Chancellor's Staff Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes April 22, 1999   Members present: Steve Honeycutt, Jan Scroggs, Mary Chakales, Nancy Williams, Melanie Rhodarmer, Roger Penley, Maggie Smith, Mary O'Day, Mike Honeycutt, Richard White, Elise Henshaw, Steve Parrott, Charles Shivers, Marilyn Lonon, Terry Bailey, Tony Thomas and William Bruce, faculty representative. Absent: Harold Johnson, Kathy Higdon. Others in attendance: Chancellor Reed. The meeting was called to order at 1:35 in Room 37, Highsmith Center by the chair, Steve Honeycutt. Minutes of the March meeting were approved with the addition that Mary Chakales will serve on and chair the by-laws committee. Steve reported that Arthur Foley was called away and will come to the next meeting if we wish to discuss Span of Control. Dr. Reed explained that Span of Control is a legislative mandate to cover state agencies that don't resemble UNCA and establishes a one-size-fits-all policy. The amount of money that reverts to the state depends on how well we follow the Span of Control policies. Dr. Reed said she thinks we have done enough adjustment to put us in reasonably good stead for the next round. It was suggested that we see how other institutions fared with this. One of the greatest concerns with the Span of Control is that the person who signs an evaluation is not always the one who does the supervising and writes the evaluation. This creates a team leader concept. Dr. Reed suggested that the "team leader" might initial the evaluation with the supervisor's signature. Charles Shivers thanked the Chancellor for her e-mail regarding the in-range salary proposal. Dr. Reed said the plan is to look at people's current salaries, without names, and start with those who are the farthest away from their factored salary goal. These employees will be awarded a five percent increase of the available $50,000 until the money is exhausted. The Chancellor's Cabinet decided to proceed in this manner and give more employees a somewhat better salary rather than giving ten percent increases and bringing fewer employees to a much better salary. Dr. Reed said the monies became available when a legislator helped us tap a state source not tapped before. Through an enrollment funding formula, based on a predicted increase in full time equivalent students, UNCA should receive close to a half-million dollars. The University Planning Council is looking at how to distribute these funds. Dr. Reed said CSAC will have an opportunity to look at the proposed distribution and make suggestions. Chancellor Reed has requested an additional $50,000 from these funds for staff salary increases. The proposed year 2000 holiday from Human Resources was discussed and approved. The Staff Forums produced some positive feedback. It was agreed to keep the same format. Steve said that the staff sessions with the chancellor candidates drew the greatest number of participants, other than for the public meetings. Steve reported on the Faculty Senate that he, Maggie Smith, and Elise Henshaw attended and, at which he made a presentation regarding CSAC. He felt this was a good opportunity to inform the faculty as to the design and function of CSAC, some of the issues and challenges we are attempting to address. Steve's presentation seemed to be well received. He distributed copies of the current newsletter. William Bruce said some of the Faculty Senate members will be at the UPC meeting when the distribution of funds is discussed and they might be supportive, having heard Steve speak. Mary O'Day reported that a couple of faculty members had stopped her and said they had no idea about the state of staff salaries. Steve said some differences will always exist between faculty and staff. We, as a group, are working hard to close that gap. Steve also attended a Board of Trustees' meeting. He reported that the newsletter is receiving a tremendous amount of attention. Again, there was surprise at the staff salary situation. The pros and cons of inviting some of the legislators to a meeting to address us and hear our concerns was discussed. Should we decide to, it was suggested that we contact Tom Byers, Special Assistant to the Chancellor or would advising him, as a courtesy, be sufficient. It was suggested that we not do anything that might be divisive between us and any other group on campus. The legislative breakfasts that are held from time to time have pre-determined agendas, set with very specific issues in mind. We would need to talk with Tom Byers about having an opportunity to put some of our issues on the agenda. Regarding membership on committees, we need to do our homework and determine who makes the decision as to who is appointed to the committee and what is the charge of the committee. After we have a complete list of committees, which are appropriate for CSAC membership, we will put the list on e-mail. Anyone interested in membership on a particular committee can advise us to that effect. We need a CSAC member on these committees or be certain the representative is someone who will come to CSAC meetings to report. Everyone agreed that a primary objective for CSAC is to secure representation on UPC. Steve said he had approached UPC before about diversifying their membership, but got no response. UPC is composed of four members from the Institutional Development Committee; the chancellor appoints two, and the Faculty Senate appoints two. We will request of Chancellor Reed that staff representation be included on UPC. Addressing the issue of salaries again, brought the comment that the lack of merit raises for such a long period is one of the reasons salaries are so far from where they should be. The question still remains as to why we are so far behind other campuses. Chancellor Reed has said that we have the best relations with the five local legislators than in other time in the history of the university. A projected increase of 110 full-time students next year is generating a budget increase of approximately $1,600,000. Of that amount, $538,484 is unrestricted funds. The University Planning Council will be looking at requests from the vice chancellor area for distribution of these monies. Chancellor Reed has offered CSAC an opportunity to review the requests and make recommendations. The question was asked, "Do we invite the vice chancellors and department heads to a meeting to get their rationalization on their proposals for the distributing the expected budget increase?" Concern was raised over how we might be viewed if we invited the VCs. Suggestions regarding CSAC's involvement in the budget process were: that we look at the proposals first and advise which items we feel are out of line; lobby members of UPC; e-mail UPC members about our strong support for setting aside $50,000 for in-range salary adjustments. Steve said we must not lose the opportunity to review the budget proposals. He believes the chancellor will rely heavily on the Chancellor's Council to help with recommendations. Maggie Smith, reporting on the staff picnic, said that CSAC is co-sponsor and we need to volunteer to help. A committee needs to be formed. The date has not been set. There was a suggestion that each department made a videotape. Maggie reported on the candidate interviews for the Human Resources Director. The interviews will be May 3 through 7. Everyone was asked to respond to the questionnaire and send their opinions to Arthur and to e-mail the search committee. Mike reported that Alex Comfort is sending a letter to staff regarding scholarship options and the CSAC scholarship is included. The next meeting will be June 17 at 1:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Elise Henshaw, Secretary