VIDEO: May 3 virtual Town Hall, with transcript

Wednesday’s hourlong session can be watched online; AI-generated transcript also is available

The following is a transcript developed by Otter.ai, an AI-powered transcription service. Please note that the transcript has not been fully edited, so it likely contains inaccuracies and potential misrepresentations of statements.

***

Andy Armacost  00:00

Let me offer my thanks for everybody signing in, and we appreciate you being here today.

I know that end of the semester is busy time for faculty and staff members. And so for you to take a few minutes out of your day to come participate in this town hall meets a lot. Just let me add my thanks to everyone for making this semester a great one. I know the students have gotten rich experiences both in the classroom across the campus.

Unfortunately, the weather hasn’t been the greatest. It looks like spring is here finally, with 60 degree temperatures and blue skies. So let’s enjoy it for the last couple of weeks of the semester and then roll into the summer.

But again, my appreciation to everyone for all the hard work that you put in.

Today is largely going to focus on the legislative session, and things that we’ve seen coming out of it and the session ended this weekend on Saturday, we’re still waiting for some legislation to be signed off by the governor. And today we’ll really just try to give you a sense of of where we stand on certain certain pieces of legislation and what it means for the university, and then to answer your question.

So I’ll spend a few minutes upfront just giving an overview. Before I do that, I wanted to thank the campus for all of your hard work on on the UND LEADS strategic plan, and the great work that went on hundreds and hundreds of people contributed. We launched it in January, we’ve been building the implementation team to actually execute that vision and to determine the ways that we’re going to, to evaluate initiatives and push those initiatives forward to find resources to make initiatives happen and to to make certain that we execute that vision, the right way, and with the spirit of cooperation across the campus that led to the construction of the strategic plan.

So I wanted to take this moment also to say congratulations to to Ryan Zerr, who is coming in to a new position that we created: the Associate Vice President for strategy and implementation. He’ll oversee the campus’ activities to achieve the goals and the objectives written into UND LEADS.

In addition, he’ll head a committee known as the implementation team, and the implementation team, I hope co chair along with Angie Carpenter, who has been an extraordinary member of our campus for years and has contributed in so many ways to strategic planning, both the current version and the older version of the strategic plan.

In addition, those two will be joined on the implementation team by our chief data officer, Amanda Moske, our new Director of Institutional Effectiveness and Accreditation, Shane Shellpfeffer, whose hiring was just announced. It will also involve the provost’s director of strategy planning and communications Anna Clark, as well as Chief of Staff Rob Carolin, in addition, will have direct connections to share governance with participation on that committee by the staff council president, the student government president and then also the University Senate chair and the chair elect.

And so in that way we we unify things nicely.

And then finally rounding up the crew will be representatives, both from the budget and finance — so the resource allocation team here on campus and then also marketing and communication. So a big, exciting opportunity for us to put that team together to assure initiatives through under UND LEADS. So just wanted to make sure I acknowledged all those folks.

And then in addition, let me get to the legislative piece as well, and then I’ll turn it over to Meloney Linder, who is going to control the flow of the questions and answers.

Just a couple of highlights. The first is the appropriations bill. This is House Bill 1003. This is where money is allocated to higher ed and to the individual campuses. And it’s with the governor right now; he hasn’t signed it yet, and we’re eager to get his signature.

But of note are the proposed salary pool increases. So the salary pool for the next few years will be 6% and 4%. And it represents a recognition by the Legislature of the impact of things like inflation and the need to remain competitive with the market for salaries both for faculty and staff.

We sustained continuation of the challenge grant program, which is a way for state money to be matched with donor money for student scholarships and endowed faculty positions. We’ll get about $5 million at UND for those programs. We received $9 million to support our work on space related research and education as well as national security. There was another $2.5 million that came to the University for our high performance computing; 2.5% for additional research and economic diversification activities.

Financially, I think, the Legislature put us in a very good position. There are some capital projects that were funded as well, including additional funding for Merrifield, but also the substantial piece of funding to support the development of a new STEM complex. And in fact, the engineering piece of that new stem complex.

So a lot of good things happening within the appropriations bill. But undoubtedly, you’ll have more questions about it.

In addition, one element of 1003 that I think requires specific mention is called Section 19. It was added following the failure of a bill called 1446, which was, was going to put limitations on tenure. But the addition, in this section 19 of the appropriations bill, let me read it to you. It says, “the president of an institution under the control of the State Board of Higher Education, may adopt policies, procedures and directives for the institution with input, but no authoritative control from faculty and others through shared governance.”

