TABLE OF CONTENTS |
FRONT PAGE
| NEXT ARTICLE |
UNC HOMEPAGE
A proposal in the state legislature that would grant UNC system schools more
flexibility in managing their affairs would have far-reaching effects for
Carolina, and administrators here say those effects would be positive.
Included in the Senate's 2001-02 appropriations bill, the special provision has
implications ranging from the way an old computer would be disposed to what
salaries could be offered. The UNC system's Board of Governors also has passed
a resolution endorsing "management flexibility" for UNC system institutions.
While it's too early to say whether the Senate measure will become law, let
alone how it would take shape at Carolina, it potentially could be good news
for the campus, said Nancy Suttenfield, the University's vice chancellor for
finance and administration.
"We think this is a very good thing for our University, and I hope that I can
convince all of you that it's a good thing for you, too," Suttenfield told
Employee Forum members at the group's June 6 meeting.
Management flexibility's biggest implication would be what it would mean for
Carolina's personnel system.
The proposed legislation calls for the Board of Governors to recognize certain
institutions as "special responsibility institutions" and for the board of
trustees at each of these UNC system schools to develop a human resources
system for its campus' employees based on the school's particular needs. Most
rules now regulating the University's SPA employees come out of the Office of
State Personnel in Raleigh.
Suttenfield said that the force driving changes to the current human resources
policies and procedures at Carolina would be the need to make the campus more
competitive in its ability to recruit and retain quality staff. This is
especially critical in light of the fact that -- unlike many state agencies --
the University vies with research institutions around the country for employees
in highly competitive fields such as information technology (IT).
"If we're to become the number one university in the country, and if we're to
compete in the research environment, we can't afford to be less competitive in
our ability to bring the kind of employees here that we need in order to carry
out the mission," she said.
Also unlike state agencies in other areas of North Carolina, the University
must contend with the Triangle's relatively high cost of living, especially the
cost of living in Chapel Hill, which is the highest in the state. But while the
University must operate under these circumstances, the same state salary
schedules apply here as those around the rest of North Carolina.
"Right now the state system is really quite restrictive in our ability to adapt
to changes in the marketplace quickly so that we can attract the employees that
we're trying to recruit here and so we can retain the employees that we have
whenever they're offered better positions, whether it's in the Triangle or in
California," Suttenfield said.
"We simply have no flexibility."
Suttenfield told this story to illustrate her point.
For the past few months, she said, an IT specialist has been working on campus
as a contractor in order to fill a vacancy for which a permanent employee
couldn't be found. He has been doing a great job, Suttenfield said, and the
University wanted to hire him on a permanent basis.
But because he doesn't have the right qualifications on paper as required by
the state, the University wasn't able to hire him. So he's still working as a
contractor, and -- because of overhead costs -- the University has to pay out
more for him than it would if he were a permanent employee, Suttenfield said.
"Here was someone obviously proving that he could do the job, but there just
was not enough flexibility to find a way to give him a permanent position," she
said.
Suttenfield also described how the University sometimes loses out on someone to
fill a research support position that needs to be reclassified in order to meet
the changing nature of research. That's because the state often conducts a
time-consuming "study" about the need to change job classifications before a
new classification can be established and recruitment started.
Suttenfield told forum members that she knows employees would want the
protections they now have as state employees to be preserved under any new
human resources system.
She said that while no workplace can guarantee job security, federal
labor-protection laws would still apply and, if anything, a new human resources
system here would improve on what the state now has in place.
"We want to be viewed as a very desirable employer by our current employees as
well as prospective employees, and we would be ill-advised if we did not
provide the same sort of protections to the employees on our campus,"
Suttenfield said.
"If we want to be competitive, our goal should be to improve on what we have,
not to reduce it in any way."
Also, the flexibility legislation calls for staff members with career status as
state employees -- those with at least two years of state service -- to have
the option to remain subject to the disciplinary provisions under which they
were hired.
The proposal also mandates that career-status employees could not see their
salaries reduced as a result of any new human resources system.
And all staff members would remain state employees in terms of staying in the
state's benefits programs. Suttenfield said that, in the future, the University
could even look into creating its own programs, if that would make Carolina a
better place to work.
"We might be able to pull together a better [health insurance] package at a
more reasonable expense to the employee," she said, because of Carolina's
buying-power as a large employer.
One forum member said the University's current system of in-range pay increases
is supposed to give managers more flexibility in making salary offers, but
because there isn't always funding in place the system can be ineffective. He
asked Suttenfield whether that might be the case with a new personnel system as
well.
Suttenfield responded that the University always would face funding
constraints, but the difference would be that under this new scenario Carolina
would be able to decide what areas to puts its money behind as the campus maps
out a strategic vision.
"The dollars would follow the goals and the priorities," she said.
Another forum member said the system would need to be in the best interest of
long-term employees as well as new ones, a point Suttenfield said she agreed
with.
Suttenfield said any plan would not be in place any time soon.
Getting there from here would give Carolina the chance to see how its peer
universities and the private sector run their human resources systems,
Suttenfield said, giving the University the chance to find out what's working
and pick the best practices for Carolina.
"This is an opportunity for fresh thinking," she said.
Suttenfield said the campus community would be very much involved in planning a
new system.
"All this would have to happen in a very thoughtful, deliberate way. ...
Nothing is going to change overnight," she said.
John Heuer, forum chair, said that staff members realize there are areas on
campus that could be improved if the University had more hiring flexibility.
Heuer also thanked the University for seeking feedback from employees about
possible changes.
The Senate proposal also would give UNC system schools more autonomy in setting
tuition, running IT and telecommunications systems, purchasing supplies and
equipment, acquiring property and disposing of it, and getting rid of surplus
items.
TABLE OF CONTENTS |
FRONT PAGE
| NEXT ARTICLE |
UNC HOMEPAGE