April 13, 1999
Senators present: Chair Wahl, Chair-Elect Corbin, Secretary Daley, Interim Provost Moreland, Parliamentarian Link, Senators Bernhard, Bottcher, Brown, Carter, Fahmy, FitzGerald, Funderlic, Gilbert, Grainger, Kimler, Hooker, Knowles, Markham, Monahan, Patty, Peel, Schwab, Siderelis, Suh, Wall, Wilkerson
Senators absent: Senator DeBuysscher, El-Masry, Fisher, Hamouda, Lewis, Nagel, Robinson, Serow, Werner, Willits
Excused: Griffin, Riddle
Visitors: Marye Anne Fox, Chancellor; Clare Kristofco, Executive Assistance to the Chancellor; Rebecca Leonard, Assistant Provost; Debra Stewart, Vice Chancellor/Dean of the Graduate School; Robert Sowell, Associate Dean, Graduate School; Daniel Bunce, Assistant Editor, News Services; Hank Fiumara, Director, University Improvement; Bruce Mallette, Assistant Provost; Seth Whitaker, Student Senate President-Elect; Jeff Mann, Finance & Business; Mary Tetro, First Year College; Ashia Peary, Senior Staff Writer, Technician; Susan Nutter, Director of Libraries; Frank Abrams, Senior Associate Provost
1. Call to Order
The thirteenth meeting of the forty fifth session of the NC State Faculty Senate was called to order at 3:00 p.m by Chair Wahl.
2. Welcome and Announcements
Chair Wahl welcomed Senators and guests.
Chair Wahl asked the Faculty Senate to take a moment of silence in rememberance of Professor Gilbert Smith.
Chair Wahl announced that the Board of Trustees will meet Friday from 10:00 a.m. to 12 noon in the Alumni Conference Room. He urged the faculty to attend the meeting.
Chair Wahl announced that the Symposium, Luncheon, and Installation of Chancellor Marye Anne Fox will be held on Saturday, April 17.
Chair Wahl announced that the General Faculty Meeting will be held on Tuesday, May 4 in 124 Dabney Hall at 2:00 p.m.
The faculty observed a moment of silence in remembrance of Professor Gilbert Smith.
Senator Gilbert moved that a memorial resolution be created for Professor Gilbert Smith. The motion was seconded and passed without dissent.
3. Approval of the Minutes
The minutes of the twelfth meeting of the forty fifth session of the NC State Faculty Senate were approved as corrected.
4. Remarks from Susan Nutter, Vice Provost & Director of Libraries
Director Nutter updated the faculty on some of the developments in the libraries.
Susan announced, that in response to the faculty's concern, the library is working with Wolf Copy to install two Wolf Copy machines in DH Hill. One will be in the main floor reference area and the other will be in stacks. She noted that the library is not making money on this service. She explained that it might cost more to photocopy in the library because it offers twenty four hour service which is not offered by Wolf Copy. The library also provides on-site maintenance people to fix machines to ensure that the machines constant availability. The library will not provide the twenty-four hour service on the two Wolf Copy machines that are being brought in.
Director Nutter stated that the library copies a huge range of materials in all types of formats. Wolf Copy offers primarily black copying or quick copying from materials. Ours is focused on content. If we did not spread our cost over all the services, people in some disciplines would be paying a lot more for copies because the very nature of the materials themselves dictates that we try to provide some equity in this service across campus. The libraries also goes out on bid every time they look at our photocopy service. No one has ever offered to provide the twenty -four hour service with the full range. They will continue to work with Wolf Copy. As of now there will be two Wolf Copy machines that will be available.
Director Nutter stated that her sense is that things are going well in the library. They are going well largely because of the generosity of the faculty's action in 1995 to not take salary increases so that the tuition increase would go to libraries. This year for the first time they have added over 100,000 volumes to the collection which puts NC State in the top thirty libraries in North America. This year we will spend approximately $8M on collections. Our collections in the Humanities and Social Sciences are now exceptional. We are buying items that Duke and UNC are not purchasing. Our current serials now total 35,000. At least 4500 of these are electronic. This puts us well ahead of Duke and close behind Chapel Hill. Our paid subscriptions are up to approximately 22,000 which includes online resources. We have one of the largest collections of online resources in the world here at this university.
Members of the University Library Committee have been working with us on a new laptop lending service. Starting this summer we will have 100 laptops available with a full sweep of software available. Units will be loaned for four-hour periods.