On the surface, this seems to give carte blanche to presidents. But what strikes me about that is, is is the word that says with input from faculty and others through shared governance, which compels that input, which I think is it actually reinforces good practice of shared governance. The frightening piece to some might be the statement of but no authoritative control from those same entities. And we’re going to work through what that means on our campus.

But I don’t see any change to our UND constitution, or any of our processes of shared governance as a consequence of that section. I know, the provost, the the leadership team, and I all feel a strong connection to the ideals represented by shared governance. And so we will, we’ll make sure that we keep those processes and procedures in place.

And again, I think the UND Constitution as written is strong, and it meets the guidance that’s in that new section, section 19.

Of Interest also will be House Bill 1040, which addresses the public employees pension plan, which is phasing out the defined benefit plan and putting into place the defined contribution plan — so going from a pension plan to a 401K plan, or 401k-like plan for new employees. So more information will follow on how that transition will happen.

But those who are currently under the pension will have the option of sustaining their pension as currently defined in your benefits.

In addition, I’m just thumbing through some others as I mentioned 1446, the tenure bill which failed, but just know that the State Board of Higher Education has been tasked to look at tenure and post tenure review.

So the chair of the board, Casey Ryan, is actually going to chair that subcommittee of the state board to make sure that we’re executing processes and procedures for for tenure and post tenure review. And as I talk, make sure that you populate the q&a, so use the q&a function to begin teeing up your questions.

The good news is that the EERC is seeing their state designation as the State Energy Research Center was sustained. In addition, there was a $7.5 million biannual allocation to conduct that work of the State Energy Research Center.

So the sunset clause which would cause that entity to go away after a certain amount of time has been removed, and that’s a good news story as well.

There’s one that’s gotten a lot of attention is one called specified concepts in higher education. This is Bill 2247, which had a list of 16 or 17 topics that the Legislature said we can’t compel people to follow.

But there’s a lot of nuance to this bill. And we need to make sure that we understand fully the impact on our campus. But we, there was an important provision that we had added to that bill, which was that academic freedom and freedom of speech would not be impacted by the provisions of this bill. In other words, what you do in your classrooms, and the thoughtful discussions you have about various theories and facts and things related to what might currently be considered controversial topics is is is not impacted by this bill.

What is impacted are penalties that might go to students or employees or faculty members who have views that that might be different from our own or different from your own. And so there are some protections for for individual rights within that as well. So I know undoubtedly, there’ll be questions about 2447 as we go forward.

In addition, there are many other bills that that came forward with respect to gender identity, participation on sports teams, restrooms, and shower facilities, within our living units. And just general use of pronouns.

So, what I need to do is just reinforce the notion, the important idea that the University of North Dakota, and our policies in the way that we need to interact must be rooted in principles of dignity and respect, dignity for the human being, and making sure that everybody has fair access to education, that there’s no discrimination, or harassment because of one’s background.

And in particular, in the LGBTQ community, making sure that people from that community are treated with respect and dignity. And again, this is a principle that applies to all students on our campus, and we need to make sure that nobody is singled out for for who they are, and to make sure that education is successful in the environment on campus is accepting of all members of our campus.

That’s a principle of how we at the University of North Dakota need to operate.

So we can go into more detail as the questions come forward. But legal counsel is taking a look at each of these items, and things like, do our current living facilities comply with the law? The answer is absolutely.

The way that you UND’s restrooms and shower facilities within the residence halls fully complies with what’s already what’s being stated within within those laws.

There’s one other thing. There was some discussion early on in the session about concealed carry in a variety of places. There was one bill that talked about concealed carry on college campuses, and then several other bills that talked about concealed carry in other places, like the state Capitol and other public spaces.

Those were all rejected in favor of a study that will go on during the interim period over the next few years about what should concealed carry look like across all of these different domains. So more to follow there as we move into the next session.

All the members of the team are here who have detailed expertise about the questions that you might have. So we’ll have Meloney actually control the flow now. And Meloney, thanks so much for being here. Appreciate your leadership and all the work that you’ve done throughout the session.

And a great opportunity also to thank all the people from the campus, whether it’s our elected leadership from the different Senates or others on campus who use their voice to talk about their views on the various legislation. This is what it means by governing governance for the people and by the people that your voice matters. Meloney, over to you.

Meloney Linder  13:27

All right. Thank you, President Armacost. And thank you to everyone who’s joined us today. And thanks to all of our panelists for taking the time to answer all of our questions and I appreciate questions are already starting to roll in.

