Left Navigation

Faculty Senate Home Agenda Faculty Senate Bylaws Committees General Faculty Items of Interest Mediation, Grievances & Hearings Meetings & Minutes Resolutions Senators

FACULTY SENATE MEETING
October 18, 2011

Present:  Chair Kellner, Immediate Past Chair Overton, Secretary Sawyers, Provost Arden; Parliamentarian Weiner; Senators Argyropoulos, Aspnes, Auerbach, Borden, Bourham, Campbell, Carver, Fuentes, Funkhouser, Hammerberg, Headen, Holden,  Jasper, Kotek, Lubischer, Lunardi, Mitchell, Moore, Nfah-Abbenyi, Robinson, Snyder, Sztajn, Tonelli, M. Williams, Zonderman

Excused:  Senators Edmisten, Rucker, Townsend, Tu, Williams

Absent:  Senator Freeman, Hatcher, Khosla

Guests:  Eileen Goldgeier, Vice Chancellor & General Counsel; Mike Poterala, Deputy General Counsel; Marcia Gumpertz, AVP, Faculty and Staff Diversity; Toby Parcel, Professor, Sociology/Anthropology; Emerson Barker, Student Government; Marielle Pocan, Office of the Provost; Betsy Brown, Vice Provost, Faculty Affairs; Richard Bernhard, Professor Emeritus, Engineering

1. Call to Order
Chair Kellner called the 4th meeting of the 58th session of the NC State Faculty Senate to order at 3 p.m.     

2.  Remarks from the Chair
Chair Kellner stated that the General Faculty meeting seems to have been a success, the attendance was adequate and the meeting was informative.  The question of using Centennial Campus in the future came up and he thinks that is something the Senate needs to be thinking about.

The Board of Visitors was on campus Friday and one of the things they discussed was ideas for the 125th celebration year.  There were many interesting ideas.

Chair Kellner stated that another point that came up was the issue of Honorary Degrees and the need for good nominees.   More information needs to get out about the process and how it’s done, who is appropriate, and how to get the nominations in the pipeline.

Resolution
Chair Kellner brought up the issue of the GLBT Center being vandalized.  He presented a resolution (attached) condemning the vandalism of the GLBT Center. A motion was made and seconded to suspend the rules so that the resolution could be adopted on the first reading.  The motion passed to suspend the rules and the resolution was adopted with a unanimous vote.

3. Approval of the Minutes, Meeting No. 3, September 20, 2011  
A  motion passed to approve the minutes as corrected.

4. Remarks from Provost Arden 
Strategic Plan Implementation
Provost Arden commended Past Chair Overton on her work in bringing the plan together. 

Provost Arden stated that they hope to have the plan completed by the end of the week and taken to the Board of Trustees for notification.  The plan will be a living document that we can update as we go along and once again will be a combination of goals and strategies and actions that we have taken to implement those strategies and also measurements by which we will be measuring out an approximate time line. 

Strategic Realignment
Provost Arden stated that they have had a lot of task force reports that have come out, in which they are acting on or others that are due very shortly. We are trying to implement the first recommendation from the DE task force and that was to allow students who are registered full time on campus to take additional DE courses at no additional cost. We are having to work through GA with that and we have a meeting set up to get their direction.

DUAP and Student Affairs
The task force dealing with the merger of DUAP and Student Affairs is working very hard.  They are close to issuing a report that will detail the proposed structure of that unit.  We wanted to have the report in place before we begin a search for the individual that will be leading that unit.  That person will carry a dual title of Senior Vice Provost for Student Support and Dean of Undergraduate Programs.  He or she will sit on both the Chancellor’s Executive Officers Group and the Deans Council.  This is an opportunity to have an individual that is going to be presenting both academic side and non academic side of student issues so I think that is going to be very important.

Academic Program Review Committee
The Academic Program Review Committee is closing in on a preliminary list of metrics by which we should be evaluating academic programs for effectiveness and efficiency and they have told me that their intent is to test this out on a limited number of academic programs, one from each college and then get the feedback from that, reanalyze the data then get faculty input and modify those metrics, so it is a testing of that list of metrics on academic program review.

Academic Science Program Task Force
The Academic Science Program task force that is led by Margery Overton is making good progress.  I have asked for an interim report by the end of this month to assess the direction of the committee and to determine if there are some things that we can pull off the table to narrow the scope of that committee’s charge.  That, I think will allow them to really focus on some of the key issues that they are considering at this point.

