Left Navigation

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

April 14, 1998

Senators present: Chair Wahl, Secretary Corbin, Past Chair Smith, Provost Stiles, Parliamentarian Link, Senators Barr, Bernhard, Bizios, Bottcher, Brown, Carter, Daley, DeBuysscher, Fahmy, Gilbert, Griffin, Hamouda, Klenin, Lilley, Magill, Middleton, Monahan, Murty, Nagel, Patty, Siderelis, Strenkowski, Suh, Wehner

Senators absent: Senators Lewis, Rushing, Schwab, Serow, Tetro, Wall, Wessels, Wilson

Visitors: Sara Frisch, News Services; Tim Blair, Blood Drive Committee; Steven Mark McCraw, Technician Staff Writer; Seth Whitaker, Parliamentarian, Student Senate; Andrew Payne, Academics Chair, Student Senate; Rebecca Leonard, Assistant Provost; Bruce Malette, Assistant Provost; Frank Abrams, Senior Associate Provost

1. Call to Order
The sixteenth meeting of the Forty-Fourth Session of the NC State Faculty Senate was called to order at 3:00 p.m. by Chair George Wahl.

2. Welcome and Announcements
Chair Wahl welcomed Senators and Guests. Chair Wahl read an E-mail message from the Chancellor-Elect. She sent best wishes to the Faculty Senate.

The Board of Trustees will meet on Friday, April 17, 1998 at 9:45 a.m. in 121 Kilgore Hall. Chair Wahl urged the Senators to attend.

Chair Wahl announced that there will be a free dinner in the atrium for faculty who are planning to attend President Broad's Inauguration on April 29. He would like to have as many faculty from NC State as possible to attend.

Comments from Dr. Joseph Levine
Dr. Joseph Levine from the Department of Philosophy and Religion has been working this past year with the North Carolina Public Service Workers Union which is the union that has been formed to represent workers from the sixteen campuses (housekeepers, grounds keepers, dining workers, service workers). They are currently active on five campuses: NC State, Chapel Hill, ECU, NC Central and UNC Greensboro. There are a total of 500 members. Approximately 150 members have signed up from NC State. They are currently trying to get signatures for a petition to schedule a meeting with President Molly Broad. A letter was sent to President Broad in March asking her to meet with representatives of the union. There was a response that she will not meet with them but will send a representative. He stated that she was very clear that there would be very clear constraints on what would be discussed. They are hoping for as much support from faculty as possible.

Dr. Levine stated that they have been interviewing workers campus wide and filling out informal grievance forms. There are some statistical analyses of the responses that housekeepers, grounds keepers, and dining workers have made to these grievances. The grievances involve low pay, lack of work due to down-sizing and privatization, retaliation for filing grievances or joining the union, and harassment. He stated that since this effort has started, there has been some serious harassment, especially toward black workers. Some have found nooses and pictures of lynchings. This has happened on this campus and has also happened at ECU. He stated that there are not a lot of such incidents, but they are happening and they would like to address them.

Chair Wahl announced that there is an effort to find the best faculty members for the committees for 1998-99. Four Faculty Senate committees will meet next Tuesday to assist with some of the work that the Committee on Committees have been doing. He introduced Samara Fleming from Senior Associate Provost Abrams' office as the support person.

Chair Wahl announced that he would like to have the elections completed by the April 28 meeting of the Faculty Senate.

Senator Bernhard will be attending a meeting in Washington on May 18 concerning the impact on retirement plans of the change in the way people retire. He will be attending as a representative from the Faculty Senate.

Chair Wahl announced that the University Student Center will be named the Talley Student Center Saturday, April 18, at 2:00 p.m. in honor of Dr. Banks C. Talley.

3. Approval of the Minutes, Meeting No. 15, March 31, 1998
The motion passed to approve the minutes as amended.

4. Remarks from the Provost
Provost Stiles said one thing he thinks is important for everyone, in working with the new Chancellor is to get a feel for what she is used to. He handed out copies of a number of URLs from the University of Texas. He feels that we should be aware of what is on someone else's Home Page and where that trails. He thinks it would be interesting for the faculty to have an idea of the perspective of someone who comes from a different institution and what they have been exposed to.