There are a few that are around the 6 and 4 merit increase. So I’m going to group some of those together, and I’m going to turn them over to VP Stewart and the questions are, 1) Is it merit based? Or is it across the board — 6% for everyone in the year one?  Will it be effective July 1 of 2023? And then finally, how is it funded? Is it fully state funded? Or are institutions expected to pay for part or all of the merit increases?

Karla Stewart  14:16

Thank you, Meloney; I will try to remember all of them. But you might have to remind me if I start talking and I don’t answer anything.

It is a pool. So it is not an across the board salary increase, and the amounts may differ from employee to employee.

But yes, indeed, there is a 6% pool, that will be available for all eligible employees. And eligible employees is defined as anyone who has a an employee evaluation on file and has met expectations in all areas. So as long as those two criteria are met, the employee is eligible for that pool.

But no, it is not a it’s not an across the board increase, the amount to may vary from employee to employee. Do you want to follow up on that part?

No. The third part of that is, are the increases going to be funded through the state? Or are the institutions expected to fund all or part of the increase?

Okay, so what we call appropriated dollars, which is a combination of both state funding and tuition dollars, the state generously funded the entire portion of the appropriated increase, so that we could minimize tuition increases, and so that portion was all funded by the state.

However, we have a lot of positions that are funded by resources other than state and tuition dollars. This would include all grants and contract-funded positions, this would include any kind of position that’s funded by a fee, whether it be a student fee, or flight fees, or any housing, room and board fees, anything like that. Those positions, the institutions will have to use the revenues generated from those areas to cover the salary increases in those areas. So the state did not fund those increases, but they did fund the tuition share and the state share of the appropriated salary increases.

Meloney Linder  16:35

Thanks, Karla.

Andy Armacost  16:38

Just a quick update as well, to add to what Vice President Stewart just said, in past sessions, the Legislature only funded a portion of that appropriated piece, namely, the the portion that comes out of general funds, the piece that is covered by tuition, has historically been the responsibility of the university to pay for. But as Karla said, this year, they were generous. Not only did they issue a 6% and 4% Pool increase, but they also covered that extra tuition portion, so that we wouldn’t have to increase tuition for their students.

Meloney Linder  17:16

Thank you, President Armacost, VP Stewart. President Armacost, I’m gonna throw this next question to you. It came in to say, you may interpret the President’s powers as part of shared governance, but what happens if we ever get a president who doesn’t interpret things the same way, referencing House Bill 100?

Andy Armacost  17:36

Yeah, that’s a great question. And right, you currently have leaders who adopt the principles of shared governance, I think very strongly. We look at the UND Constitution, which is kind of the governing body of our shared government, the governing document of our shared governance processes. And in there, it grants decision decisions to the legislative body, namely the Senate and the council to make decisions on certain matters, and it outlines each of those.

But there’s always this presidential veto that that exists. So the question is whether a particular president wants to accept the advice or not, in other words, execute a veto or not, and that that exists within our current governance structure. And I think that’s common for most, if not all, institutions of higher education. I can’t comment about all, I guess; it’s too much of a stretch. But many, many systems follow the same type of constitutional authorities.

So you point out something that’s true on some campuses and in some time periods, presidents have powers to do things on their own. So it’s a true statement.

Meloney Linder  18:55

Thank you President Armacost. I’m gonna go back to Vice President Stewart, there’s a question about confirmation of a tuition freeze. I was wondering of you could elaborate on that to the group.

Karla Stewart  19:13

So there is a tuition freeze, but it’s — I would hesitate to call it a tuition freeze, because really what it is, is it’s a tuition increase limit. So our base tuition, which is programs that do not have a differential rate, and our general tuition rate for undergraduate is frozen at last year’s rate.

However, the Legislature has given the institutions the flexibility for programs that have differential tuition to, if they determine applicable, increase those up to 1% each year of the biennium. So we are reviewing that information with the Provost and the Deans right now to determine if there are programs that we are going to do a 1% increase or not.

So there is still flexibility for an increase only on again, differential tuition programs. And again, those are also ultimately at the discretion of President Armacost and Provost Link. So we’ll be reviewing those in the next week. Those will be reviewed and approved by the State Board of Higher Ed. On May 17, that will go to the budget and finance arm of the board and then whatever is finally agreed to will go through on the May 23 board meeting. So nothing will be final until May 23. But we are reviewing those as we speak.

Meloney Linder  20:56

Excellent. Thank you. I’m going to send this next question over to Provost Link. It says, will Casey Ryan’s tenure committee from the State Board of Higher Ed, invite input from our campus? UND’s post tenure review process is pretty well developed. Provost Link?