Director Nutter stated that the students have been pushing them to have food services provided in the library, and in particular something to drink. We are looking at introducing "The Hill of Beans Café". We are going to start with opening the lounge to faculty and students and will have machines which will dispense cappuccino and latte. There will be some packaged foods. People will be able to come and get that type of refreshment in the first phase. In the second phase we hope to open a regular café on the main floor of the library. We plan to make our first pitch for money to the Parents Association.
Director Nutter stated that we in the library have been doing a lot to support distance education, but we are going into a full force effort starting next year. There will be four staff members who will be totally focused on distance education services. Services will be to both faculty and students. They will include free federal express delivery of materials and return of materials, faxing of materials, access to online resources, access to librarians directly through a 1-800 line and through video conferencing services. We are very concerned about support for students, and we all need to be concerned about providing an adequate level of support for students. Hopefully, support will be equal to what we provide on campus. An interesting report has just come out from the institution of higher education policy in Washington universities that are offering distance education programs and offering digital library. They are also encouraging students to visit their local public and academic libraries.
Another new service that we are offering is something called netlibrary.com. This is an important new concept of delivery of library materials. They are the first vendor that we have seen that is really going out rather than getting popular books. They are actually working with some of the major scientific publishers and hoping in their first two years to put online 10,000 titles. They will work as a library. We are doing all that we can to make electronic resources available to you. On the other hand, the print will also be available to students.
Director Nutter reminded the faculty of two current services. One is trip saver. Trip saver is something we introduced in order to get the materials in the Triangle. The other service is My Library. My Library is a personal web front which can be customized to suit individual users. To learn more about it, reference the Library web site. Staff have developed this to basically allow you to have a personal front into our resources.
She stated that there are two large concerns facing the library. One is space and the second is retention of staff. The problem is that they are filling up the new tower very quickly. The new tower was planned to hold ten years worth of growth. With the current environment, we are almost at capacity. In three years we will be at the point that we can not add any more volumes to the shelves. We are also running out of space for users. We are down to approximately 500 seats in the library because we are constantly putting in shelving where there was seating. This is below 5%. The standard is 25% which I think is too high, but we should be in the 15% range. There are a number of efforts that we can make. With the help of Charles Moreland and George Worsley, we are going to be able to have a lease on the Central Stores Building on campus to put materials in storage. We would like to store things at a place where they can be accessed very quickly. We as a campus are going to have to take a look at what we need in the way of a library within ten years. The second development that you will see is a renovation of the East Wing of the library. She noted that there is not enough power. The heating and ventilating system is about to go. Nothing has been updated in that space since 1954 when the building was constructed. We also want to bring in some of the new technologies. We have received $1.3 M from the Legislature for that. The overall cost is going to be approximately $7M, and it is coming from the Library budget. With the help of the Financial and Business Management people here, we have been carrying over money. This will be a drain on the budget, but it is something that has to be done because we cannot work any further. We plan to build a state of the art special collections facility that will be on the main floor of the library and will allow us to have a real research area for the unique materials that we have. This is going to take approximately six years to complete.
The other major problem that we are having is retention of staff. We are doing well now with recruitment. It is becoming an attractive place for librarians to come. It is very difficult to retain them. In the last seven months, we have had 20% turnover in our positions. Duke, for example in the last year, made offers to five of our staff. Our salaries are not as competitive as they need to be. We have another problem in that Library Schools are turning out 30% fewer graduates now than they did twenty years ago. The information technology skills that librarians possess and have to possess are in very short supply and are very valuable.
Director Nutter reported that the library's fund raising results are up. They have been putting a lot of effort into that. She stated that they are now raising almost three quarters of a million dollars per year in the library. We are putting it into an endowment. We have our first named librarian position. We have our first named student assistantship. DH Hill Library now ranks thirty seventh in North America ARL ranking.
5. Remarks from the Chancellor
Eva Klein Report
Chancellor Fox stated that, according to Eva Klein's data, the actual head count for NC State in 1998 is 27,175. Our target should be 27, 180. By 2008 when there is time for capital investment, we have agreed to grow to 30,100 which is a 10.7% growth over that period. With respect to estimated future capacity needs for 2003, NC State needs over 400,000 square feet of space. In other words there is an acknowledgment by Eva Klein that we do need space.