GLBT Center
I’m glad that the Senate passed the resolution condemning the vandalism of the GLBT Center.  This is an issue that is important just like the tunnel incident and the other incidents that we have had.  I think it is very important that we as a university community make it clear internally and externally that this is not who we are, this is not what we represent and that this is not something that we are going to tolerate.  There are significant differences between this incident and the tunnel incident since the tunnel is a free speech area.  When you write something in the tunnel it is protected under the first amendment and also it doesn’t involve vandalism to state property.  This does involve vandalism of state property and is in no way protected under free speech.  More importantly than the aspect of pursuing it as a crime, I think it’s important that we make it very clear that this is not the kind of act that depicts who we are as a community and that it will not be tolerated by the faculty, administration, staff or the student body.

QUESTIONS

Walt Robinson—Can you give us an update on the plan for the faculty excellence program?
What the Chancellor and I have tried to do is to really empower the faculty to come together and put forth proposals to hire colleagues on this campus irrespective of where they fit from a departmental perspective and help break down some of our disciplinary barriers.  Our hope was that faculty would be really energized and I believe that they are, and come together and really propose some unique things that otherwise wouldn’t necessarily fit perfectly in our traditional hiring process where funds are allocated to colleges and departments.

Ron Campbell- Would this also include on campus talent?
As an institution we have not grown the depth of our tenure, tenure track faculty for fifteen years and the principle thrust of this is to bring more talent to this university.  Now would I rule out a proposal that included some shifting of responsibilities, no I wouldn’t rule that out. 

The other part of the balance I was talking about is that we know in order for this to be successful long term, the deans and department heads are going to have to buy into this, so we came up with the scenario that the proposals would be run past the Deans and they would be asked to provide input as to level of support and level of cost sharing and therefore the willingness of the colleges to participate.  Since then, most of the Deans have set deadlines in their colleges for proposals from faculty in their college to be submitted to them so that they can 1) have time to prioritize those proposals, and 2) have time to work with the other Deans in determining the level of cost sharing between colleges.

We are trying to get the balance between really energizing the faculty to come together and put these proposals forward and at the same time allowing the colleges time to weigh in. 

Jane Lubischer - Will all of the faculty proposals get to your desk?
What I would like is that all of those that are deemed high  priority by the colleges come forth and that even as many as the others that the faculty feel strongly about come forward and are evaluated by the evaluating  committee.  The evaluating committee is chaired by Terri Lomax and Duane Larick, and will have one representative from each college and then at the end of the day that committee is going to send a prioritized list to the Provost and the Chancellor.    

So, I prefer to see more, but if a proposal comes forward with little or no enthusiasm or matching funds from any of the colleges, it is less likely to be successful.

Dimitri Argyropoulos – Question regarding the academic science realignment committee, where they are and the direction of the committee.
It’s coming from me right now because  this committee was given a very broad charge, to look at the administrative organization of three major colleges and some other colleges and ask questions about everything from changing college structure and departmental structure to developing  interdisciplinary departmental programs and everything in between, so what I want to know right up front is, is the committee seriously considering recommending major changes in college structure or not, because if not, we need to take that off of the table so that they can focus in other areas.  Now that doesn’t mean that they are not going to recommend that we shouldn’t move forward with departmental restructuring or even the merger of some graduate or undergraduate programs, but let’s focus our attention there and get things that are off the table, off the table, and that will help us focus our energy here in the final couple months of that committee’s work.

5.  Remarks from Eileen Goldgeier, Vice Chancellor & General Counsel
Vice Chancellor Goldgeier commented on what the University Counsel’s Office is, what it does and what it does not do.

Faculty Liability, PRR Project
Why would a university need an attorney?  There are about 200 laws that apply to a university.  We have a budget worth more than one billion dollars.  We are the largest land owner in the state and one of the largest employers.   The biggest challenge that we have is staying abreast of the law.  We have five attorneys in the office and we are all specialized.  Some are jack of all trades.  We have two employment attorneys, two research attorneys, IT attorneys, transaction attorneys, real estate attorneys.  We have attorneys that have practiced before the 4th Circuit, we have attorneys experienced in state law and administrative practices.  Higher education law essentially covers from A to Z - although  zoning doesn’t affect us. 

There are certain things that we don’t do.  We are not specialist in patent law.  We don’t do bond law and we don’t appear in court.  We are not allowed to represent the university in court, so whenever there is litigation we turn the case over to the Attorney General’s office.