Eric Link  21:14

Thank you so much for the question. I can’t address what Casey Ryan may or may not ask from our institution, I have not received the details for what that structure that study might look like. But, of course, as an institution, I hope that we will be given a voice at the table. And knowing Casey Ryan a little bit, I suspect he will be very interested in soliciting our opinions, as the State Board of Higher Education works through their discussion.

But I don’t have any specifics at this time about what role we may or may not get to play on that particular committee. I would defer to President Armacost if he’s heard anything more than that, but I have not heard any specific details.

Andy Armacost  22:02

Right. So thanks, Provost Link, no details yet there’s no specific plan that’s been constructed. I can guarantee that faculty input from UND will be solicited and brought forward if not directly to Chair Ryan, then through me. In addition, the CCF and the state board rep, the faculty rep, will also bring faculty input forward undoubtedly as part of this process.

Meloney Linder  22:31

Thank you both. This next question I will send to Dr. Bailey. Dr. Bailey, does UND foresee Senate Bill 2247 having any impact on our DDI initiatives on campus, such as diversity training, due to its prohibition on mandatory non credit training surrounding specified topics?

Tamba-Kuii Bailey  22:52

Thank you so much for the question. I want to say as most of you all who do know me, I will say this is kind of a “and/both”. And so, I think that yes, it will have some impact on some of the DEI training; and no, as it relates to training related to non discrimination requirements by the federal or at the state level. Also, it does not prohibit or stop us from having to file non discriminatory laws.

So we do know those things are in place. We also know with this bill — if I move a little bit away from training — that in the classroom, we know that academic freedom still exist. And so there is no prohibition in terms of limiting academic freedom. and there’s no limit in terms of free speech.

So I do think it will have some impact and we’re continuing to work with the state Attorney General. And then with us here at the university, our general counsel to make sure that we’re in compliance and we’re having some sense of what we need to do.

So again, it’s an “and/both,” but we will continue to make sure that we are really being thoughtful, we’ll continue to do the work as it relates to diversity, equity inclusion that we need to do here at UND.

Meloney Linder  24:20

Thank you. Alright, the next question is regard to housing. So I’m going to send this over to our Director of Housing Troy Noeldner. Troy, will students in university housing be able to select to live with others of the opposite gender and apartment style living with a shared bathroom?

Troy Noeldner  24:36

Thanks, Melanie. My name is Troy Noeldner, Director of Housing and Residence Life. The legislation that was passed, specifically as mentioned regarding dormitory or residence halls, and in that legislation on line three, or if you have it in front of you, it does talk about that this legislation only affects dormitories or dormitory floors where there is a designation of male or female gender.

So our apartment housing policies won’t be impacted by this. So as long as everybody in the apartment unit agrees to live with one another, then yes, they would still be able to be told gender or mixed gender those units

Meloney Linder  25:18

Thanks Troy. Alright, this next question I’m going to send back to President Armacost. And President Armacost, the chilling social bills coming to the Legislature, whether they pass or not, do not go unnoticed outside of the state, and certainly would affect whether people are going to come here as a newly recruited faculty or students. What can or will the university do to combat these impressions locally?

Andy Armacost  25:43

One of the first things we need to do is to put our interpretation of the impact of these bills in a format that is available to all faculty and staff members, but also members of the community and potentially people who are looking to come to UND as faculty or staff members as employees.

So as we close out the session, the team is, is working hard to put that information together, just so we know. what’s fact and what’s fiction. A great example, was the Chronicle the other day, noting that there are 33 states with these divisive concepts legislation, and that North Dakota was the first one to approve. So that makes us look like we’re taking a pretty bold step, which this  is a restrictive step. But again, academic freedom is protected, we need to make sure that the protection of academic freedom and free speech is is made known to the public.

And that in fact, we weren’t the first; Tennessee passed a very similar bill last year. So we need to take some of the sensational headlines and work hard to tamp those down and give people a sense of really what’s happening within each of these bills.

But I think that the writers, whoever wrote the question is right. The accumulation of a number of bills certainly can impact those seeking to either come to campus or stay on campus, just because of the way it appears. And so we need to be mindful of that but still offer a campus that offers each member, student faculty, staff members, that sense of dignity and respect that they so that they so deserve.

Meloney Linder  27:23

Thank you. The next question I’m going to send to Peggy Varberg. Peggy, if someone is on probation until March, as an example, do they qualify for merit for the merit raise? And so I guess, in general, how long does someone have to be in their position to qualify for the merit that would go into effect July 1?

Peggy Varberg  27:45

We don’t actually have an answer to that I’ll be quite honest, it’s really up to this point has been up to the leadership in that area as to whether they have a cut off or not. The salary administration policies simply says that as long as they have an current evaluation on record, they may be eligible.

