Skip to main content

Transcript | April 11, 2022

[Linc Butler, Associate Vice Chancellor for Human Resources]

00:00 | Interesting. So, Becci, it’s all yours.

[Becci Menghini, Vice Chancellor for Human Resources and Equal Opportunity and Compliance]

00:05 | Thanks, Linc.

Hello, everybody. Happy Monday. I have just a couple of quick updates before I jump into that presentation.

One, we have received the Future of Work proposals from many of you.

We’re waiting on a few more. We are approving those on a weekly basis and then distributing them back to get back to you so that you get adequate time to give people notice so that they can go into effect by the June 30 date that we put in place.

So, just a reminder for those of you we’re waiting on just to make sure you can keep those moving.

Some of you had tracked that last week, there were a couple of items before the Board of Governors that could provide some added flexibility to us.

In particular, there were two changes to personnel rules that had gone before the board previously and then were on the content agenda last month.

Those, or last week, those are related to delegating authority to the Board of Trustees for a number of actions that currently require the System Office or the Board of Governors approval.

We’re hopeful that this, this change will speed up some processes that have taken a little bit longer, and they will also give us a little bit more autonomy in making some decisions specific to Chapel Hill.

The other piece is that for certain promotional opportunities and a handful of other things, previous salary will no longer be a factor for EHRA non-faculty roles.

This many of you have, have understood to be the, quote, 20% Rule. That’s not really what it’s called, but that’s the way it’s been sort of interpreted.

That is, as part of these changes going away automatically for the EHRA folks, there are apparently a handful of extra changes coming on the SHRA side as well, but those were not voted on by the Board of Governors.

Those have to be approved by the Office of State Human Resources. Those were approved.

All of these things were approved last week at the Board of Governors meeting, but we are not, we don’t yet have guidance. So at this stage in the game, everything stands as is, but we expect guidance here in the coming weeks that will allow us to make those changes moving forward. This feels like a really big win on lots of fronts. That’s just a quick note.

Some of you saw the email already today. The Engagement Survey, which you’ll recall, is the system-wide Engagement Survey. This year, it’s a much shorter survey. A pulse survey of sorts with some additional questions about COVID-19 is out in the field.

They did extend the deadline on that to April 18.

If, the last I heard, response rate was just under 25%, we’d like to see that get a little bit higher. So if you can encourage your teams to take the Engagement Survey. I did it. I don’t even think it took 10 minutes of my time. So if you can encourage people to set aside the 10 minutes or maybe even make it an activity in one of your team meetings, that would be great.

And then the last piece is my presentation, which I’m going to do my best to share with you now.

Oops, I need somebody to give me permission to share the screen, to share.


00:03:27 | OK, you should be good now, Becci.


00:03:29 | All right. Oh yes, here we go. All right, can everybody see that? Is that a thumbs-up, yes, OK.

All right, great, so “Great Resignation.” We use that term a lot, or we hear that term a lot in the national news and the chair of the trustees asked me, “Is that really happening here?” And that’s looking at the data over the course of the last five years and certainly hearing the story as many of you are telling us, I think the answer is yes.

We know that between 2017 and 2020, volunteer, voluntary turnover rate at UNC-Chapel Hill really hovered roughly around 7% up and down about a 0.5% over those years.

In 2021, however, we saw the voluntary turnover rate go up across all employee types to 10.29%.

So that’s about a 50% increase. That increase showed up in a couple of ways, and it’s important to understand this because as we start to dissect the issue and understand how to address it, it’s important to know sort of where it comes from.

So in 2021, we were already down in total employee headcount, and that was in part because of the budget adjustments we’ve had, we had to make, and making that total 7.5% cut.

And then the temporary suspension that we put in place by, that was put in place by the UNC system. So our total staffing numbers were down about 160 people over the previous year.

And then on top of that, there were 1,341 voluntary employee departures in 2021. And that’s off of a total employee base of 13,031. That 1,341 number was up almost 500 over the previous year. So we really did see a pretty significant jump.

I’m going to go into the data a little bit more, but it’s really important to realize that this is mostly a staff story. We saw some small jobs in the faculty side, but the story really is with our staff and more specifically; it’s about our SHRA employees.

So when we break down the number, the overall, as I said, the overall voluntary turnover rate and again, voluntary turnover means people who are leaving the institution voluntarily; these are not transfers within units and these are not retirements.

We see that we were at 10.29% among our EHRA Non-Faculty; we were at 11.76 last year, up from an average of about 8.5. And then we were at 13.24%, up from an average of 8.61 among our SHRA employees.

Like I said, you do see a small jump with faculty, but the number is quite a bit smaller.

We start digging into these numbers a little bit more and look at them by gender. We see that women left the University in larger numbers than men. Overall, the percentage of women who left the University in 2021 voluntarily was 12 point, or 12.12% or 916 women, compared to 7.76 men, or percent of men, or 425 men.

And you can see how those numbers break out. It’s important to note that women have always left the University in larger numbers than the men.

But what’s interesting is that the divide between women and men grew over that last year. We can speculate about the reasons for that, but certainly, we antici…, or we, we believe that the pandemic and the caregiving responsibilities were a really big part of that. At least that’s what the data shows nationally, and we would expect our numbers to follow that.

When we start looking at the numbers by race and ethnicity, again, the overall number is 10.29% and then we break down by ethnicity and race. We see that, in particular, our Black and African-American colleagues and our Hispanic and Latino colleagues left in numbers greater than the overall average.

And looking into that a little bit more, we know that we had 64 Black or African-American or non-faculty employees leave the University in 2021, compared with 27 the year before and 34 in 2019.

The faculty number, interestingly enough, was the same last year as it was in 2017, but up quite a bit from 2020, and the SHRA employee numbers were up substantially.

We saw very similar trends among our Hispanic and Latino colleagues. Again, the EHRA Non-Faculty employees leaving the University in numbers more than two times the previous average of the group.

Oops. Got a little thrown off here. Sorry, I had to figure out where my… Here we go. So, in that earlier graph, there were a couple of other categories, “Two or More” and “Unknown.”

I just want to remind everybody, you all should know this better than most, but this was a presentation that I gave to the Board of Governors, or Board of Trustees, rather.

Race and ethnicity data is categorized using the nomenclature that were provided by the federal government, and it’s— they’re the codes we’re obligated to use, and all of this data is self-reported. So when folks mark “Two or More,” they— that means an employee has selected two or more race or ethnicity categories in the self-selection tool. And when we see the numbers for “Unknown,” we see, we know that the employee has not made a selection in the self-selection tool.

It’s important to note that both of those groups had percentages higher than the average, but the total number, particularly among the “Unknown,” was quite a bit, was pretty small, among our total population. If we do a pivot and look at the race, ethnicity and gender, we see that the gender dynamics remain the same, that women are leaving in larger numbers across all race and ethnicity types, with the one exception being “Two or More” where the number of men who identify as two or more and who left in ’21—2021—exceed the number of women who identify with two or more races or ethnicities and who left the University in 2021.

