Planned closure - NCAR Mesa Lab Road & Facilities - July 4 at 4 pm more info>
- UCAR Home
- About Us
- For Staff
Present for all items: Tom Bogdan, Emily CoBabe-Ammann, Jim Hurrell, Hanne Mauriello, and Katy Schmoll.
Present for Item 1: Meg Austin, Rachael Drummond, Susan Friberg, Anke Kamrath, and Cindy Schmidt.
Present for Item 2: Dan Wilson and Meg McClellan.
1. Stakeholder Survey.
The President’s Council met with the UMC Working Group #2 (Vision and Branding) to discuss the findings from the stakeholder survey undertaken earlier this year. Bogdan commended the Working Group members for their hard work on this effort. The survey was conducted to assess UCAR/NCAR/UCP’s visibility and reputation with selected internal and external audiences. Overall, the results are largely positive and present the organization with a number of opportunities. Additionally, the new UCP and NCAR Directors have come on board since the survey was completed. Thus, the information is timely and will likely influence the NCAR strategic planning efforts already underway and UCP’s planning which will begin soon. Plans are being made to distribute survey results to staff and external stakeholders.
2. A Synthetic Fixed Rate Refunding of the 2003 Bonds.
Dan Wilson explained the proposed synthetic fixed rate refunding of the 2003 bonds utilizing an interest rate swap, which could potentially mean significant savings for UCAR. The savings would translate into some reduction to the indirect rate cost pool. The 2003 bonds were used to construct the ACD chemistry building. Doing this as quickly as possible is crucial for maximum savings. The President’s Council approved Wilson proceeding. He will be communicating the risks and possible benefits to the Board of Trustees soon and asking for their approval, as long as the savings thresholds are met.
3. Proposed Dog Policy.
Katy Schmoll discussed a proposed dog policy which resulted from a staff member promoting the beneficial effects of having dogs in the workplace. A committee investigated the best practices of other organizations which allow employees to bring dogs into the office. However, federal law and the unique working environments of the Mesa Lab, RAF/Jeffco, Marshall, and the NWSC prohibit dogs in these facilities. Dog owners would have to provide release forms, current medical records, etc. The policy also provides a mechanism for those staff members who have dog allergies or fears.
President’s Council members expressed concern that there are more negative than positive outcomes to implementing this policy. These include managing staff and visitor’s allergies, potential conflict between staff who want dogs and those who don’t, as well as increased workload on administrative staff at a time when we are looking to improve efficiency. The President’s Council agreed that not implementing the dog policy was the wisest decision.
The President’s Council adjourned at 12:00 noon.