We don’t have the authority to sue anyone, and in order to actually file a lawsuit we have to get Board of Governors approval and then the AG’s office approval.  We also don’t handle private matters for people.

Goldgeier shared the General Counsel’s website.   We have some resources that will hopefully get you started if you have a legal question about something you are doing. We also make house calls out to the campuses.  One of the things that we have is the PRR website link on our website.  We have legal topics that we think are useful for the employees on this campus.  W have legal FAQ’s.  We have started an online training sessions and we also have a contract library.

Goldgeier stated that the Howling Counsel refers to the University Counsel’s newsletter. 

Goldgeier stated that a lot of people think that we actually just do litigation when in fact, we don’t.  Our practice is highly transactional.  We review hundreds of contracts.  We also create and draft hundreds of contracts a year.  Last year some of the biggest ones involved some great partnerships that the university developed with the community.  One was the Contemporary Art Museum.  The College of Design has a relationship with the museum and our students are involved and Dean Malecha hopes that the relationship will become a basis for opportunities and programs for our students and possibly another degree.

We were involved in negotiations with SKEMA Business School located on Centennial Campus and worked with the Provost Office and the Office of International Student Services in trying to put together an agreement where we could allow the French business school to operate on Centennial Campus.

We were involved heavily in the energy saving performance contract, a $60 million contract that will pay for itself over the course of twenty years in energy savings.  It was exciting to get the Early College High School started as well.

We have been working on a policy project.  Back in the summer of 2010 there were 613 PRR’s.  We decided to review all the policies and regulations and each Vice Chancellor was tasked to review all of the policies and regulations.  We have been reviewing every policy and regulation to first determine, do we need it?  The Personnel Policy Committee has been working very hard with the Legal Office on revising a lot of the faculty policies. We have also changed some of our policies based on federal law.  That review continues and we are close to having reviewed all 613, refreshed those that needed refreshing, revised those that needed revising, attempt to repeal those that we don’t think are necessary.  The initial review of policies and regulations will be completed by the end of December. Goldgeier stated that faculty always ask her, “can I be sued”.  The answer is yes. People sue all the time, however, the better question is to ask “can we win the case”?  The answer is also it depends, but there is a lot that you can do so that we will be on the higher end of these cases.  We have created legal topics that give some general information about lawsuits and litigation, the State Employees Act, how the state of North Carolina defends employees that have not exceeded their authority or violated the law.  There are only two situations that I’m aware of in which university employees, in particular, faculty members were not defended by the AG’s Office and that is when they have violated university policy (in particular a sexual harassment case), or they have committed a crime and the AG Office has decided that that is either not in the best interest of the state or you were not acting in the course of your employment.

Questions:

Do faculty need excess liability insurance?
The university through the state has excess liability insurance of $10 million.  Faculty and employees have been defended by the AG’s Office.

Hans Kellner - Why do we sometimes have shadow policies? Can you please explain the differences between Regulations, Policies and Procedures?
We do have a policy on policies.  A policy is issued by the Board of Trustees, and it’s either required by state or federal law or by the Board of Governors.  Under NC General Statutes, the Board of Trustees regulate parking and transportation on campus.  We have a policy on parking and transportation on campus that is about 150 pages long that deals with everything from skateboarding on the sidewalks to bicycle registration to booting of cars to traffic fines, etc. The Board of Trustees also has authority under NC Statutes to form a police department and they have the authority to enforce the laws of the State of North Carolina on our property and can enter into a mutual agreement with other law enforcement agencies.

Regulations are by the authority of the Chancellor or Vice Chancellor, for example Charlie Leffler has some delegated authority by the Board of Governors as well as by state law.  He can pass certain regulations in purchasing, travel, on the business side of the house.  The Chancellor has policies that he deems to be appropriate for a Chancellor’s authority, for example the Equal Opportunity Statement.  You need statements coming from the top of the organization setting forth the values of our university for purposes of, for example, the unfortunate incident that happened at the GLBT Center. 

Why we have such an overlap, I don’t know.  We will have a BOG policy, and then we will have a university policy and then we will have a regulation.  You have to read all three sometimes and we are trying to eliminate that as well as part of the PRR project.  One of the things that Chancellor Woodward worked on when he was here was the Alcohol Policy.  There is a policy of the Board of Trustees and there is an alcohol regulation, so we have two.  The Board of Trustees have delegated to the Chancellor when, where, and how alcohol can be served on campus and he has to give permission.  The one policy that I don’t think we have a PRR on is political activity.   You have to ask permission to run for a political office.  There are about five rules in the UNC policy that have to be followed, and now they have to go and get permission from the Board of Trustees for political office holding.  It’s all Board of Governors and we don’t have a matching one at the university.