So this, I think, is interesting to note, that we had almost twice the number of Black or African-American women leave the University last year than who left in 2020. We saw bumps among our Asian population and again among our Hispanic and Latino population. Importantly, we also saw a lot more white women leave, so the gender piece is really significant in this. And it also overlays really importantly with race and ethnicity.

We also saw 59 Black or African-American men leave the University in 2021, and 56 Asian men leave the University in 2021, and that number is also up from previous years.

I said at the beginning that those numbers are really based on voluntary turnover and did not include retirements, but we wouldn’t really be able to talk about what our overall impact is without acknowledging retirements, and they have had an impact.

In fact, there were 337 retirements across all employee types in 2021, and that number was up almost 50 or a little bit more than 50 over the previous year.

We also have seen the retirements are a bigger story among faculty, and though, of course, they still have a pretty significant impact among our SHRA employees.

Perhaps interestingly, perhaps not, knowing what you are seeing, what you’ve seen about the Resignation, a lot of the new retirees in 2021 are women. So several people have said, “Well, is this a problem across the whole institution?”

And the short answer is sort of, but we also know that there are areas where we’re seeing really specific impacts, and you’ll note on this list that we see all of the public health-related schools. And most of that actually has to do with clinical research.

We’re really struggling as an institution in the area of clinical research in being able to maintain our staff and retain them moving forward, and that is showing itself in a number of schools and units.

We’ve also had pretty major attrition in Student Affairs and some of the Student Affairs titles, and that’s largely, we understand in part, not fully, but in part because of the sort of forward-facing role they played early in the pandemic and a sense of burnout and lack of significant promotional opportunity.

And then we’ve seen some hits in some other areas. We have, you’ll note, housekeepers and Facilities Services personnel are on here. Several folks in the Employee Forum and others have highlighted that as an area and it is an area of concern, but certainly not the only one nor the largest one. But we are trying to track where we’re seeing numbers adjust and increase in and where we’re seeing some level of stasis, for lack of a better term.

We don’t have exit survey data on everybody who’s left; in fact, we have a small percentage of exit survey data, but the folks at Employee & Management Relations are doing a good job of collecting data from those who are willing to participate.

And we know some of the reasons that people are choosing to leave and some of the factors that are impacting their departure. Some of those are listed here, certainly given your role in both facilitating these exit interviews and the roles you’re in, just in the seat you sit in, none of these will be a surprise to you as they as they no doubt were not to us.

So this is the, you know, I think we’ve all been hearing for a long time, anecdotally, that we, we are feeling the hit just like every other industry and certainly every other institution of higher education in our state and in the country about, from the Great Resignation.

But we only really had anecdotal data up until this point. So this really allows us to see, OK, so now who’s leaving and what do we know about that? And probably more importantly, what are we going to do about it?

I want to be clear we’re always going to have voluntary turnover, and we’re not going to solve this problem at Carolina alone. This is a problem that everybody is facing, and we have to figure out where, what tools we have and how we fit into the larger picture. But there are some things that we can do and we are doing and we should be doing.

And there are some areas where we’re going to ask for your help. So, the first is we’re implementing the next round of the Future of Work program.

And you all know that several people participated in the pilot program that we set up the design team to really look at how we might do this. The goals were to ensure that we could maintain our mission of providing a world-class on-campus experience for our students and to provide an exceptional employee experience that would allow us to recruit and retain the top talent needed to maintain that mission.

Sometimes those feel like they’re in competition, but we know there’s a way to do both. And we’re optimistic that the Future of Work program is going to help us. It’s not going to solve for everything, but we hope it will provide some of the flexibility that some folks are looking for moving forward.

We also, as I just announced, are anticipating some changes to the personnel rules, which will make it easier for us to hire and promote people from within. We’re hoping that it will speed up our processes a little bit and that we will have a little bit more authority and autonomy to move some things forward.

And we’ll also continue to do some specific intervention, so we’ve done some things by trying to address compression in Housekeeping and Facilities. We’ve done some things in Clinical Research with some of the COVID provisions that were provided by the state specifically for that area.

We’ve gotten teams of people out to work with UNC Police and with the Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center to think about things they could do specifically in those spaces, either in hiring or in thinking about how they’re onboarding or in sort of figuring out what staffing they need most urgently.

You’ll note, though, that none of these interventions are set up specifically based on the gender or the racial definitions that I outlined at the beginning and the way the data was broken up.

And part of that is because we want to be really careful that we’re not creating solutions that are either race- or gender-based and would end up violating our non-discrimination tactics, but also because we believe that we have a responsibility to think about the data in a really nuanced way. What, who do we need to partner with to have the most impact? What are the reasons people are leaving? What are the interventions specifically?

In the Clinical Research area, we don’t have enough people on staff to run clinical trials. That’s a different challenge than it is if we are short-staffed in a different space that they could do a rotating schedule. So how is it that we think about creative ways to address those individual pieces?

Likewise, if we know that we’re seeing more women leave and we know that one of the challenges is caregiving, what are some things that we can think about that address that more broadly, but not make it a focus specifically on gender, knowing that there are plenty of men who are doing caregiving as well. So these are areas where we’re starting to make sense of things.

Again, this is a topic that is not unique to Chapel Hill. This came up at the Board of Governors meeting last week. There was a big conversation about turnover rate and what things that are opportunities and limitations. Matt Brody [senior vice president of human resources for the UNC System] did a good job of saying that, you know, we’re going to have to pay attention to what some of our policies and procedures do to limit or enhance our opportunities moving forward.

Specifically, some of the things about where people who work remotely can live, which you all know the requirement is they have to live in the state of North Carolina within a commutable distance right now.

We talked a little bit about the sort of second phase of this problem, which is, OK, we’ve got people who are gone and now we’re starting to recruit for vacant positions, but we’re not seeing the depth of the pool, we’re not seeing the quality of the candidates for positions. We used to see 60 can…, applicants for, we’re seeing three. What does that mean for us moving forward? Can we remain competitive? There are conversations happening with the System Office.

I’m part of a task force with the Office of State Human Resources. There are conversations happening at the General Assembly level to say, “Are there other tools we can put in our toolbox that will help us navigate this moving forward?” At this stage I don’t have any answers or solutions on what those might be, but I want you to know that there are some efforts underway on that front.

And certainly, if you have ideas, I encourage you to share them with us as we move forward. And with that, I will stop my share and answer any questions and we’ll go from there.


00:18:54 | Becci, one quick question I got in the chat was whether or not this presentation can be provided, and so just wanted your thoughts on that?


00:19:04 | Yeah, I think so. I, I just need to circle up with my, to make sure that it’s gotten a full distribution from the Board of Trustees. But maybe we can just post it and put it behind the firewall where you all can download it but not do a broad distribution.


00:19:20 | Sounds good.


00:19:22 | Yeah.

[Speaker 1]

00:19:26 | Becci, have a question, if you can hear me.


00:19:26 | Sure thing!

[Speaker 1]

00:19:28 | Great. I feel that some of the people that we’ve lost to the School of Education are going, are leaving because of higher salaries. Are we looking at doing anything with the career banding rates, things like that? Because they’re pretty old now.