Provost Stiles reported that promotion and tenure decisions are going well. They will be brought to the Academic Affairs Committee of the Board of Trustees Friday. He expects the trustees to pass them. Then they will send them to the Board of Governors, and he expects them to pass there also.

Provost Stiles stated that one of NC State's Faculty members will soon be going up in the Space Shuttle. There will be a linkup on campus on April 27 at 5:00 p.m.

Provost Stiles sent the people he works with a copy of the list of handouts from the latest meeting of the Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs at Chapel Hill. He stated that we would like to begin to use the Web on certain kinds of documents that should be available for people to read.

Provost Stiles commented on the environment. He stated that he has always been interested in the environment. One of the most meaningful statements that came up in some discussion groups is that if the environment is important to the institution, it should be referred to in our Mission Statement. If we believe that the curricula should prepare students to go out and be environmentally conscious and active, and make decisions where the environment is taken into account, we need to look at what the curricula are. He thinks that is very important. One issue he thinks is important for undergraduate education, which he would like the Senate to look into, is what we should do in the curricula and general education requirements. He stated that what we should do on ethics is a great concern to people who employ our students, to our trustees and to the general public. He stated that the encouraging thing that we have done is that the writing program is now broader than just what happens in English. It is now broadly based across the campus with a writing center. There are issues like those that he thinks the faculty should be concerned enough about to make recommendations to some committee to study. Either choose a Faculty Senate committee or ask some of the university committees to study the issues next year. He thinks the Senate should accept that role and rejoice in it because if we are going to have shared governance, particularly in the area of academics, it should not just be reactive, but proactive, and ask the university in different places to do the jobs that it thinks should be done, particularly on academics.

5. Unfinished Business
A. Resolution on Diversity
Senator Griffin read the resolution for the second reading and moved that the resolution be adopted. The motion was seconded and passed without dissent.

6. New Business
A. Chancellor's 1998 Faculty/Staff Summer Blood Drive
Timothy Blair, Chair of the Blood Drive, stated that he would like to solicit assistance. In the Carolina region, which includes North and South Carolina, statistically 95% of us will need blood or a blood product by the time we are 72 years of age. However, only 65% of the population in these two states donates blood. On a daily basis in this region, over 1300 units of blood are necessary per day. The need for blood is very critical. During the summer that effort is even more important because a majority of the units collected come from blood drive donors, high schools and university campuses during the year. The lack of blood really increases during the summer. The blood drive this year is July 15-16. He would like to solicit help in identifying recruiters and volunteers. Anyone interested in assisting with the blood drive should contact him via telephone or the Web. He noted that for every unit that is given, there is an opportunity to help four individuals.

B. Valedictorian Issue
Senator Griffin reported that shortly after the resolution was passed on plus/minus grading, concerns were expressed in the University Academic Operation Council in terms of what that will do to the number of valedictorians. The Academic Policy Committee recommends that only students with As and A+ receive the designation of valedictorian and that the student with the highest GPA without regard to the 4.0 cap receive a medal of recognition. She moved that the Senate endorse the recommendations. The motion was seconded by Senator Patty.

Provost Stiles commented that in a year that no one has As and A+s, there must still be a valedictorian. It is the student with the highest GPA. Provost Stiles suggested an addendum to the motion that states, if there is no one with As and A+s only, the person with the highest GPA will be the valedictorian.

Senator Monahan stated that he does not agree with the idea because it validates one of the problems they had hoped to correct by capping the GPA at 4.0. He stated that he thinks it is a bad idea because it goes against what we argued not to do.

Andrew Payne from the Student Center stated that students in the discussion with the Academic Policy Committee, felt that a person with a B does not have a perfect record. He noted that you may have a GPA of 4.0 but you do not have a perfect record.

Chair Wahl asked Senator Griffin to restate the motion as amended.

The motion as amended states that only the students with A's and A+'s be valedictorians, and in the absence of any of those, students with the highest GPA be designated valedictorian, and that the student with the very highest GPA without regard to the 4.0 cap be awarded a medal.

The motion passed with twelve in favor, eleven against, and four abstentions.