Current Capacity Needs
Chancellor Fox stated that NC State is the leader in current capacity needs on existing assignable square feet. NC State is almost twice as needy as its closest rival, Chapel Hill. With respect to capital equity and adequacy, Eva Klein suggests that future capacity should allow us to expand to accommodate most of these students. The existing capacity will be absorbed, but it will have to have an incredible investment in space at every campus by 2008, and of course for NC State, our need was the greatest.
Based on future enrollment needs, the greatest needs are at the research universities (NC State, UNC Chapel Hill, East Carolina, and Charlotte). Six other institutions of the system have noticeable needs. There are a number of institutions which are under capacity. Part of it would be to provide an incentive for students to choose to attend those institutions which are under capacity. With respect to those, several of them are small institutions and several are historically black institutions. It was important in terms of distribution funds for the entire system to address the question about whether equity had been achieved with respect to investment in these other campuses. Eva Klein finds that there is no evidence of a pattern of under-funding or over-funding at any of the institutions. Pembroke, uniquely, was not a beneficiary of the consent decree funding which brought many of the facilities and historically black colleges up to par with the entire system, and therefore there is some thought that there should be specific investment into UNC Pembroke. Eva Klein found that leadership with the General Assembly played a significant role in the funding trends. Although there was no specific evidence for lack of equity and funding in a historically black facility since 1965, the records do not exist before 1965, and there is informal evidence of lower expectations for the facilities of those institutions in earlier history.
With respect to the situation that exists on all of these campuses with respect to capital equity, what Eva has found is that the lack of emphasis on renovation has of course hurt the black universities, but has also hurt the rest of the UNC system. Small size has hampered certain student service facilities because of economy of scale. They have not been able to get economies of scale and have not had the bonding authority because of a small student body to rely on student fees for investment in a number of activities. Institutional decisions regarding debt avoidance have also led to poor facilities. To get equity, Klein concludes that we need to have significantly more funding. On the other hand if you ask how much money is needed to achieve that equity, her suggestion is seven billion dollars over the next decade.
Chancellor Fox stated that the question is how to reduce that figure to a number that is reasonable in terms of this growth. She stated that the first thing that would allow you to reduce this seven billion dollar figure would be to look very hard at classroom use and to see whether it is possible to schedule space effectively. What they mean by that is 8:oo p.m. to 10:00 pm at night and also consider Saturday classes. It was also suggested that if radical changes are made in the calendar or work load , that it would be possible to better utilize the space that exists. She sees the possibility of converting from one kind of use to another kind of use. For example, to convert from office space to other kinds of space. The cost associated with that conversion would be included in renovations and repairs. The other thing is to use innovative design concepts to the extent that new capital comes on line, that is open laboratories that can be used for multiple classes and new office configurations. Of course that is predicated on major investments to have those laboratories designed a different way.
Chancellor Fox stated that capacity needs for 2003 represent a very flat growth. That is good with respect to capital because it takes time to build buildings. Part of this, and the reason that it is an ongoing study, is to emphasize how important it is to do long range planning and to make projections that allow us to argue effectively that we are the institution that really needs additional money.
How can we finance capital needs? First of all, Eva Klein did an overview of how funding has traditionally taken place in the UNC system. The first thing to recognize is that to remain competitive we have to invest in renewal and expansion. In other words, money has to be not only for new buildings, but for renovations and repairs. A key feature again is that the annual pie is far to small for the identified needs on almost all the campuses. The way in which the buildings have been financed in the past for the University of North Carolina is to pay as you go. That means that the Legislature must allocate X number of dollars for a building that is constructed partly in one year and then X more dollars are allocated the next year to complete the construction. Chancellor Fox feels that is a wonderful means for building if you have the resources to allow pay as you go. The conclusion is pay as you go is not an explicit capital development policy. It represents tax and is subject to political influence.
The idea of self liquidating projects is not working on our campuses, because they are too small to have the kind of economy of scale. The conclusion of the self liquidation is basically that the Legislature, in collaboration with the University of North Carolina System, needs to think of a way in which debt financing could be made legal and convenient. There is also the conclusion that there is insufficient emphasis on private fund raising with respect to facilities.
Eva Klein suggested that there be a new kind of entity that would be used to manage at least some of the capital investment needs. In part, that is to respond to the small campuses so that there can be an economy of scale with respect to financing and debt reduction. There needs to be a major effort to increase each institution's fund raising ability and to address fund raising targets.
Chancellor Fox stated that the amount of money from private sources is 35% for very large institutions and only about 15% for small institutions. In other words what Eva Klein is saying is that the large institutions have essentially double capacity for private sector investment.