00:19:42 | Yes. So it’s a totally fair question. And we’re, I admit that we’re a little bit stuck in that space.
Many of you know that we are going to be moving out of the existing career banding structure into the state’s SHRA model moving forward. That move is still 18 to 24 months out. But there are some limitations in how much the state OSHR is willing to let us adjust the bands before we move.

That said, we’ve had a lot of discussions, both with the System Office and with OSHR about what tools we might have at our disposal between now and then, recognizing that the bands are a challenge for us. And then also recognizing that we and State and a handful of others are perhaps in a different position than some of our colleagues elsewhere in the state, given the market we’re in locally. So there are conversations about it.

I’m not optimistic that things are going to move super-fast, but we are having, I mean, we’re trying to think as broadly as we can. There’s some chatter right now about doing sign-on bos— bonuses and retention bonuses, which would not be a base salary adjustment, but would allow us to have some payout option. Seems the way they’re setting it up seems a little complicated, so we’re still waiting to see what that looks like.

There’s also some discussions about whether we would even just get some authority to do some one-time payments. We’re just, I don’t have any answers. I don’t want to get anybody all excited yet, but I will tell you that we’re looking at it from every angle.

I had Kevin and Randy Woodson from State talking about it at the Board of Governors meeting last week. So there is fuel behind this and everybody knows we’re struggling and the numbers are not going in the right direction, so we’re eager to find some solutions.

I’m as worried about that second part where we’re posting positions and we used to see 60 people and now we see three.

One, it’s because I’m worried about the talent we’re bringing in and whether we can, one, afford them because they’re expecting more money and then two, whether they have sufficient skills to do the work we need them to do.

But more importantly, I’m concerned about the people who are here who are going through searches or failing searches. Then they have to go through another search and they’re already doing the work of someone else that we’re not able to compensate them for. That means that this is just going to be a revolving door, and that’s the piece we want to figure out how we can, I shouldn’t say that’s the piece, that is another piece of this that we want to figure out how we can address.

[Speaker 1]

00:22:18 | Well, thank you for everything you said, because that’s exactly what I feel like we are dealing with. We’re paying more. We find a good candidate, but we have to pay them really good money to get them. But we need them. So we do. And if we don’t find good candidates, then we have to re-post and you’re correct with everything you said.

One final follow-up question is, I didn’t know that we were changing from career banding, so how can I learn more about that?


00:22:41 | Adam, did I just out you in a way that’s not appropriate? [laughs]

[Adam Beck, Senior Director of Classification & Compensation]

00:22:44 | Well, we really don’t know very much specific about it right now. We know what the state is in at the moment, but we don’t know that that’s actually what everybody’s going to move to or if that might change as everyone goes into the same thing. So that’s really a more-to-come thing.

[Speaker 1]

00:23:06 | OK. And I wasn’t trying to make you say more than you wanted to, I just thought people knew, I didn’t.


00:23:12 | We’re not keeping it from you. Yeah. And related to the piece about having to pay people more and then, you know, the challenge of bringing people on.

We’re also aware and I had a long conversation with the CHROs from some of the biggest campuses in the system and the System Office last week about how that also creates a problem because we then build our own compression that we don’t have the resources to fix. And it’s not just about the universities having budgets, it’s that we haven’t had the increases over time to be able to maintain paying people at the appropriate level.

And then without that infusion of state, state increase of 2% or 2.5% over time, then if we bring someone in higher up in the range, we create equity issues in compression that we just are not in a position to resolve moving forward without some infusion of resources. So it’s a complicated thing and there was no single solution that’s going to solve all of it.

It’s going to take a whole bunch of stuff for us to figure it out. And there are going to be some things that we have to do specific in certain areas, and they’re probably going to be things that we have to prioritize in order to make things happen. But I just want to give you a sense that we are trying to look at the underlying factors so that we can build a plan moving forward.

[Speaker 1]

00:24:31 | Well, I just want to offer, as I bet you all my other fellow HR officers, if you need me to serve on a task force, let me know. If I get any great ideas, I’ll let you know.


00:24:41 | Excellent. Thank you very much.


00:24:45 | All right. Looks like Dina has her hand up. Dina?

[Dina Sikora, Human Resources Consultant, School of Journalism and Media]

00:24:47 | Thank you, Dina here, I’m curious if you could share with us, when you made this presentation to the Board of Trustees, what questions did you receive from the Board of Trustees members? I’m wondering where their interest is and where their attention is right now.


00:25:05 | I will say they took it very seriously and they understand that it is primarily a staff issue. They asked about what, whether there are solutions that they could advocate for.

I will say that the, while it wasn’t this exact same presentation, the presentation that was given to the Board of Governors last week got a similar line of questions. Real concern about our ability to keep up and the, the sort of surprise at the numbers.

When I talked to the Board of Trustee members, they were really grateful to be able to have something other than anecdotes because they continue to hear from people, “We’re seeing people leave, everybody’s leaving, all of these people.” But now we actually have some real numbers and we also have some real numbers that tell us some things about certain spaces, or certain job categories or certain areas. And they said, “I think we need to acknowledge this is where we’re struggling and now, what are we going to do about it?”

And so I actually felt really optimistic with where they landed. I mean, I admit I was at the tail end of a long meeting, so I think everybody’s attention spans were waning. But I had several good conversations with the Chair and a handful of others that I think they’re seeing the depth of our challenges.


00:26:26 | Thank you. [inaudible]


00:26:33 | Yeah. Any other questions?
All right, well, absent any, I will certainly work to try to figure out a way to get this posted so you all have access to it and then we may very well be calling on you in the coming weeks and months as we try to figure out some more direct interventions in how we resolve this moving forward. But in the meantime, thank you again for all that you’re doing.


00:26:55 | Thanks, Becci.


00:26:56 | Yeah.


00:26:58 | Switching topics on the agenda, wanted to follow up, you may recall from our last meeting and talked a little bit about how we were going to handle secondary contacts in the event that an HR officer role became, becomes vacant, that we would default to that, we can do a little additional work on that. And so I’m going to ask Vicki if she would provide a quick update related to secondary contacts. So, Vicki?

[Vicki Bradley, Associate Vice Chancellor for Human Resources and Equal Opportunity and Compliance]

00:27:18 | Sure. So just a little quick reminder we have entered actually HR officers into the system over the past couple of years, and they, you all can do certain things. You can approve HR actions, in particular, teleworking requests.

You also have visibility to emergency contacts and Carolina Talent. You all get the PM rep role and you also have access to HR payroll salary dashboard. And we’d like to eventually have some other reports just for HR officers. So that’s, we’ve identified HR officers in the system and that’s what they can do in the system.

But we’re finding a gap in our processes when an HR officer leaves, as Linc mentioned, what happens? So we do have a process where the dean or vice chancellor will designate the new HR officer, but sometimes that can take a while for that to be in place.
So Linc had mentioned at the last HR Council meeting that we were looking for secondary contacts to fill in as the HR officer temporarily until that new HR officer is designated by the dean or the vice chancellor.