So again, it’s something that I think we need to make a campus decision on, and that’s part of discussions that we’re having with the President and his executive council.

Meloney Linder  28:18

Thanks, Peggy. And don’t jump off yet. The next one is coming your way as well. The question again, is it going to be solely merit based or is there an amount that everyone will get? For sure?

Peggy Varberg  28:28

So that’s a very good question. And I would like to be able to definitively say yea or nay, one way or the other, but first thing to remember is this is not approved through the governor yet. And then We will also get some direction likely from OMB and the State Board of Higher Ed.

From there, then again, we go back to the President and Executive Council and must follow what direction they give us.

Meloney Linder  28:53

Right, and don’t jump off the nexus for you to Peggy. So if the pool is 6 and 4 of all salaries, the question is, why can my administrator say that a 4% and 2% is the max we will be given – be able to be received to receive?

Peggy Varberg  29:07

I’m not really sure how that can be said at this point. However, when we have pools of money, it is up to leadership to decide how to disperse that. And so I know I’ll just answer this one, too. I know, there was a question in the chat when we took off, we went to “meets/does not meet,” and there’s no, above exceptional or four and five. How do you make those decisions?

And again, leadership needs to sit down and they review the the evaluations and they look for things that would, you know, projects and examples of work that would set people apart, who may get a higher increase, based on the work that was done. And so that’s, you know, always really, that’s how a lot of the areas have done it. And they’ve really looked for the words that  instead of the one through five or the “meets” or “does not meet,” they’re really looking for the words that set people apart, either in a excellent way, or in a developmental way.

Meloney Linder  30:27

Thanks, Peggy. I’ll send the next question over to Vice President Stewart. The question is, will there be an increase to the overall cost of our health insurance? I understand that does not come out of our pockets, but does it get charged to our grant budgets? So I guess it’s individuals on a grant. So that’s why they’re asking.

Karla Stewart  30:43

Thank you. So the question, that the answer is its health insurance increases are exactly the same as salary increases, so they follow the funding. So the Legislature, there is a 15% health insurance increase. The state funded that chair for appropriated positions, so again, funded the tuition share and the general fund share.

But if you are on a grant, or if your fund or if your department or area has people funded on local dollars, auxilary dollars, revenue generating dollars, the the impact will have to be paid for out of those funds, just like the salary increase, and the amount is a 15% increase.

Meloney Linder  31:33

Thanks, Karla. My question, I’m going to send it back over to you. And it’s regarding House Bill 1040, the NDPers plan. And the question is, will the employer contribution rates increase by 1% effective January 2024? And will this increase be the responsibility of the department?

Karla Stewart  31:53

Thank you for the question. And, again, I never like to say, I don’t know yet. But how I will answer it is yes. effective January 1, there will be an additional 1% increase to the employer share.

What I can’t definitively tell you is it is unclear based on the language and we are waiting to get clarification from the system office if additional funding was put into the budget to cover that additional 1%. So the the answer to the first part of the question is a definitive Yes. The answer to the second part of the question is, I don’t fully know the answer yet, because we have not gotten full answers on whether or not that that there was any funding provided in our bills to cover that.

So as soon as I know that I will make sure that we share that information with the campus community.

Meloney Linder  32:52

Thank you, but in fact is gonna go back to Peggy. Peggy with the change this year to “meet” or “does not meet” for annual evaluations, how will they determine what percentage employees receive a merit increase?

Peggy Varberg  33:10

You know, same as as what I’ve just discussed. So first off, we need to have some discussions with EC further to decide how that’s going to look in terms of the 6%. We know that the salary guidelines have said it can’t be the same — sorry, I’m looking at it so because I know there was a question in the chat about that as well. But not inherently supposed to be the same percentages for all employees but you And we’re hoping to maybe have some further guidelines that go out that that speak to this, that we’re working with the budget department on.

So it’s, I can’t fully answer that until I know some other answers about the 6% in general.

Meloney Linder  33:56

Thanks. And Peggy, the question is also, since see here, those positions where their position descriptions are revised, and they received an increase due to the revision, will they could they get the 6 and 4 as well?

Peggy Varberg  34:12

They will be eligible for an increase as well. Yeah, as long as that they have an evaluation in the performance meets, then they would be eligible for an increase as well.

Meloney Linder  34:23

Excellent. Thank you. Peggy, can you also answer this next question of can you provide more details on the new 401k program benefit? And if a current employee can stay on the pension as it stands, we’re to full benefits of that program.

