffin said that the University can only use 25% of the land at Carolina North anyway.

Shelton said that the University had committed to keep the vast part of Carolina North green.  If the airport remains, development is strictly limited due to the space requirements of the runway.  Some who did not want the airport in the first place now do not want the buildings constructed there.  Shelton said that discussions now are focused on legislative language about closing the airport. 

Bob Lesser asked about career banding in his ITS department.  He said that an Employee applying for a job with exactly the same banding and competency level had gotten a job with a $20,000 raise.  He had been told he had not chance to get an increase to stay in his current position.  He questioned why Employees who stay in their positions have little chance of obtaining raises but those who shuffle around the University often have a better chance.  Laurie Charest said that she did not know the specifics of this case.  She did know that career banding offers wider ranges of compensation based on available skill levels.  Lesser said that the skill levels for the positions were exactly the same.  Charest said that she would be happy to look into this question.  Lesser asked if departments are indeed allowed to give raises to bring Employees up to the market rate.  Charest said that departments do indeed have that authority but still must find the funds for such raises on their own.  Lesser thought that the precedent of a $20,000 salary increase was somewhat bad. 

Charest said that the magnitude of the raise was surprising but granted that some departments have the resources available and the new banding system does provide a broader range of authority to set salaries.  In the old system, departments would grant increases based on market value through in-range adjustments.  In both cases, departments are setting value on Employee skills, experience and training. 

Lesser said that many Employees in ITS receive below the market rate.  For this one Employee, a job opened up and the person received a huge raise to rise to the market rate.  He asked if money is available for this person perhaps it could be available to others.  Charest said that a branch role competency is composed of a very broad set of skills and abilities.  She said that every time someone receives a promotion on campus, others say that person receives more money to do something easier.  She said that just because someone has moved to another job does not mean that they retain the same branch role competency, as the two jobs are not necessarily identical. 

Shelton noted that all salary increases for faculty above 15% must receive approval from the Board of Governors.  Charest said that the Board of Governors has no say over SPA salary policy.  She noted that any in-range salary adjustment has a maximum limited increase of 10%.  If an Employee is qualified for a higher level position, there is no limit on the salary for which they could qualify.  Now, in the broad-band categories, departments have no authority to make increases above the market rate.  Charest hoped that this limitation would end soon.  However, the University has not yet officially received a delegation letter on these questions but has received informal delegated authority.  All approvals for salary increases come from the Office of State Personnel.

Shelton presumed that the constraining factor in providing market level salaries as determined by the Office of State Personnel is finding money for the increases.  Charest said that IT positions are less below market rates than other campus positions. 

Shelton concluded that Employees who are not in banded positions cannot receive more than a 10% pay increase a year.  Lesser said that Employees who are reclassified can receive more than 10% if they assume different duties. 

Lesser asked about the way his department had implemented rebanding specifically how it related to administrative competency. 

Patty Prentice raised a concern about construction on the road between the parking deck and the hospital.  She said that large cement barricades make it anxious for drivers making a left hand turn in the face of drivers flying down the road between the Lineberger center and the parking deck.  Charest said that she or Griffin could phone Derek Poarch to make specific suggestions.  Charest said that the University had commissioned a pedestrian safety committee.  Prentice thought that drivers were going much faster than they should.  Bradley Bone suggested installing crosswalks, temporary stop signs and other instruments to improve crossing safety. 

Shelton said that Columbia Street seemed to move very quickly in front of the Health Sciences Library.  It was suggested that the University move to put parking spaces in the two outside lanes to reduce car speed, perhaps buttressed by small fences to keep pedestrians from crossing the street between cars.  Griffin said that the Town had take responsibility to tow cars parked in those lanes such as service vehicles.  Shelton suggested a one-lane drop off/pick up lane as a way to reduce congestion. 

Members expounded on the tendency for students to ignore crosswalks and disobey other rules governing pedestrians. 

Keith Fogleman noted that family health insurance coverage has hurt many Employees.  He thanked Griffin and the Forum for passing a resolution on the subject yesterday.  He noted that a mechanic had been hired at a higher salary than another who has been with the University eight years and has twenty-five years experience.  He did not understand how someone with five years experience can make more than someone else with 15-20 years experience. 