7. Reports
A. Post Tenure Review
Senior Associate Provost Abrams reported that at the next meeting he will report on the provisions that will be reported to GA. As a result of the work of the Commission on Faculty Rights and Responsibilities and Faculty Senate recommendations, the provision for post tenure review has been under administrative review for the last several weeks. There were several issues raised that are clarifications for procedures discussed in the third paragraph of the report. It was not clear in the recommendation what the role of the department head was, although traditionally and by our existing policies, it is the responsibility of the department heads to conduct the reviews. The relationship of the department head to the Comprehensive Review Committee was not made adequately clear. There were some concerns about the prelevel rating that was envisioned in the recommendation. The issue was raised as to whether or not the assessment of the Comprehensive Review Committee should be limited to making an assessment as to whether an individual meets or does not meet the departmental established criteria. There was concern that these guidelines make clear that a plan for professional development is not something of a creature of post tenure review, but a creature of NC State University for a number of years.

The review concept basically outlines some things that are from the recommendation. He noted that the italicized items in the report are new provisions that were not already in our policy or review guidelines. One is that our review guidelines said nothing about criteria and now in departments throughout the university during the next year, faculty will be developing departmental criteria for faculty performance.

The other issue involved the clear involvement of peers in the review and the establishment in each department of a Comprehensive Review Committee of tenured faculty that would periodically (at least every 3 years for associate professors and every five years for professors) provide an assessment from material provided by the faculty member of the individual's performance which would be a part of the review that is being conducted by the department head. Also when that committee finds repeatedly that an individual is not meeting the performance criteria of the department, that can be considered as a basis for serious sanction. He urged the faculty to follow the discussion.

Senior Associate Provost Abrams stated that they have assembled a committee made up of two deans, two department heads, two faculty members, and aided by the University Council and him to review the concerns to be sure that the data make sense in their overall reviews.

B. Faculty Survey on Entertainment and Recreation Facilities
Assistant Provost Leonard reported that this was a survey to attempt to assess our success in one of the goals of the university plan, which was to promote success and satisfaction of the faculty. The results of the survey were sent out to approximately one third of three populations. The three categories were tenure and tenure track faculty, emeriti faculty, and non-tenure track faculty. In general, the conclusion from this survey is that faculty think that a recreation and entertainment facility is important for the recruitment and retention of faculty. She noted that it should probably be a dining facility on the main campus that does not cost anything to the faculty except for the food, where guests can be entertained, and meetings held.

Senator Monahan wanted to know where the report is going.

Assistant Provost Leonard responded that it has already gone to the Provost, the University Club, and the NCSU Foundation.

Senator Suh suggested that this be taken as a serious issue, and he feels that some action should be taken now. He stated that every campus has a faculty dining facility. This campus does not have one. He feels that it would be wonderful to have such a facility whether it is on the main campus or Centennial campus.

Chair Wahl stated that it will be put on the agenda in the fall.

C. Grievance Procedures
Senator Magill reported that the Personnel Policy Committee is recommending some changes in the grievance procedures. She stated that the committee consulted with several members of the grievance panel, former chairs of grievance committees, Past Chair Gilbert Smith and Mary Beth Kurz, University General Counsel. Senator Magill proceeded point by point with the changes.

The report will be voted on in the next meeting.

D. Final Reports of the Committees
Senator Monahan, Chair of the Governance Committee, reported that there have been some complaints raised concerning the calendar. He stated that some of the issues were discussed at their meeting a few weeks ago. There seem to be three problems that still need to be addressed:

1) Most nine-month faculty are appointed on the sixteenth of August in a particular year. It is not clear what they are supposed to do other than their job of teaching. The timeliness of those duties needs to be addressed.

2) There may be a problem with some people who are on research grants, etc. when the academic year extends longer than nine full calendar months. He stated that it probably will not effect anyone because most people that are on nine-month appointments can receive summer salaries for two months, which still leaves one month of vacation. They will not have two "masters" at the same instance.

3) Senator Monahan received E-mail messages about other campuses complaining about the 150 day calendar. The complaints that he has read so far have very little substance, but they do not detract from the issue that this was all done by the General Administration, and no one has stopped to consider what the best calendar is for a university, or specifically this university.

Chair Wahl wanted to know if the newly organized General Administration has shown its hand on how they feel about the Spangler policy.

Provost Stiles responded that they have not. He thinks the 150 day calendar is a good target.

Chair Wahl commended the Governance Committee on their report.