Peggy Varberg  34:38

Yep, we don’t know the answer to that. I’m sorry, that seems to be the rule of my day today, there’s still just a lot left out on the table. And as far as what that looks like, we don’t know yet. And so there’ll be a lot of work done in the next few months with ND Pers. In addition to OMB and probably State Board of Higher Ed, with regard to what the new program looks like.

We know that the cutoff date will be January 1 of 2024. That’s what it looks like. And so those that are in the current plan will be grandfathered in, they’ll stay there. And then anybody hired after January 1 2024, would go into the new plan.

What we don’t know is if people will be allowed to move plans. Currently, there’s not a lot of that; they don’t allow that a lot. So with the two plans that we have the NDPers pension for non exempt employees, and then the TIAA which is for exempt employees. If you move to an exempt position, you are allowed to make a choice. But a lot of people have stayed in the NDPers pension program.

But we don’t know those are all questions. We got some information, Yes, yesterday at the Human Resource Council. But those were all questions that we also had. So we’re hoping to find out more of that and have good conversations with NDPers minimally next month.

Karla Stewart  36:07

I just want to make sure everyone knows too. I’s not that UND doesn’t know, literally, the state and the system don’t know how it’s all going to work yet. So I just wanted to clarify that.

This was the very last bill that passed. And so I don’t even actually know if it’s been signed by the governor yet. So I just want to clarify for everybody that it’s not that UND doesn’t know what we’re doing yet; the state and NDPers do not. It’s so new. And I don’t think they were fully prepared for it passing. And so we’re waiting on them to get us the information you need. So I just wanted to clarify that.

Meloney Linder  36:46

Thank you for that. And this next question may fall in the same line, but I’ll send it to you or to Peggy: what will happen to the ending for pensions for those who are currently on the original pension plan? They’re just wondering, do they need to worry that their retirement is going to change?

Karla Stewart  37:03

I can take that. Absolutely not; the the law change is to stop new entrants from entering the plan. So anyone who is in the existing plan, their benefits will not change. What they have is what they will get. And they will continue to contribute to that plan.

The bill was specifically targeted at stopping new applicants from or new employees from entering the plan. So if you’re in the plan, and you continue to be in the plan through January of 2024, your benefits should not change at all.

Meloney Linder  37:45

Thank you. I’m gonna send this next question over to President Armacost. Question is back to Senate Bill 2247, around specified concepts: how might that impact the staff members? Are there any foreseeable changes that staff should be aware of?

Andy Armacost  38:03

Well, before I answer that, let me go back to the previous question to just that there’s a lot of questions about specific benefits like on the pension versus the contribution plan. And as soon as we get more information, we’ll have very clear guidance and like a one pager that describes kind of the timing of the changes and so forth, just to make it easier to comprehend.

I know we’re throwing a lot of numbers and dates around so just know that will be forthcoming.

To the issue of 2247 No, it’s still going through a good review by the NDUS the systemwide Legal office to understand what what the bounds are.

There are certain provisions in that bill that for staff members for any employee, in fact, that outlines what might impact you. They do say that you as an employee can’t be penalized, discriminated against or receive adverse treatment for your ideological or political viewpoints. And that actually restates something that exists already, both within policy and in law.

But there’s a number of provisions within 2247, that the talk about how we can engage on these difficult discussions, right? We know that when it comes to race and gender issues, there’s, there’s a polarization across our nation right now. And and so what, what this does is it lays down some of what we can and cannot do, how we can evaluate employees, and so forth.

So, there are a number of rights to employees that are included in here.

Our goal, of course, is to make UND that place where we can have these tough discussions without fear of reprisal in either direction. And to make sure that people have not only freedom of speech, but freedom of conscience as well.

Donna Smith, you might have some additional points to raise on this one as well. Sorry to call you out of the blue. Over to you for your thoughts.

Donna Smith  40:07

That’s okay. Thank you. Actually, I was thinking you said it perfectly. We will spend some time over the next few months, looking at the various trainings that we have on campus, both those that are required in those that are optional, to make sure that we are complying with the law in the way that we talk about these issues.

And our focus doesn’t change in the fact that what we want for our campus is a place where students and employees, as president said earlier, where everyone is respected for who they are. And so that will be our focus going forward.

Meloney Linder  40:56

Thanks, Donna. Dr. Bailey, do you have anything you also would like to add on this topic?

Tamba-Kuii Bailey  41:06

Thank you. No, I think that the both the President and what Donald Smith said really speak to that. I think we’re always trying to make sure we have a welcoming and inclusive space in campus, while also trying to make sure that we’re in compliance with this.

