November 23, 1999
Senators present: Secretary Carter, Provost Hall, Parliamentarian Link, Chair Emeritus Wahl; Senators Banks, Bottcher, Brown, Brownie, Fitzgerald, Funderlic, Gilbert, Grainger, Havner, Kelley, Kimler, Knowles, Lytle, Markham, Misra, Peel, Robinson, Sawyers, Smoak, Suh, Werner, Wilkerson, Wilson
Senators absent: El-Masry, Fisher, Griffin, Grimes, Hamouda,
Senators excused: Chair Corbin; Senators Ash, Elmaghraby, Hodge, Malinowski, Toplikar, Willits
Visitors: Marye Anne Fox, Chancellor; Clare Kristofco, Executive Assistant to the Chancellor; Daniel Bunce, Assistant Editor, Bulletin; Mike Lyle; Ashly B. Perry, Senior Staff Writer, Technician; Robert S. Sowell, Graduate School; John H. Borwick, Student Senate President Pro Tempore; Natalie Duggins, Provost for the Day
1. Call to Order
The seventh meeting of the forty-sixth session of the North Carolina State University Faculty Senate was called to order at 3:00 p.m. by Secretary Philip Carter.
2. Welcome and Announcements
Secretary Carter welcomed Senators and Guests.
Secretary Carter announced that Chair Corbin mentioned benefit packages among other issues in his presentation to the Board of Trustees on Friday.
Secretary Carter announced that at the meeting of the Faculty Trustee Committee on Honorary Degrees, the committee voted approval of the protocol for developing a larger list of worthy nominees. He noted that it is a protocol that Senators from last year are familiar with. It was originally presented as a two-page document which was reviewed in the Senate. The protocol passed through the Honors Council approximately one and a half years ago and was reviewed by all the Deans. The protocol was voted on and passed without dissent.
Secretary Carter stated that the protocol encourages nominations through the colleges. An exception would be the administration. The protocol allows for nominations to be expedited in order to accommodate the special needs of certain individuals. He mentioned that the Chancellor plans to send a memo to the Deans at a certain time each year to initiate the process.
3. Approval of the Minutes, Meeting No. 6, November 9, 1999
The minutes of the sixth meeting of the forty-sixth session of the North Carolina State University Faculty Senate were approved as amended.
4. Remarks from the Chancellor
Chancellor Fox began her remarks by stating that the Constitution in the State of North Carolina calls for tuition to be as low as possible. As a result, tuition has been very low at North Carolina State, reflecting a contribution from the Legislature. Last spring however, the Board of Governors for the first time allowed campus specific tuition to be charged. The campus that would do so would be able to retain the tuition money, i.e., for the first time any money generated by tuition increase could be assigned directly on a campus to a specific program. She said that is a major change from what has been done in the past. In the past there was no incentive for local campuses to address their own needs. Chancellor Fox stated that peer institutions have been identified for NC State by General Administration as being worthy of comparison.
Chancellor Fox reported that the list to which NC State has been assigned includes several private institutions and mostly public institutions. The criteria for identification as a peer institution is whether the institution has a portfolio similar to that of the institution being compared, which is North Carolina State. The list includes Land Grant Institutions as well as those that have strong Engineering Programs. The inclusion of private institutions was made possible this year because of a very compelling argument that NC State recruits and competes for retention of faculty with private institutions. She mentioned that very often the same kinds of programs that are being discussed for quality education are offered by those schools. Chancellor Fox said given that list of institutions, one can look by comparison at where NC State stands with respect to tuition and therefore, how relative tuition rates are assessed at these different schools. NC State is rated fifteenth and sixteenth with Chapel Hill. The only institution of its peers that ranks lower than NC State and Chapel Hill is Texas A&M. Texas A&M has a 2.9 billion-dollar endowment whereas NC State has a 300 million-dollar endowment. She noted that the factor of nine means that there is more flexibility in budgeting with respect to investment at Texas A&M.
Chancellor Fox stated that if you think about the University of North Carolina System and look at average faculty salaries, there are many different kinds of institutions in this system, i.e., of the Research One Institutions, there are two, Chapel Hill and North Carolina State, and as one would expect, the salaries paid at North Carolina State and Chapel Hill are higher than the other classes of institutions. The faculties are marketable and are movable in a way that others are not, reflecting the high quality of a Research One Institution. Chancellor Fox stated that NC State’s salaries are slightly lower than Chapel Hill. This originated several years ago from the determination of NC State’s faculty to take a substantive faculty salary increase and apply it to other needs of the institution which left it at a disadvantage. Both North Carolina State and Chapel Hill have roughly ten to fifteen thousand dollars higher salaries than the other kinds of institutions, and have less of a discretionary base for making investments in other kinds of programs because the tuition bases are virtually identical across these institutions. Therefore, the higher salaries here compared to the other institutions in the system means that NC State has less discretionary money.
With respect to faculty compensation packages, it is certainly true that as with tuition, North Carolina State ranks near the bottom. North Carolina State is tied for thirteenth with Iowa State. There are a couple of institutions that are ranked slightly lower. Chancellor Fox stated that the point is that NC State’s faculty salaries are not high. In fact, they are very low compared to peer institutions. Therefore, cutting or not raising faculty salaries is not an option to provide discretionary income. In fact, it is a compelling case for having a faculty raise. Indeed the university of North Carolina system intends to ask the Legislature for a faculty salary raise. The intent most recently is to ask for an 8% faculty raise based on the statistics of comparison across different kinds of institutional types. That would be completely separate from this tuition increase. If you asked how much money would be required to do this, you can look at the number of people in each rank and take the average salary at each of these institutions and multiply the number of each type of ranked person times the average salary. For N C State, that total is $67M in salaries compared to $70M at Chapel Hill. Therefore, $3.0M is necessary if NC State is to make all of its ranked individual faculties essentially equivalent. Chancellor Fox stated that many faculty members at NC State are recruited away. Some are very strongly recruited by Duke. She noted that if NC State’s salary base was to be equivalent to Duke, it would need an additional $14M.