Chancellor Fox stated that they are saying that with respect to the State, which in the past has funded 100% of buildings on this campus, they should be financing only 40%. If this is adopted, the faculty, Deans, and Department Heads are going to have to be much more active and proactive in terms of funding because the consequence of it is that instead of 100% funding of seven billion dollars, we can do 40% funding of seven billion dollars. Chancellor Fox stated that 40% of seven billion dollars puts this at a figure which with optimistic growth patterns for the State and in the absence of adverse court rulings in the future, which are yet to be determined, there really could be this kind of investment.
Chancellor Fox stated that the objective of this is to have accountability, a means by which we can look at progress toward our ultimate goals such that the University Strategic Plans can be integrated by having a grass root participation of the faculty.
Chancellor Fox stated that the word "compact" was chosen because it is a pledge for the administration to participate in this kind of planning and to work with the faculty to come up with the issues that faculty think are important. We, together, had some visions for the university, so we would like to ask each of the units, administrative and academic, how they can contribute to the university initiatives.
Chancellor Fox stated that they have suggested an aggressive schedule for this. The reason being that if you would like to influence the budget process next year, the "compacts" will have to be completed by December. We have suggested that it is necessary to probably have three iterations which is in recognition of the fact that since this is a conversation, the first thing that is put on the table is probably not going to be final. In order to have three iterations that involve faculty in a significant way, you have to leave enough time for those kinds of negotiations. Chancellor Fox stated that we need to start thinking now about what is important with respect to your units. The two major things that we would ask faculty to do is to think about broad visions for NCSU and how faculty can contribute to them through specific units.
Chancellor Fox stated that if she is to act effectively as a leader, to bring resources into the hands of the faculty, we have to have a discussion. A discussion has to be one that really gets to the heart of your intellectual contributions. We truly believe that if we have this kind of a conversation and it becomes a routine part of the interactions on campus, it will be a very improved means for campus governance and for participation of the faculty in decision making and priority setting enhancing budget allocations and reallocations, both within the colleges and at the university level. She feels that the campus needs a challenge and that many of the faculty are willing to step up to this challenge.
Comments from Interim Provost Moreland
Interim Provost Moreland stated that he thinks the one thing that is very important about "compacts" is the timing. He stated that on July 6 we will have a new Provost. He feels it is a wonderful opportunity for a new person to come to the university to have a forum to interact with all the Deans.
Comments from Dean Stewart
Dean Stewart stated that people need to remember that this time of year we would be doing annual operating planning anyway. This is not something that is on top of what we are already doing. This is the activity that in another year would have been annual operating planning. The difference is this is an activity that is going to translate hopefully into much more concrete results for all of us in creating opportunity for the faculty to dialog about the direction of those results.
Dean Stewart stated that she has heard a number of comments about the graduate enrollment objectives in the extent to which they might be terribly aggressive. She considers them pretty moderate because if you look at the slope, the graduate enrollment for many years have had an objective of moving toward 25% graduate enrollment as a percentage of the total enrollment. The slope of the line gives us a very smooth start to that upward movement in graduate enrollment. We are already making that upward movement. We have gone from 13% to 19% over a period of four years. This is not at all unreasonable. Even if we continue to do what we are doing now, with the new graduate support plan, it is at the very least we should be trying to obtain these numbers.
Dean Stewart stated that from a faculty perspective the only question is, will there be an opportunity to have questions answered? Will there be an opportunity to dialog so that faculty objectives get put on the agenda and get addressed? She thinks the answers are yes. At the graduate level, in particular, they are going to be addressing this in all of the venues with the graduate operations council and the other settings. Dean Stewart is very optimistic about the outcome and sees it as a good alternative of what they would have been doing this time of year, which is the annual operating plan.
Comments from Vice Chancellor Stafford
Vice Chancellor Stafford stated that they have looked at the process and he feels that there is a lot to be done in a short period of time. He thinks the outcome will be well worth the time. From his perspective it will be different because they are not involved with enrollments or the production of academic credits. They are faced with a real challenge to identify the kinds of measures that will best represent the progress that they would like to make in their areas. He stated that it is a challenge that they look forward to.
Senator Kimler wanted the Chancellor's reaction to the idea that faculty will have to produce this by May 15 when their (nine month) employment ends for the year.
Chancellor Fox responded that it is hoped that there is some time to provide the kind of base discussion to departmental leadership that can put the issues on the table. Since it is iterative, they think the faculty will have enough time in the fall to revisit and refine.