Charest said that should not be the case but said that education and experience from outside the University counts the same as that obtained inside.  She said that the State has strict rules on equity related to education and experience.  Fogleman said that some of these mechanics must have begun work in kindergarten to have as much experience as they claim.  He said these salary disparities are bad for morale and lead to poorer service and customer relations.  Charest offered to look into these equity issues. 

Shelton asked if all Maintenance Mechanics IIIs have the same supervisor.  Charest said that 3-4 supervisors manage this group, with Facilities Services doing all the hiring.  Shelton recalled similar situations facing departments hiring new faculty.  Lesser asked about the possibility of an equity review.  Charest reminded listeners that total experience counts in equity matters, not just that acquired at UNC-Chapel Hill.  Fogleman said that some of these younger mechanics could not have the outside experience they claim.  Adams presumed that Human Resources checks references and immediately fires those caught cheating. 

Bradley Bone noted the immense amount of pedestrian traffic on South Road and the increasing number of cars blowing through crosswalks there.  He did not see a way to reduce pedestrian traffic barring an overpass or a pedestrian bridge.  He also noted problems between Thurston Bowles and the Dental School, at which pedestrians must cross four lanes of traffic with cars inevitably sneaking through the outside lanes.  He proposed that the University install triangular road signs like the easel signs at Weaver Street.  Bone had experienced a close call with a car in a crosswalk while a public safety officer merely looked at him. 

Bone also noted that the University's long-term insurance plan through MedAmercia had shifted subscribers to Prudential but did not give credit for past insurance.  Charest said that people tend to subscribe to long-term health insurance plans in their 50s.  MedAmerica had bid and won a five-year contract to provide this type of insurance, but at the end of five years had not rebid the contract.  Prudential won the rebid.  Charest believed there should have been a transfer of funds but that was not negotiated through the process.  Instead, subscribers received only the same subscription rate as when they enrolled earlier.  This negotiation did not take place through the State plan but looks bad nonetheless. 

Charest said that this situation reflects much of what is now happening in the long-term care industry.  Anyplace one can buy long-term care will likely face the same situation.  Employees complain most of all that when MedAmerica contacted them about buying in that they did not adequately inform them that they only had a five year contract.  Employees would have had to enter care within the five year program or they would have forfeited all of their contributions. 

Charest said that Employees do obtain a lower rate through Prudential, but the difference is not large.  She cautioned Employees about these plans, but said that if they are offered through the State the University has no alternative but to offer the plans. 

Charest recalled the discussion in the Daily Tar Heel about long-term care.  She said that the issue has acquired the attention of our legislative delegation.  There is a possibility that companies offering long-term care might be exempt from the five year rebid process. 

A listener asked if the Forum might obtain information from the State system perhaps from the State Health plan oversight board. 

Tom Arnel reported complaints about the limited number of parking spaces in the N4 lot opposed to the large amount of permits allocated.  He said that the charge to park at N4 is for a gated lot but the lot now is not really gated due to construction.  Bob Lesser said that the S7 lot had also had permits rise to gated levels in spite of lacking a gate. 

Arnel said that Public Safety has offered to reimburse and/or relocate N4 patrons to the N5 lot, but some Employees work late and face security concerns.  Charest noted that Public Safety sells all of their lots at 110% but sold the N4 lot at only 50% given the oncoming construction.  Charest noted that these Employees will receive a reimbursement for the difference between the gated and open lot prices.  Prentice suggested that N5 patrons call Public Safety for an escort if they have safety concerns about walking after dark, as officers are very responsive.  Griffin suggested phoning early to obtain the most up to date service. 

Arnel asked if the University could provide a remedy or other token of good will such as a half-year of free parking or a gift certificate.  He said that people leave their jobs over issues like this.  Shelton said that the University is trying to complete a 40-50 year master plan in 7-8 years.  As a result, it has not made arrangements for transit infrastructure that it would have otherwise.  He thought the University needed some modifications to its master plan. 

Charest recalled that the master plan process had seen a lack of input regarding parking opportunities for faculty and staff.  Shelton said that the Town has sought to limit parking on campus due to traffic and pollution concerns.  He said that the University has tried to find different park and ride solutions such as putting a lot in Chatham County. 

Ernie Patterson commented that the UNC One Card office should allow Employees to retake their pictures after a certain time. 

Respectfully submitted,

Matt Banks, Recording Secretary