BOT Must Respect All Of UNC

At its September meeting, the BOT -- the highest governing body on the University campus -- effectively shot down a proposal asking to give the Faculty Council and the Employee Forum each a nonvoting seat on the BOT.

The proposal would have allowed a faculty member and a staff member to make sure that decisions ranging from tuition increases to campus parking are made with the faculty and staff voice heard -- a privilege already extended to students in 1972 through the creation of a seat for the student body president.

But with little discussion and no dissenting votes, the full BOT decided that privilege did not also need to be extended to faculty or staff members, with board members saying that they "don't think this is the appropriate way to increase access" and that, "Once you start down that road, we could have a committee twice the size it is now."

Poor excuses to avoid adding two seats to a 13-member board that would make the body more representative of the university it is designed to serve.

Despite the clear and unanimous message that the BOT sent out at its September meeting, the Employee Forum is coming back for more abuse.

The forum passed a resolution last week asking for approval to go before the trustees at an upcoming meeting during which a representative would argue for employee representation on the BOT.

While this likely will be a futile act in terms of achieving that nonvoting seat, at least the employees are telling the administration that the lack of respect is unacceptable.

Tommy Griffin, chairman of the Employee Forum and a mechanic with UNC Facilities Services, said the BOT's rejection sent out a big message that the board doesn't care about the University staff or the faculty.

"I wasn't mad, I wasn't upset, I was just hurt," Griffin said. "But we'll just have to keep on trying."

Griffin said he won't give up with proposals and entreaties to the BOT until it sees the worth of having direct employee representation on the board.

"I've been here 30 years, and I'm not going anywhere," Griffin said.

One can hope the BOT will break down soon and see the worth of the direct representation for faculty and staff and the worth of showing respect toward the two sizeable groups.

Especially because UNC-CH is behind other schools in the UNC system.

At Appalachian State University, the faculty chairman holds an ex officio position on the school's governing board, as does the employee forum chairman at N.C. State University, according to Griffin and Sue Estroff, Faculty Council chairwoman.

Although UNC-CH holds itself up as progressive, the BOT's lack of desire to extend representation to these groups while other schools have done so shows a backward mind-set that is resistant to change and protective of maintaining the board's status quo.

The other schools' willingness to add representation also pokes holes in the BOT's argument that additional members would disrupt the balance and makeup of the board, which is set by the state legislature.

The state's statute prohibits state employees from holding voting seats on a school's governing body.

"Our subcommittee agreed with what the legislature did because of the separation of powers," Trustee Jim Hynes said. "The general trend is to have outsiders serve on the board, not insiders."

But the general trend now seems to be that universities in the system are recognizing the overriding need to consider the faculty and staff voice when making crucial decisions regarding the University.

UNC-CH's trustees, however, are instead actively turning down the Faculty Council and Employee Forum's persuasive arguments as to why they deserve to be in on decisions that affect their careers and daily lives.

So UNC-CH's faculty and staff best break out their cigars and bad jokes because, in the words of Dangerfield, they "don't get no respect."

Karey Wutkowski can be reached at karey@email.unc.edu.