7. Unfinished Business
A. Election Progress
The Chairs of each of the colleges' election committees updated the Senate on their progress. Chair Wahl encouraged the committees to complete their elections as soon as possible.
B. Athletics Council
John Griggs and Michael M. Kimberly were elected to serve two year terms on the Council on Athletics.
C. Faculty Assembly
Richard H. Bernhard and Frederick T. Corbin were elected to serve two year terms on the Faculty Assembly.
Stephen Lilley was elected to serve a one year term (remainder of Gilbert Smith's term) on the Faculty Assembly.
Edward V. DeBuysscher and Charles E. Knowles will serve two year terms as alternates.
D. Second Reading: Resolution on the University Calendar
Senator Monahan read the resolution for its second reading and moved that it be adopted.
Senator Hooker suggested adding a statement to the resolution that states nine month appointees are being asked to breach their contract.
Senator Monahan stated that a statement in that direction was considered. He feels that if the university was given slightly more flexibility to determine its calendar, that problem could be obviated easily. The current use calendar is largely predicated by the Special Olympics events.
The motion was seconded and passed with one abstention.
E. Honorary Degrees
Senator Carter reported that the Faculty Trustee committee on Honorary Degrees has been considering ways to increase the number of people nominated for Honorary Degree recognition by the university. Thursday the committee will discuss a report that came before the Honor's Council, October 1997 supported unanimously by the Honors Council. The proposal was sent to the Deans of the ten academic colleges/schools. He will report further details after the committee meeting on Thursday.
F. Abolition of the Government Committee
Senator Monahan, Chair of the Governance Committee , commented that a report on the University Government Committee was introduced in the last meeting. It includes a recommendation for dispensing with the University Government Committee. Some of its duties were eliminated last fall in a similar report. This report removes the remainder of its duties. The Governance Committee has to determine how to amend the General Faculty Bylaws. The four points for recommendations for making those changes are:
1) Changes originate as resolutions in the Senate
2) Disseminated to the faculty prior to presentation at a meeting of the General Faculty
3) Mail ballot after that presentation
4) Changing the quorum from 25% to 20% and from a simple majority to 3/5 majority
Senator Monahan moved adoption of the report. The motion was seconded and passed without dissent.
8. New Business
A. O Max Gardner Award
Dr. Sarah Berenson, Chair of the O Max Gardner Committee, reported that the O Max Gardner award recognizes the North Carolina faculty who has made the greatest contribution to the human race with his or her research. This year there were three faculty from NC State who were nominated for the award. Those nominees were Professors Jim Reiviere, College of Veterinary Medicine; Bruce Weir, College of Physical and Mathematical Sciences; Ronald Wimberly, College of Agriculture and Life Sciences. Among fifteen state universities in North Carolina, Dr. Jim Revere was the successful winner. She noted that she had a wonderful committee and hopes to get the opportunity to work with them again.
The committee requested that she bring to the faculty's attention, their concern about the representativeness of the nominations for the award. They noted that in the past three years, there have been no African Americans or females nominated for this award at NC State. There is a concern on the part of the committee that this may not be truly characteristic of our university. They are not suggesting that women or African Americans be nominated for nomination sake. They suggest that this may be taken as a symptom of a potential problem within our university community. The committee would like to know if the recognition of faculty achievement at NC State University is representative of a diverse community. They suggest that the Faculty Senate undertake the study of this question.
B. First Reading: Resolution on Benefits
Secretary Dennis Daley introduced the resolution for its first reading. The resolution will be debated and voted on at the next meeting.
C. Proposal for Changes in the General Faculty Bylaws
Senator Monahan introduced a proposal for changes in the General Faculty Bylaws. The changes are implementation of recommendations to abolish duties of the University Government Committee.
The report will be voted on at the next meeting.
D. First Reading: Resolution on Rewards for University Service
Senator Monahan reported that this has been debated in the Governance Committee for the past two years. What is done? What should be done? What are appropriate ways to urge people to serve the university?
The resolution was introduced for its first reading. It will be debated and voted on at the next meeting.
E. First Reading: Resolution on an Ecological Audit
The resolution was introduced for its first reading. It will be debated and voted on at the next meeting.
F. First Reading: Resolution on Academic Computing Infrastructure and Support
The resolution was introduced for its first reading. It will be debated and voted on at the next meeting.
The meeting adjourned at 5:20p.m.