So what we’re talking about doing now is actually putting the secondary contacts in the system the same way we can identify who the HR officers are, we’ll be able to identify who the secondary contacts are. And that way they will also, we’re also hoping to give them the ability to have workflow approvals.

So when the HR officer leaves, the secondary contact would still be able to approve the HR actions that are flowing to the HR officers, which right now are just the teleworking actions.

So the HRIM group is going to be running a new weekly audit report to see if there are terminations or leaves or transfers, or any way that an HR officer is no longer active in the system. And if there is a change, they will send a note to the secondary contact, letting them know that you’ll need to be handling the HR actions until an HR officer is designated. So again, they should already, this secondary, the secondaries should already have access to do it in the system.

We’ll be just letting them know, “Hey, know the HR officer is gone. Now it’s totally on you to do it.” So what we need to do is we took a look at the, the secondary, the secondary contacts list.

And I think over the past several years, you know, we’re, when we originally went to the model with HR officer and a secondary contact, it was used a lot, but I’d say over the past several years there have been lots of changes, and the secondary contact isn’t always kept up with. So we really want to go back and look for every school/division, making sure there is one and just one designated secondary contact. We’re only letting one person’s name in the system. So I’d like to ask you all to look at the list, and I’ll send it out after this meeting and let us know who the secondary contacts should be for your organization by April 30.

You’ll see on the list there’s sometimes there’s already a secondary person written there. If you want to change it, fine, if it’s empty, write in who you’d like it to be. But if it’s, if it’s you want to keep things the way they are now, that’s fine too. So let’s just think about what are the responsibilities for a secondary contact as you’re making your decisions.

The first is they will be on a listserv, you know, and when emails go out to the HR Council, we copy the secondary contacts so that if the HR officer is out on vacation or for some other reason, somebody else in the unit is getting the information and can act on it and share it with the HR reps. So they are in the listserv for the emails.

For the HR Council meetings, we’ve typically, again, this is before COVID [laughs] and before we went online. HR Council meetings were intended to be only for HR officers and then the folks in HR who are speaking in, like the senior directors and people like that. But it was really only supposed to be for the HR officers. We would expect that if the HR officer couldn’t be there, then the secondary contact could attend in their place if they couldn’t make the meeting.

And then, like I said before, just routing on different forms, right now, it’s just the teleworking form.

So that that’s what is expected of the secondary contacts. Being on the listserv, attending HR council meetings in the absence of the HR officers, and being on the routing for teleworking forms.

So again, we’ll send out the list of HR officers and the secondary contacts for the schools and divisions that we have right now. If there is no one designated, please send me the name that you would like to have designated in that role. The person, person needs to be in HR, have HR responsibilities, so it can’t be administrative person. It’s got to be someone in an HR capacity. For the really small schools, if you don’t have a secondary person that’s in an HR capacity, or you’re not comfortable naming someone else in your unit, just send me a note and let me know and we’ll figure out what to do about it. So don’t, for the really small schools I know this is going to be a little bit of a problem.

And also, if you are acting as an HR officer for another unit besides your primary unit, you don’t have to designate someone in the other units, just designate one for your own primary unit.

So I’ll send out the list after this meeting, and do you guys have any questions?

OK. If you do, you know where to find me or Linc.


00:32:55 | That’s right. Thanks, Vicki. Looks like you and Richard are both up next.

And I’ll just chime in a little bit with this. Becci alluded to the Future of Work requests that have been coming in. I’ve been working throughout the day to try and get approval notifications out. There are a few that we have some follow-up questions on. I’ll be sending those out by end of day as well, so hopefully we can get those resolved. And then I know Rich has done some follow-up directly with some of you on your submissions, so I’ll stop there.

But Vicki, Rich, I’ll turn it over to you to provide that update.


00:33:39 | I’ll let Rich, is he on?


00:33:39 | I do not see him on it.


00:33:44 | I don’t see him on either.

So I think, Linc you pretty much said, I’m looking for my agenda item to see what’s on the agenda item. Is it just the Future of Work where we stand on the updates right now?


00:33:55 | I think so. And the other only thing about that is some of the follow-ups that Rich has, has performed for each year.

I strongly encourage you to really go back to the instructions that were provided on how to complete the spreadsheets.

I think a lot of the ones that he’s had to send back and get clarification on are ones where either the information was not entered in the way that it should have been entered, which then creates issues with having, with being able to actually upload the data.

And so we need to make sure that those spreadsheets, whatever corrections Rich has outlined for you, that they are taken care of. And once those are then resolved, they do a quality check on the spreadsheet to make sure that the data is formatted correctly. They then forward it along to me, so I can have the review committee review it during our weekly meetings, which is usually Friday afternoon.

And so I’ll plan that when approvals are, are made, the following Monday I’ll make sure that we get those approval notifications out so you can begin notifying your employees as well.

So I think that may be the only other thing, Vicki, that I will add.


00:35:00 | Yeah, OK.


00:35:05 | Questions? Dina?


00:35:06 | Yes, I’m wondering if there has already been a conversation about the business process for designations for positions that were vacant at the time of the submission or newly created positions. And how do we go about making those decisions and securing approvals for remote or hybrid work for newly created positions?


00:35:28 | Now they actually just started that conversation last week. Vicki, do you want to take that one?


00:35:33 | Yeah. We have started the conversation. We don’t have anything set in stone yet. We’ve talked about, is there something we could designate on a position as they are being created?

We’ve also talked about potentially having an ePAR out there where someone could designate you know, hybrid and the percent offsite through an ePAR, maybe taking the ePAR that we currently use to upload the Future of Work forms and adding some information to it. So we are in the process of looking at those options, but we don’t have a, have a design process at this point.

The OPEX team kind of took it up to the point of getting the, the Future of Work plans in and approved, and we’re trying to get them in the system. And then the next phase will be for all of us to look at, how are we going to do this on an ongoing basis?


00:36:23 | I guess a very pragmatic follow-up question is, in the meantime, until the campus-wide process is clarified, do departments have departmental flexibility to make those decisions pending campus approval?


00:36:39 | You know, I think Linc and I are going to have to talk about that and get something out to you, I don’t know.
You know, I, I, I personally don’t know. I will say one of the things that we were talking about was allowing the HR officer to kind of watch over this and make sure that, that as new people come in, they’re following the spirit of the plan and how things were designed for a unit.

And we would have reports that allow units to say, “Oh my gosh, they’re kind of drifting in one way or the other,” but basically letting the HR officer kind of, and the dean or vice chancellor manage it at their, at their level. But that still hasn’t been communicated and blessed. So we’ll have to get back with you and I’ll have to get back with you on that.


00:37:24 | That sounds great. We’ll sit tight, wait for guidance. OK.


00:37:30 | OK.


00:37:32 | So I’ve got a couple of questions directly in the chat, and I just want to reiterate the answers. You know, the question I think Carolyn asked was if we’ve not heard anything, does that mean we’re good?