E. Response to the Eva Klein Report
Senator Patty reported that the Centennial Campus is special and that we have an opportunity to capitalize on it. It is not sufficient to give the faculty a chance at an input and then to say that "you have had your chance". I think faculty really need to be involved in this as it goes forward. The faculty involvement in this is pointed out in the Klein Report, where she identifies the we/ they culture involving the faculty and administration is a problem on this campus that needs to be fixed. Senator Patty stated that since the latter part of the Spring semester is the busiest time for faculty, there has been insufficient time since Dean Malecha's visit to the Senate to respond adequately in detail, but some comments concerning both documents are included below. It is fully understood that neither the Klein Report nor the NC State Model is complete nor constitutes a plan.

The Klein Report is a bold report and is clearly written. The NC State Model is not bold and is not clearly written. Some of the issues that are raised by the Klein Report are not addressed.

Neither report addresses what is good and needs to be preserved on the campus. The Klein Report does correctly recognize that the university must "protect knowledge inquiry and intellectual freedom while, at the same time, performing like a business organization".

Senator Patty stated that the Klein Report does indicate that we need to protect our intellectual freedom. At the same time, trying to perform more like a business organization certainly involves the administration of the university.

The we/they culture needs to be fixed. This was one of the issues that was not addressed by the NC State Model.

Not many faculty were interviewed for the Klein report, and were not involved in the development of the NC State Model. He thinks this is understandable at this point, but certainly faculty involvement is critical as we go forward.

Teaching is not addressed by the Klein Report. That is understandable in light of the charge. It needs to be addressed and its importance recognized as we go forward.

An image of a "trade school" of "job training" emerges, particularly in the case of the NC State Model. It is too narrowly focused on industrial partnerships and gives the impression that they will tell us what to do. We agree that external relationships are beneficial. One comment that he received suggested a more inclusive term.

Another comment received was that words like "customers", "clients", and "stakeholders" should be replaced, and statements such as "University-industry-government-external interest group partnerships are characterized by vertical and horizontal relationships representing customer-researcher-supplier on one scale, and a broadened research team on the other scale" should be replaced.

Senator Patty stated that it is not a particularly clear document and it needs to be worked on. He does understand that the Deans and Vice Chancellors have worked together in a way that they have not in the past, which is very encouraging.

Another comment he received was that the NC State Model seems to be anti-disciplinary. He stated that we need to be very careful about maintaining the strong disciplines. These disciplines will really contribute to the structure of these efforts.

The knowledge-based economic development which was mentioned in the Klein Report was not addressed in the NC State Model. It seems to have some merit with knowledge creation, knowledge transmission and knowledge application replacing the teaching research and extension terms that we have commonly used. The concept of emphasizing knowledge could possibly be a very positive change for the university.

Another comment was that the NC State Model should reflect more of the Klein conclusion that substantial changes are needed in the administrative environment. The management culture is somewhat addressed, but not as forcefully as in the Klein Report.

The Klein Report does seem to be on target in stating that we need to diagnose and change the bureaucracies that are impeding our activities and that we should have high aspirations and go after resources to get them and not be limited in our aspirations by the resources presently available.

Senator Patty stated that this is certainly not complete and will be a very hard job for a number of people to make the changes that would be involved in developing a new model for the university. There are some comments that he thinks the Deans and Vice Chancellors need to address as they move forward.

Senator Gilbert commended Senator Patty on his report.

Provost Stiles commented that the faculty input into this report is critical.

Chair Wahl stated that Karen Helm and her staff are best equipped to prepare the next draft. He feels that the next draft should have input from faculty, staff, and administration rather than by one group.

Senator Patty stated that he thinks the faculty's buy-in is critical. There really needs to be a buy-in and not someone just deciding that this is the way we are going to do it and present it to the faculty. If that is all that will happen, he feels that it will probably fail.

Provost Stiles stated that the impression that he has is that the Deans and Vice Chancellors really looked at what they had accomplished so far. He stated that even on that small part of the response to the Eva Klein report, the faculty must be involved if we are going to change things in the future.

8. Issues of Concern
Senator Carter moved that Chair Wahl be commended by the faculty for his outstanding contributions to the Chancellor Search and the fine representation he gave the faculty.

Chair Wahl received a round of applause from the faculty.

9. Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 5:05 p.m.

Footer Nav