And as the President said, there are things that we’re aware of in the bill, particularly as it relates to, you know, a person’s perspective, their kind of political, ideological perspective, and that those things aren’t being discriminated against.

I think two of them have said it, and I think that that will continue to make sure we have a good understanding as we move forward.

Meloney Linder  41:50

Thank you. I’m going to send the next question to Peggy again, Peggy, there are several questions coming in regarding the salary review that’s going to be underway, and how might that impact things. So I’ll turn that over to you.

Peggy Varberg  42:07

So we are about to sign — we’ve just finished negotiations that are about to sign a contract with Huron Consulting, who will come in and do a full bore review of our pay -right — equity, both in a Title Seven, gender/race perspective, in addition to where people are in, do we have them matched in the right spaces, those kinds of things.

We’ve never done this at UND wholeheartedly like this. And so I’m excited. I’m excited.

The process will take once we’re starting about 17 weeks, and then we will work with the consulting firm, to see where we have disparities, what those disparities are, and then put a plan together to identify any gaps, why we have those gaps, whether it’s because of a Title VII, you know, gender/race, those kinds of things, ethnicity, any of those kinds of things or if it’s because pay is in the wrong,  the market is wrong, that person is in the wrong job code or they just simply are in the wrong space. They need to be in a different space.

So we are working with that actively. We’re hoping to get that started off the ground here in the next couple or three weeks. But we’re working with procurement on the finalizing of that what that contract looks like.

Meloney Linder  43:36

Thank you, Peggy. President Armacost, next question over to you: Around the university there are a variety of 360-like evaluations use for annual reviews, but they are not consistent across campus. After discussing senior level administrator 360 evaluation for more than a decade, are there plans to implement this?

Andy Armacost  44:02

There are a number of places where those arise, certainly the Deans as part and and Provost Link, be on standby to confirm what I’m saying. Deans, when they’re up for their renewals, their appointment renewals, we instituted a process a few years back to do a 360 on them. I know that as part of their annual reviews, the provost has certainly used feedback from subordinates within the colleges and schools.

And so I think those are important parts. I will go through a 360; you’ll have a chance to meet with the State Board members this fall. I think they’re doing it in September. So I certainly would appreciate your feedback on on the leadership that I hope I’m providing the campus. And Eric over to you for additional thoughts.

Eric Link  44:52

Yeah, I can certainly confirm that we conduct a 360 review every third year for all standing Deans. That is in addition, of course to the annual evaluation that all Deans undergo like every other employee on campus.

We’ve also taken steps in the past year, at least since I’ve arrived to expand. more broadly, the upward feedback that we solicit from the campus community on administrators within the Office of the Provost. So deans and other administrators, we are sending out Qualtrics surveys for upward feedback to more people and gathering more information and giving more people an opportunity to let us know how they think we are serving the needs of campus.

So thank you, President Armacost, for tossing it over to me. And back to you.

Meloney Linder  45:54

All right, thank you both. Peggy, another question for you, with staff shortages is UND going to start accepting experience for open positions instead of just education to be qualified for the position?

Peggy Varberg  46:10

We actually do already. So if you look at the PD, there are some of them — position descriptions — that will say, bachelor’s, or master’s or associates or experience, right, and the experience has to be directly related to the position.

So we have done that. We have — in job banding, we have to support why we would do that. And so if we, especially in a 3000 band, if it requires a bachelor’s degree, then why would we allow experience to be accepted. And so we just document that, like we’ve had trouble recruiting, whatever the case is, for specific areas. But we have done that.

And we do we work with leadership with the hiring managers. And we walk through that the HR managers walk through the PDS with them and talk about those perspectives and allow the traditionally will will let the hiring manager make that decision as to whether they will or not.

I will say just to comment, sort of on this road, we have seen a significant uptick in applications over the last month. So we’re getting many more applications than we did before. And that’s really been a positive, positive note. We had one position that opened on this past Monday and the next day they had 45 candidates in the queue.

Don’t know quality don’t know if they’re all, you know eligible for the position or qualified but we’ve been really happy. The change in the national market has gone different in that employers aren’t hiring as much as they were before. And so it’s becoming a little more competitive again, which is really beneficial for us.

Meloney Linder  48:02

Thanks, Peggy. One more question going back to the equity study. And there’s the question of what is the cost for the Huron contract

Peggy Varberg  48:19

We’re still negotiating but it’s it looks somewhere between 360 and 380– $380,000. But it’s a lot of work. There’s a lot of work that they’ll do for us and they’ll really help us create some strategies to help us solve any of the gaps that we have. So there’s there’s a tremendous amount of work that they do For us.