No, you’re going to get a notice from me either way, one either with a very clear approval to move forward or one with requests for additional information or some questions. So just sit tight. You’ll have that by end of day. Any other questions?

All right, I’m going to put you on over to Vanessa. For a quick update on the ARP adjustments.

[Vanessa Ragland, Sr. Director of EHRA Non-Faculty & Academic Personnel]

00:38:10 | Hi, everyone. This is just basically a one-liner.

Just wanted to let you know all of the ARP increases are in and some of you have submitted help tickets for anything that you may have noticed, noticed was not correct. We just wanted to let you know that following this pay cycle, so after April, any ARP adjustments that you may find will be carried forward on a current basis. So we would not be going back to make ARP corrections, you know, unless there’s some exceptional circumstance.

Which, you know, generally there are, there are typically maybe one or two, but just want to go ahead and get it out in front of you so that if you have identified any ARP corrections that need to be made that you go ahead and get those submitted via help ticket before the end of this pay cycle. So basically before the end of April 30, so that they can be completed and corrected by Dave Turner.


00:39:20 | I have a question, if it’s OK.


00:39:23 | Sure.


00:33:25 | I’ve already raised it with Rich, but just in case it’s valuable for the community, I noticed that the funding grades in the North Carolina have not been updated following the ARP. And what I mean is the salary has been increased, but the funding grade still displays the old salary month, and I wonder if it’s just work in progress and we do not need to take any action.


00:39:54 | Walter, do you want to address that or do you want me to address it?

[Walter Miller, Director of Payroll Services]

00:40:01 | You may be able to offer more, I mean, the salary grids themselves are in percentage basis, so the dollars are not necessarily consequential on that form. And also it would have to do, there’s also some sense of timings, et cetera.

[Ann Sager. HR Business Analyst]

00:40:17 | There was a bug fix that went in on Wednesday night last week. So if you look today, that should not be an issue.


00:40:30 | An even better update, thank you, Ann.


00:40:35 | And I was looking for Dave hoping he was on. I can’t remember if it was Wednesday or Thursday last week. Actually, I think it might have even been Thursday evening.

So any funding, that was unrelated to the ARP, it was a funding grid issue that some bug crept in. It has been corrected. It got moved in as an emergency QRB, on I believe Thursday night. And if you find anything, please put in a ticket right away, because then we were not as successful as our crossed fingers were.


00:41:11 | Absolutely. Will do, Ann.


00:41:13 | Thank you.


00:41:15 | Thanks, Ann. Cat, looks like you have a question?


00:41:19 | I’m sorry I have a question, but I do, you’ll see why when I tell you the question. Vanessa, this is for you.
I believe I have a couple of my professors whose other distinguished professorships were put on their annual salary, so that got the 2.5 %increase, but it shouldn’t have, blahdy blah. What was the deadline that you said this had to be fixed? I’ve been working on it, but would like to know the deadline.


00:41:41 | By the end of this pay cycle. So by April 30.


00:41:47 |OK, can do and thank you.


00:41:49 | Mm-Hmm.


00:41:54 | All right, any other questions? Great, we’ll move right along. I’m going to pass it over to Ceresa, Karressa and Alex for background check, new queries update.

[Ceresa Aberg, Human Resources Manager]

00:42:04 | Yes, good afternoon, everyone.

So as Linc said, I’m here today with Alex and Karressa and we’re pleased to share some recent enhancements with this group. And we also want to talk about a proposed enhancement.

We received some feedback last week from the Business Process Subcommittee meeting, and we’d love to hear feedback from the broader group today if you have any. And finally, we should have a few minutes at the end for any questions you might have.

So I’ll hand it over to Karressa and she’ll talk a bit more about the five new campus queries.

[Karressa Overbey, Human Resources Consultant]

00:42:37 | So in response to the feedback we have received from our campus background check initiators, the HR Information Management Reporting Team recently published five new background check queries for our campus users.

These reports give initiators visibility into the background check process and allow them to better manage the background checks. The new queries include the Degree Pending Department Report, Completed Degree Verifications, Outstanding Invitations, In-Progress ePARs, and Estimated Fees.

Let’s review how to access each of these queries and how each of them can be used.

All five reports can be found on the HR Payroll Reporting Dashboard in the Background Check folder. The reports are available to users who have the background check initiator role in ConnectCarolina.

Initiators’ access to the queries will match their background check, excuse me, the departments they have as part of their background check ePAR access.

Background check initiators can use a combination of search fields to generate a report that is broad or as narrow as they would like. The search options include division, department number, from and to dates and PID. As with the other previews in ConnectCarolina, these reports can be exported to Excel, CSV text file or XML.

The Degree Pending Department report, excuse me, query, includes candidates or appointees with foreign degrees that must be verified by the hiring department. Background check initiators should run this, this query on a regular basis to monitor foreign degree verifications that need to be completed. They should also follow up with their employees as needed and ensure that the verification is complete and sent to the background check unit within 90 days of hire. Please notify the background check unit if the employee is no longer employed; it needs to be removed from the report.

The com… [laughs] the Completed Degree Verification query includes US or foreign degree verifications that have been completed for a given ePAR date range. This is a great report for pulling historical data. This is an important note, we are working to reconcile and update inaccurate historical degree data that was converted into ConnectCarolina with the degree verification that we have on the background check ePAR documents.

We are also working to complete a backlog of degree verifications that need to be entered into ConnectCarolina on the Person Profile.

OK. The Outstanding Invitation query includes candidates or appointees who have not yet responded to the background check invitation. Background check initiators should run this report, this query daily or weekly, follow up with their candidates or appointees when they have not responded to the invitation, and also notify the background check unit when the person is no longer being considered so we can withdraw that ePAR.

Now, in the In-Progress ePARs query includes background check ePARs that are still in progress and have not yet been completed. The query provides the current status of the ePAR and key milestones such as the date the ePAR was submitted, the date and time the candidate has responded, and the date sent to the vendor. Initiators should run this query when they want to know the status of one or more background checks for one or more departments.

The Estimate of Fees query includes key financial information for each background check, which includes the estimated package price, the administrative fee, the total pre-order estimated cost and the total post-order estimated costs. Currently, only finance staff who have the background check initiator role in ConnectCarolina have access to this report.

Instead of providing a copy of the completed background check summary page to your finance team, initiators can provide a copy of this report before the mid-month CVM file. Your finance team should use this report to reconcile the CVM billing file.

Now we’re going to hand it off to Alex to talk about our proposed enhancements.

[Alex Smith, HR Business Analyst]

00:46:52 | Hi everybody, thanks for listening in.

And so, as Karressa said, we’ve sent, created a lot of new queries for you guys. We think that they should meet most of your needs for handling background checks in general, for managing the process anyway.

What we’re proposing right now is one of the one of the biggest pain points besides getting candidates logged in, which we know is still at the top of the list, is managing the invites.

So, there is a fairly significant number of candidates that don’t respond in what we would consider a timely manner. So that means more than four days. Between four and 60 days is about 20% of all the checks that that we process. So there’s all kinds of reasons for that. Someone who’s an unpaid intern, is not super motivated, necessarily. They’re not waiting on the job. But re-sending of the invitations is time-consuming.