Roby Sawyers: In reviewing the alcohol policy a year or so ago, it seems to have been written in a way that was oriented toward SPA employees that have regular working hours and was worded in a way that prohibited alcohol use between the hours of 9:00 and 5:00 and “when working.”  This seemed to me to be problematic for faculty and administrators who work at odd hours and at home. Has this been changed? 
Goldgeier stated that one of the things that Chancellor Woodward tried to do was to reduce the bureaucracy of when alcohol could be served on campus.  There use to be a rule about alcohol at events off campus and that was taken out of the policy.

 Goldgeier went on to say that alcohol in the privacy of your home is permitted.

Dimitris Argyropoulos – How does the General Counsel’s office get feedback on potential changes in PRRs?
Goldgeier stated that it is an enormous task and the Vice Chancellors are tasked with the responsibility to ensure that the constituent group is informed as well as part of the feedback process.  Ultimately it will be presented to the BOT once it goes through that as well as approved by the Provost and then the Executive Officers and ultimately the Chancellor before it gets to the Board of Trustees.

David Zondeman  - The sense is that this university is so risk diverse—that the counsel seems to aid and abet that stance.  Is this the way the General Counsel’s Office operates?
My philosophy on the General Counsel’s Office is that we are a support and service unit of the Chancellor’s office and ultimately of the university in helping it to achieve its goal.  We are not and will not be under my leadership, abominable  “no” men.  We are all about pushing the envelope.  We like to build things.  We deal with adversaries all the time.  The university does have its own rights and sometimes people forget that and someone needs to be an advocate for the university.  The other thing is that we can be a positive influence.  I mean most of what we are doing is working with faculty on research projects, how they can be more entrepreneurial, working with the partnership council, any number of measures and ways of how we can do things, and Centennial Campus is the avenue by which we are doing a lot of these things and I think that you will find that under Chancellor Woodson’s leadership we will be innovative and we hope to continue to be part of his team in helping the university achieve its strategic goal. 

Al Headen- How do you identify redundant PRRs and what happens when on e rule conflicts with another? Does one dominate the other?
Goldgeier stated that she thinks it depends on what the topic is.  Also, there is another committee looking at the REGS from more of an implementation standpoint.  We have consolidated some of our PRR’s. 

6.  Remarks on ADVANCE
Assistant Vice Provost Gumpertz stated that she will be talking about the ADVANCE Project here at NC State.  ADVANCE is an NSF Program to promote careers and advancements of women and minorities in the sciences and Engineering particularly university faculty.  I will talk about the diversity that we have here on campus in the faculty, about the ADVANCE Program, and the progress that we are making or not making. 

The goal of the National Science Foundation’s (NSF) ADVANCE Program is to increase the representation and advancement of women in academic science and engineering careers, thereby developing a more diverse science and engineering workforce.

Our student population is very diverse but it doesn’t represent the population of the state of North Carolina very well.  In particular, African American, American Indian and Hispanic students are very much underrepresented.  The state population of African Americans is about 22%, Hispanics make up about 8%, and Native American about 1.2% of the population in North Carolina.

This is National data—in the Life Sciences and Biological Sciences about 50/50 men and women getting doctorates.  In chemistry and mathematics it’s in the 30 to 40 percent range, physics and engineering around 20 percent and in education about 70 percent of the doctorates are women. Gupertz stated that there is more underrepresentation when the numbers are broken out by race/ethnicity. 

About fifty percent of the non tenure track faculty are females—30 to 40 percent of the tenure track is female and only 21% of the tenured faculty are females at NC State.

There has been a slight decline in African America faculty over the past ten years. The number of Hispanic faculty has been increasing over time and we currently have four Native American Faculty on campus.

Gumpertz stated that the project is a three year project and we are currently in the third year.  The goal is to increase the female share of faculty, the visibility of women faculty, the number of faculty of color at all ranks, and the number of women in line leadership positions.  If women and minority faculty are well represented it has a large impact on what happens in the departments and what happens on campus as a whole. Additional goals are to cultivate leaders as change agents and to change attitudes about hiring diverse faculty.

There are three major components to this project.  The first component is the core of the project, a group called the Advance Scholars that consists of seventeen faculty with  at least one representative from each college.  They make a three year commitment to work on this project.  They serve as catalysts and change agents by seeding discussions in workshops and retreats. They promote discussions with colleagues and serves as a resource for colleges and departments and they are also working on initiatives sparked by discussions.