Meloney Linder  48:41

Thanks, Peggy, President Armacost, I’m gonna throw this one back to this next one back to you. It says a while back, there were discussions about UND’s policy around some snow and storm days. And with all of the storms we had this past semester, will anything be changing in the future? And I will say yes, it’s been a doozy of a winter.

Andy Armacost  49:01

What a winter we had, and thanks for everybody for bearing with it. We, our principal focus this year on decision making was was health and safety of faculty, staff and students.

We do realize the inconvenience that’s presented to those faculty members trying to press through material and and others who had events scheduled on the campus who were disrupted. So our apologies for that.

Last year, last we said let’s look at our our ability to go remote — remote teaching and remote activity during snow days. Peggy Varberg can probably shed a little more info, but a great committee from across the campus met, and largely they reinforced the policies that were currently in place.

This winter, of course, I think with the number of disruptions, it’s causing us to want to go back and reignite the work of that committee. And to examine what options do we have, there’s interesting pay features that when you close, who gets paid what. And so anytime you’re talking pay, we want to make sure that any changes we make to policy are fair to the people on the campus. So that’s one of the dominant factors.

Peggy Varberg, any additional thoughts here? The bottom line is it’s something that we’re definitely looking at. Hopefully, there’s no snow days over the summer, and it will give us an answer. So but thanks for everybody bearing with us. Peggy?

Peggy Varberg  50:24

Yeah, it was brutal. I mean, it was brutal for for everyone in terms of all the days. This is a challenging, challenging topic. There’s so many moving parts to it. And for seven or eight months, we did have a group cross collaborative group from across the university that discussed it, and we discussed it with other partners in the NDUS system.

And as the President knows, or most of us know, when we talk about making decisions about open and close, Rodney (Clark, UND police chief) is great about bringing other community partners like the city and the county and the school district and National Weather Service to the table with us. We have the meetings about what should we do.

But it’s evident that we need to think differently, maybe. And just really walk walk it back again, and and talk about it.

Pay is an issue. You know, if we have a non exempt employee who is working on a closure day, they get paid for the hours that they worked, and they get paid for the closure day. And that’s the right thing to do you know, at the moment. So these are all things that we need to do. What do we do with remote employees? If they’re remote that day, should they continue to work? If they’re in Grand Forks, where this is closed, do they have to work, you know, if they’re not essential? And what does an essential employee really look like?

So, you know, in our ever changing landscape of what our workforce looks like, where we are and how we do our work, we need to just back up again, and put some some people at the table and have conversations again.

Meloney Linder  52:01

Thank you, Peggy. And we’re heading towards the last few minutes of our time together. So I’m going to send this send it over to President Armacost. I know we still have several questions regarding the merit increase. I know we’ve addressed it still some questions that we’re waiting confirmation on the president, because I don’t know if there’s anything you’d like to say to close regarding merit, and then close this out for the day.

Andy Armacost  52:23

Keep in mind, the Legislature was extraordinarily generous, more generous than they’ve been in the recent past in terms of making more money available for pay increases and also to cover a greater portion of what they’re they’re offering. So that’s great news.

Again, we’re still working out the details. There was a question about whether the 6% and 4% should apply to individuals or to a pool. And it’s very clear in the legislation that it applies to a pool. The NDUS systemwide guidance is the same and both Peggy and Carla are working very closely with the finance people and HR people at the system level to make sure we’re in complete compliance with what’s allowed.

So I just got an email from Kurt Hansen over in Special Collections at the library, he says is that was that a bobblehead on your desk? So I thought I would end on a happy note. This is my Tom Petros bobblehead that I picked up a couple of weeks ago. It’s remaining in the box kind of like a Toy Story character that we’re all familiar with.

But Tom, it’s good to see you every day when I walk in and hopefully you’re on line today as well.

Let me end by saying thank you to everyone. This has been a busy semester, it’s been a cold and snowy semester. I appreciate the the support, the motivation, the excitement that you bring to the campus, and each and every one of your students and your colleagues as well.

I think one of the most important things we can do is remain tight as a community. This forum hopefully was useful. As I mentioned before, we’ll get information to you about many of these details in writing so that you, you know, the balance of what we’re talking about. And then in addition, if there’s enough interest, as we, as we move through the weeks of the summer, if you want to get together again, kind of off cycle over the summer to explain more in depth, we can certainly put more Town Halls together.

But let me thank all of my colleagues for being here — your expert answers to the questions that were asked. And everybody, have a great afternoon, and we’ll see you soon.