It’s a manual process right now, and we don’t have a good process for keeping track of, “Oh well, this candidate changed their mind two weeks ago and didn’t let us know to withdraw that.”

And that’s also because you all as campus folks don’t have the ability to withdraw ePARS yourself. So that’s one item that we’re potentially putting on a table is giving you all the ability to withdraw background checks.

And now, with these enhanced queries that we’ve given you, you should have better visibility to be able to look at all the open ones. And you could see, “Oh, this was from November of last year. That’s clearly not, not viable anymore.”

What we would like to do is work on some automation for managing the invitations and reminding candidates. So we’re proposing over a time period, right now, we have listed here a two-week time period, that we would send a reminder email say, after one week if the candidate hasn’t responded, and then maybe after two weeks, if the candidate hasn’t responded to nudge them along in their, in effort to get those completed. And then at that point, we would have some sort of a process to withdraw the ePAR.

Now, we probably won’t initially set up automatically withdrawing them because we know that that would cause consternation. You all would have to, you know, resubmit if that, if that was pending and someone was in Kalamazoo and unable to get to their computer. But we’d like to yeah, to try to set up some, some sort of automation for reminders and then automation potentially on being able to withdraw invitations that are that are no longer valid. Now so exactly what that timeframe is, that’s the piece that we’d probably like to hear from you all.

We’ve also heard that potentially varying that a little bit by employee type would be the “flying car solution,” right? That faculty maybe would be given a little bit more time and permanent SHRA folks, you know, maybe two weeks would be sufficient. So but that’s the kind of feedback that we would love to hear from, from you all. And I will stop talking now.


00:50:10 | So we’re definitely interested in any feedback you might have. Feel free to jump in right now or if you’d like to add it into the chat, we can monitor it through the rest of the meeting. Do I see anything in the chat?

OK, so what do you folks think about the proposed process?

Some of the feedback, like Alex said, that we received last week was perhaps, I think it was two weeks for SHRA, 30 days for faculty, and then perhaps 60 days for unpaid appointments? How does this group feel about those timeframes? Is that enough time, too much time?


00:50:48 | I can, I can get us started, if you would like to. So truly there is no one-size-fits-all, right? For faculty, two weeks, for faculty recruitments that are done 12 months in advance of the start date, two weeks is not sufficient, in my opinion. However, for an SHRA appointment with the start date of two weeks from now, two weeks is too much, right? So truly, maybe there is a value in setting up the logic based on the appointment type, but it would need to be fleshed out with departments that do it a lot.

What I would suggest is thinking about this process from the marketing perspective: You know, how do you psychologically put the pressure on the candidate? A good pressure, not a bad pressure, on the candidate to take action, right? So one way to accomplish it is through the mechanism of countdown.

And that’s when the candidate receives an email, it will have “You have 12 days to respond,” “You have 11 days to respond,” “You have 10 days to respond.” You know? What happens, on the, on the candidate’s end is the candidate is, “This is too much pressure. I’ll respond now.” So I would, I would really engage somebody with a marketing background, you know, and sales background to see what would motivate a candidate to take action in terms of how do we communicate to the audiences?


00:52:21 | That’s helpful.

So, like with our previous vendor, I know it indicated the expiration date, but like you’re saying with each resend perhaps provide an updated timeframe or countdown, more so than the expiration date itself. Like, “You have six days left.” That sort of thing, or maybe both. It’s helpful, thank you, Dina.

And then on the faculty, I will just ask, do you feel 30 days is sufficient for faculty? Or do you think longer for that group? Because, you are correct, that that recruitment process can take months. Any longer? I see Ashante. Are you thinking more on the 60-day side for faculty?

[Ashante Diallo, Associate Dean for Human Resources]

00:53:06 | Perhaps, maybe 90 days.


00:53:15 | That’s helpful. Any other feedback? How do you feel about 60 days for unpaid appointments? Is that too much? Not enough time for that group?


00:53:25 | Which ones?


00:53:32 | For the unpaid appointments, so UNC independent contractors, volunteers, interns, visiting scholars?


00:53:34 | I think we were thinking just a little longer. I mean, at the end of the day, they’re gonna either complete it or not, sometimes it’s just a little confused. I’m not sure we should go any longer, but they definitely need a little bit more time.


00:53:48 | OK. It’s helpful.


00:53:50 | I have a clarifying question too.

So if we want to get more runway to people, is sending a reminder email every week going to be annoying or, like, what would be the cadence?

I mean, to me, it would maybe be weekly. And then three days before the expiration, we would try to nudge them again if we were going to set an expiration. But I wonder if we’re giving people a lot of latitude? Do you have any sense of whether that would become annoying to send that every week?


00:54:27 | Is it a manual process to send it every week?


00:54:30 | Well, what we’re what we’re proposing, what we want to do is set up the requirements for, for automating this. We know we want to automate it. What that looks like depends on how people are feeling like, “Well, do I need to be able to designate my own expiration date?” Well, then we need to, you know, build the solution in a way where you could do that. Do you, do you want to be able to control, to extend that if the expiration is coming up? Well, that that then plays into how we would design a solution, what that would look like.

So. So that’s, that’s, that’s the reason why we’re asking and trying to, trying to get a pulse on the room and how that would make sense without giving you one more thing to do. Right? Because I know all of you are looking for more work, but how would how would we thread the needle there, like with the appropriate amount of flexibility, is what we’re looking for.


00:55:32 | I think every couple of weeks would be good. Maybe once a week might be too much.


00:55:39 | Doesn’t it depend on the category because SHRA if you’re only gonna give them two weeks, every week would be good. Faculty, if we’re giving them months, every week would be too much.


00:55:52 | Right.


00:55:53 | So what are your thoughts on what Alex said? I know with our previous vendor departments had the ability to extend individual invitations depending on a number of factors. So would you prefer to have some sort of standardized process by appointment type where it is automated and you don’t have to take any action? Or would you like to have control over that to extend individual background check invitations?


00:56:23 | I think having control over it would be useful because hopefully I have a feel for my people, but I’m a smaller school, but hopefully I have a feel for my people and how quickly we expect to hear from them. And if we don’t, then how interested are they in this opportunity of affiliation with the University, right? Both of the bigger schools might have other opinions.


00:56:47 | It may be worth soliciting the experience and opinions of other HR representatives, not just HR officers, possibly through HR user group or HR, what’s the other group?

[Smith, Aberg]

00:56:58 | Liaisons


00:57:00 | HR Liasons, HR user groups, because these are people who work, you know, boots on the ground and they know what their processes and what works best in terms of getting the results on those background checks.


00:57:15 | That’s helpful.


00:57:17 | Maybe, maybe we could even come up with a couple of proposals and try to take a poll and see what would, what would make the most sense. For the next time. Because right now it’s… leaving open all possibilities, I realize, makes it makes it a little bit harder to make decisions.


00:57:36 | Well, I’ll go ahead and hand off to the next presenter. Feel free to include any additional comments in the chat, and we’ll definitely take those down and keep those in mind as we move forward.