The second component is a leadership development workshop for women and faculty of color and the goals are to motivate women and minority faculty to consider a career in administrative positions. That is a series of seven workshop.  Applications to participate in the workshops are due on November 4th.

Gumpertz stated that the ADVANCE Program is very well represented by the Faculty Senate since four of the senators have been involved in this project.

ADVANCE Scholars

Senator Fuentes stated that the ADVANCE Scholars is a group of ten faculty and administrators from different backgrounds.  The purpose of the projects that they are working on is to become more diverse and also to create more support for women and minorities.  The projects include:

Senator Fuentes stated that they are still working and learning and some necessary first steps are:

Gumpertz stated that the third component is a Department Heads Climate workshop series.  The series is built around a climate survey of the staff and faculty in your department and then the department head gets the results to try and address any climate issues that turn up in the survey.  The goals are to develop an inclusive and welcoming environment in the department. 

Are we on track?  If we change what we are doing in the next five years, we could approach 26% female faculty that are tenured. In general, 30% is a good number for having critical mass. 

Gumpertz stated that we are just treading water when it comes to the numbers for ethnic and racial minority faculty with tenure.  If we don’t change what we are doing the projection is 7% and if we change what we are doing in the next five years the projection is 12 percent.

Another challenge is retention of women and minority faculty.  They tend to leave when they are Assistant Professors at a higher rate than other groups.  So, if each college retains and promotes one additional person from an underrepresented group then that combined with retiring gets you a significant increase and if you don’t do something ambitious like that then we stay at 21 – 22% women.

Gumpertz stated that the ADVANCE Scholars are prepared to come and talk to faculty about faculty diversity, strategies for recruiting and retaining faculty from underrepresented groups.  I’d like to ask you to invite an ADVANCE Scholar to come and talk with your department.  Basically get involved in the climate and retention efforts and the recruiting effort in your department and look to make those scenarios come to pass.

7. Discussion
Academic Policy Committee
Senator Montse Fuentes reported on an issue of concern referred to the Academic Policy Committee on the lack of maternity/paternity policy for graduate and undergraduate students.   The committee decided to concentrate on graduate students since undergraduates do not have a clock that limits the amount of time they have to complete the degree.  

Fuentse stated that at UNC Chapel Hill full-time graduate students who are on stipend earn six weeks of support from the Graduate School and Provost for parental leave; if both parents are graduate students, only one can take the leave.  Students who are not on stipend can take the leave, but do not get compensated.  However, they do get an extension of the clock (one semester), and they do get to keep their health insurance.  Senators have talked with other faculty and administrators; there seems to be agreement that such a policy is needed.  Departments at NCSU cannot offer support unless there is a university policy.

The APC voted unanimously to recommend that NCSU adopt UNC Chapel Hill's Graduate Student Parental Leave Policy to allow graduate students to have six weeks of leave, to extend the clock one semester, and to be able to remain on health insurance.  The details of funding would need to be worked out for graduate students who are on stipend.

The entire report is available on the Faculty Senate website at http://ncsu.edu/faculty_senate/AP-Minutes09-27-11.php

Provost Arden stated that if the Faculty Senate makes a recommendation, he would be happy to have the research on this issue done through his office.                                                                                                           

Chair Kellner suggested that the Academic Policy Committee submit a resolution for the Faculty Senate to consider.

8.  Issues of Concern
Senator Jasper submitted an issue of concern from his college’s [Textiles] perspective on the BORST initiative.  He stated that the faculty and administrative units in his college are either unaware of the reorganization of the Business Units and their affect on the Academic Colleges, or they are unanimously opposed to moving the Research Component of the Business units offsite.  He noted that unanimity is a rare occurrence in the academic community, and when it occurs, it is prudent to listen and engage with the faculty, not just via a website, but in a meaningful dialog.

9.  Adjournment
A motion passed to adjourn the meeting at 5 p.m.

**************************************************

Resolution Condemning the Vandalism of the GLBT Center

Whereas,  mutual respect is essential in an academic setting, and

Whereas,  malicious destruction of property has no place at a university, and

Whereas,  the GLBT (Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender) Center has a
valuable and important place at NC State,

Be it Resolved,  that the Faculty Senate condemns any assault on persons or
property, particularly if it defames a campus group or office.

R1:  11/12
First Reading:  October 18, 2011
Adopted:  October 18, 2011

Footer Nav