Thank you, everyone.


00:57:47 | Cheers.


00:57:51 | Thank you, and thank you for that great feedback, everyone. Really appreciate your insight. I do have one quick walk-on topic.

I’m going to turn over to Tyler before we get to Jessica. So Tyler, you’re up.

[Tyler Enlow, Senior E&MR Consultant]

00:58:00 | Thank you, Linc. Figured I have to jump on and not tell you I’ll be here so that I get everybody here.
But [laughs] I’ll talk a little bit about performance management. We’re currently in the “manager sets the appraisal” stage, right? So the manager is going in, they’re rating each goal, they’re rating each individual and institutional goals, and they are going in and doing the manager comments.

So, I’m getting a lot of questions about, OK, that HR Checkpoint step. What does it look like? So well I’m gonna talk a little about the reporting that’s going to be in there. We are targeting for next Wednesday to release this to everyone. If we can release it earlier, we’ll send out an email to everyone that that the tools are there for your dashboard and Reporting 2.0.

So real quick—just talking about reporting. When you’re talking about accessing individual reviews, you’ll want to go into Reports.

Hover—remember we’re not clicking. We hover over Reports and hover down to Standard Reports, and then you’re going into Performance.

Once you get there in the top right-hand corner, you’ll find Performance Review. So you want to click on that.
This is how you’ll access individual reviews. Here you can you’ll select the employee and you’ll select the task that you want to review.

Once both of those are selected, you’ll hit Print Performance Review and it will print out what the active review that’s ongoing right now looks like.

Also, when we’re talking about the HR Checkpoint step, we’ve got the Shared With Me part of Reporting 2.0, everything that’s in the dashboard, all those reports that are shared with you will be located there.

And then specifically, when we’re talking about the dashboard, you’ll make sure you’re refreshing the data every time you go in there. Because you want to make sure that that the data is up to date that you’re looking at. You can then take those reports and export them into Excel.

But once again, make sure that you are refreshing that data. Specifically, if you are working with your HR team to talk about who needs to do what steps, make sure we have that refreshed.

So we already have the HR Checkpoint Checklist in the PM Reps team site, but just want to give a little brief discussion about what the expectations we’re looking at, wanting to review the totality of any rating of “Not Meeting Expectations.” Looking at the totality of the review for overall not meeting expectations. We don’t currently have anybody on a PIP, I think I heard Vanessa. Please correct me if I’m wrong.

But if you have anybody who’s have, has an active disciplinary action, make sure we’re reviewing the review as well for that, for those cases.

Once again, with compliance, we wanted to make sure that we have three to five goals for every employee, as well as if you are specifically looking at SHRA for the criteria when it comes to how a overall rating is created.

Remember that SHRA ratings are weighted, so when we’re doing the Supervision Institutional Goal, and this is for EHRA as well, but we’re focusing also on SHRA because it does mess with the percentages.

If you’re a non-supervisory SHRA employee like I am, each one of your Institutional Goals is 20%. If you are a supervisory SHRA employee, then you’re, each one of your Institutional Goals are 16.67%. So that’s why I want to make sure that for the if you’re a non-supervisor, you’re, all managers need to be putting in “Supervisory Goal Not Applicable” for that rating.

Also, we’re looking at trends when it comes to protected classes, making sure that there’s not a disparate impact within a group. And, of course, the 100% completion of the entirety of your school or division. We at EA, Employment Management Relations will manually have to complete if we have anybody who has a rating, any rating of “Not Meeting Expectations” if the overall reflects “Exceeds” because numerically it is possible, we will be moving that to “Meets Expectations.” As well as if anybody receives an “Exceeds Expectations” that has an active disciplinary action, we will go in and take care of that.

So the dashboard I was talking about, you’ll see it as the tab that that’ll be on top. You’ll have a number of different reports that will be available to you.

It’s the first one you see there. There’s the incomplete Manager Appraisal that I’ll show you, and this is what it looks like across all of campus.

But you’ll see your specific school or division, as well as you’ll have a report of those individuals who are, who have received a “Not Meeting Expectations,” and it will break it out by employee type.

If you go into Reporting 2.0 and you access a report, please keep in mind, one of the things we’ve been asked about a lot is to provide department codes as well as job codes. You will be able to filter out your data from Reporting 2.0 based on the department or the job code.

If you’re looking at specifically what, what are all HR consultants making, you know what are, what are all their reviews in my division? You can run a report like that. I know some of our larger schools have really been wanting that department code. So I just want to make sure that you all knew it’s there within Reporting 2.0. Also, make sure you’re refreshing and you do have the option of scheduling a download of Excel.

Some known concerns that we’re aware of, one of the biggest ones you may have seen if you have managers going into the system now is that it’s not showing what the Overall Rating is.

One of the things we have escalated with Cornerstone, which is the company behind Carolina Talent, is to fix a rounding error. So an individual, let’s just say you have an individual that receives a 2.6 overall score. That should be a “Meets Expectations.” However, the system, because it’s, you know, 2.5 or greater, is rounding it up to a 3 and “Exceeds Expectations.”

So we are, we have a critical ticket and we’re hoping it’s going to be fixed as soon as possible. Once that’s fixed, we’ll let you know. But we are hiding the Overall Rating right now because of that, that that bug that we’re aware of.

So like I said, we’re working on it. Also, a lot of questions have come up about transfers: how to handle the, the reviews for anybody who has been an internal transfer or external transfer into the University. So we have a guide that is up on the PM Reps team site. So please make use of that document.

As well as employees are on leave. We have a number of individuals who are on leave at the end of March. We removed those the, the “Review Documents” tasks for them.

So if they are returning now, you will need to submit a help ticket for us to create that, that review task. You might have individuals who are now leaving on some sort of approved leave or protected leave. So I want to make sure that if they are leaving, we’re removing that if the employee is not able to complete the process of the performance review, looking at the timeline.

So that is just a real quick presentation of some reporting and some known issues.

I want to see if there are any questions in the chat.

No. Anybody have any questions for me?


01:05:47 | All right, Tyler, appreciate it.

All right, Jessica, you’re up. [loud noise] Jessica, we can’t hear you. Your audio seems to be messed up, so. No, we can’t hear you. It’s a lot of static, unfortunately.

While Jessica’s working to figure that out, are there any other topics or questions that we didn’t cover today, or any other questions from the topics we did cover?


01:06:32 | May I ask a follow-up question of Tyler while we have a moment?


01:06:38 | Ok.


01:06:39 | How much of the guidance are you posting on the OHR website? The main one, I’m finding—I’m thinking about what is the most helpful for the supervisors and managers. Where will they go to find guidance such as “What do I do? My employee is a transfer,” you know, and whether that information needs to be placed where managers are likely to look for it.


01:07:04 | So we have a few things that we’re putting for guidance purposes. All right. So we have it within Carolina Talent Learning. We have a curriculum that’s easily found if you go to, there’s a direct link into those, those resources.

Quick reference cards, trainings, webinars—all of that stuff there is access to from that page. When it comes to making a decision on how to handle a performance review and a transfer, I would say we would want the best practice is to have them come to their department for guidance for that so that there is an understanding of how to navigate that process. I don’t think, I wouldn’t necessarily advise having the managers make a decision on their own without having consultation as to who needs to do the review.

There are also some questions that may arise about the employee start date versus, or how to contact the previous supervisor, which we can assist with as well. We do have the information on the PM Rep site.

If you would like to share that with managers, you can feel free to do so. It’s not a protected document that has to stay only with HR folks, but if you like to disseminate that, you can.


01:08:24 | It sounds great, Tyler, you know, I’m all for self-, self-service, so I prefer that my managers read their homework first and then come talk to me.


01:08:34 | Awesome.


01:08:36 | OK, look, Hilary put the site in the chat in case those of you would want to grab that out of there.
Also, thanks, Walter, for the update on W2s. In the chat as well.

Jessica, you want to give it a try again?

[Jessica Pyjas, Work/Life & Wellness Program Manager]

01:08:49 | Can you hear me now?


01:08:51 | That’s very clear.


01:08:54 | All right. Excellent. You think that would stay in the same setting every time you’re on one of these, but I guess not. [laughs] So happy Monday, everyone.

Since we last came together, a lot has happened. One of those big things that happened was our Employee Wellness Day, which was our very first in-person event since the start of the pandemic.

So I just wanted to give you some updates and highlights on that. Leading up to Friday, Friday’s event, we did have some virtual opportunities throughout the week as we tried to accommodate both our remote and hybrid workers, as well as those who aren’t quite comfortable for coming and meeting in person yet.

So we had 15 virtual sessions, different learning opportunities, which ranged from fitness sessions, cooking demonstrations, educational topics. And those were held Monday through Thursday. We had 356 people participate in those, and that was our in-person event. It was so great to see everybody out.

We predict that we had about 2,300 in attendance throughout the day from 11 to 2, and the day included some meditation relaxation space, including a guided meditation session led by Jonny Gerkin, 15-minute wellness checks which 78 employees participated in, a socially distant exhibit hall, including a medicine drop which collected 10 pounds of unused medications. Some cooking demonstrations, which were livestreamed as well and reached about 120 individuals. Fitness sessions, which were in-person and including our virtual ones throughout the week, we reached about 200 people. And there were lots of activities outside, such as games, music, and lunch.

So we did a feedback survey and that closed out and we gave people some prizes for participating in that. We heard from 909 employees. The survey was open to people who attended the event, as well as those who were not able to attend.

And some of the questions asked were “How did you hear about the event?” Fifty percent of those who responded heard about the event from the all-employee formal emails, 18% from the Work Well newsletter and then 11% from school and division emails most likely coming from you all. So thank you for helping us get the word out.

The location this year was at the Union and 74% loved that location, rating it “very or extremely satisfied” with it.
The different reasons that people came out was to “enjoy lunch,” 30%; “check out the exhibit hall,” 20%; and “enjoy the outdoor music,” 12%.

People were asked what they liked most and what they felt could use some more improvement. People enjoyed the opportunity to get wellness checks, the many outdoor opportunities, but the overwhelming response there was actually seeing people in person and coming together, which I really enjoyed myself as well.

Areas for improvement. Some folks mentioned that they would really prefer just a true day off, which, you know, we can’t, we can’t give that. But that was voiced. And then there were some, there were some suggestions about the lunch distribution, as well as the quality of lunch and more communication about chair massages and signage where all the different activities were throughout the Union.

Overall, the feedback was very positive, and people expressed a great deal of appreciation for an in-person event stating that they had a lot of fun, met new people.

For some folks, this was their very first time coming together with such an event, being hired in the next, in the past two years, and people noted that they felt it was very well organized. So, of those who responded, 84% said that they would come back to the Total Wellbeing Expo in the spring and those who did not attend, which was half of the people who participated in this survey, the reasons that they noted that they did not attend Friday’s session was that they had limited time, 26%, that they were not working on campus on Friday, it was their remote day, 25%, and then 21%, people were saying that they were off campus. They work outside of Chapel Hill, that they were just out of the office on vacation or just not wanting to stop their job responsibilities during that time.

So you can get a full recap on that event if you did not see it, in the WorkWell newsletter. There is an article with some opportunities to view some pictures, so I’ll drop that in the chat.

We’re continuing with our Wellness Wednesdays, and we’ve really focused on some finance things, we had a session already this month and we’ll resume next week on the 20th, 20th with a session on “Managing Staff Through Stressful Situations.”

So regardless of what your level of management is, if you’re working to lead anyone, I do encourage you take that. It is a repeat session that we held last May, which many of you attended, but we’re offering it again next week on the 20th, if you need a refresher, or were not able to take it last May.

And then on the 27, we are promoting a session on promoting debt, debt to build, while building wealth, so that leads into our, that piggybacks off of our earlier session, which was “Overall Finance Management” earlier this month.

“Eat Smart, Move More” I’m excited to announce that they’re continuing to offer those free, so that is, those sessions start the week of April 25 and registration’s open till the 22th, so that’s still online and free for all UNC employees.

And we’re in the middle of our “Miles for Wellness Challenge” that started March 14. It’s the eight-week physical activity challenge. And what I’m happy to report is that we do have 39 UNC teams participating. This is consistent with our fall participation.

Usually we see a greater participation in the fall and now in the spring it’s staying pretty consistent, which is exciting and UNC has more teams than any other university, any of the universities contributing to the event challenge overall.

So our next bigger, biggest competitor is UNC Charlotte with 16 teams, NC State with 11 teams. And then after that, all the other ones have just one or two teams. So we’re doing a really good job with 39 competing teams here.

And then to get on your radar, May is Mental Health Awareness Month, so I do want to encourage the, the Mindful Mondays that the School of Medicine offers every afternoon from 12:15 to 12:45. Led by Jon, Jonny Gerkin. And those are open to everyone to participate in so you can just email him if you’re interested in that. And that is on our calendar as well, that’s on our Wellness calendar, on the HR page.

And then last week, you should have received a notice about the 2022 Governor’s Awards for Excellence. Those nominations are due by this Thursday. So before we have that, that day off and we have our No Meeting Day on Thursday, if there’s any employee you would like to nominate for one of the following categories, that would be: Customer Service, Efficiency and Innovation, Human Relations, Outstanding State Government, Service, Public Service, Safety and Heroism and Spirit of North Carolina.

And those nominations will stay open until the end of day Thursday. And remember, we did have two winners last year, and you can see the past winners, as well as the link to nominate an employee on the website here. Which is managed by the State Office of Human Resources. Questions?


01:17:50 | All right, thanks, Jessica. Appreciate your update as always, bringing good news, which is always a good thing. Good way to wrap up the meeting.

All right, last call. Any other questions? Comments? Looks like Michael put a reminder in the chat, so please check that out. Around co-planners. All right, folks, Happy Monday. Hope you have a great afternoon and evening, and we’ll catch up with you soon. Thanks.


Comments are closed.