Despite the fact that NC State has very low tuition, there are a substantial number of students who have unmet financial needs. In fact, in this current year, it is estimated that there are approximately 10,000 students who are needy. Of those 10,000, with the resources that State has for financial aid, approximately 9,000 students remain who have unmet financial need. The amount of that unmet need is approximately $42.0 M. With respect to unmet financial need, it is quite clear that additional sources of revenue would be useful.
Chancellor Fox stated that one can also look at programmatic problems that this university has. In particular, to look at those kinds of programs that are funded by most institutions with discretionary funds and ask what kind of investment would be necessary to bring the university up to a seventy-five-percentile position among its peer institutions. These numbers are estimates because it is very difficult to compare apples and apples at each campus. She thinks they are realistic estimates. NC State is deficient in advising, both for the First Year College and the Graduate School, and would require about $1.0 M to overcome this deficiency compared to its peers. NC State is deficient in the Arts Program and in its ability to recruit and maintain minority students. There are not enough financial aid counselors and as a result the students are not applying enough for available financial aid from private sources. There is not a seminar series for all freshmen. Chancellor Fox noted a gross underestimate of the cost that would be required to make small seminar classes available to every student, something that is now routinely available at some of the peers. A graduate student support plan would need an additional one half million dollars if tuition was raised. The Honors Program is underfunded and according to the plan which has been submitted, its part of the compact plan needs approximately one half million dollars to bring it up to par. NC State does not have service learning opportunities anywhere near its competitors and would require approximately one quarter of a million dollars. Student counseling is deficient which would require approximately one half million dollars. NC State does not have anywhere near undergraduate research opportunities that its peer institutions do. Modestly that would require about one and a quarter of a million dollars. Nor does NC State have in the Center for Teaching and Learning, the kind of support that would lead to improvement of its teaching portfolio. Chancellor Fox stated that none of these things are considered absolute cores for the university, i.e., they do not involve electricity or water, heating buildings or painting the walls, or faculty salaries or staff or maintenance. All of these are the things that make a difference in the quality of an undergraduate education. The simplified budget figures show unmet financial need of $42M, underfunded student centered programs of approximately $12M and, equity in a market for faculty using the average of those numbers to bring them up to the average level would be approximately $9.0 M, which sums up to be more than $62M in terms of budgetary pressure. Chancellor Fox said therefore, you can see why it has been so difficult for the administration to identify the discretionary funds, to identify these underfunded student centered programs and to fund them in other ways.
Chancellor Fox reported that faculty salary and the equity market driven response for faculty will be addressed if the University of North Carolina is successful in going to the Legislature. The university will also attempt to address the unmet student financial need by organizing a need basis grant formula which is part of the submission for the budget this year. The university defines the cost of education as tuition plus fees plus $6700. That would be enough to have a student living with room, board, and a modest contribution for books and transportation on campus in a residence hall. The rationale for that is if you do not want to live in a residence hall, you do that by choice. Compared to the cost of education defined in this way, the university calculates a contribution from income which is based on family income. It assumes students can make some contributions to self help and estimates on the basis of federal grants and other tax credits, for all except freshmen, the availability of sources to address the cost of education.
Chancellor Fox stated that thinking about these kinds of figures, Chapel Hill has responded through their Board of Trustees, saying that the faculty salaries are a very important issue at Chapel Hill. They voted to increase their tuition by $300 a year for the next five years. This represents a 20% increase incrementally for each of the following five years. Remembering that of course this is part of the state constitution to keep tuition as low as possible, there has been opposition to what is proposed. She referred to a letter received from William Friday, President Emeritus, and CD Spangler outlining the reasons that they would oppose a faculty salary increase tied to a tuition increase. Given the scenario, for the first time NC State has the option to increase tuition and maintain the funds on campus, that Chapel Hill has done so, that we have compelling unmet financial need for our students, that we have underfunded programs for which, apart from tuition, there is very little possibility for support given the magnitude of the unmet financial need that would be presumably the target of a capital campaign and given the fact that Faculty salaries will be requested separately from any proposed increase from tuition, the options are very clear. NC State can do what Chapel Hill did which is raise tuition by $300 a year for a period of time, not raise tuition, or raise tuition less or more than Chapel Hill.
Chancellor Fox stated that if NC State proposed an increase of $300 on a base, basically of those students who have need, would have unmet needs and the number would go from $42M to approximately $42.9M. There would be approximately $2.9 M needed in additional financial need to leave the number of students with unmet need at essentially the same level that they are now, i.e., to not make their situation any worse. In fact, the administration believes that it would be unwise to ask for a tuition increase more than one year, because part of the strategy in using a tuition increase would be to induce the Legislature to respond and to make it as part of a negotiating position that they have stepped up in times of disaster for Eastern North Carolina to at least address some of the issues relevant to quality for the undergraduate program. It was for this reason that she recommended that NC State’s unmet need cannot be met without a tuition increase. Three hundred dollars in her opinion as well as those of administrators and Deans represent a reasonable compromise figure which would begin, but would not anywhere near adequately address the unmet and underfunded student centered programs that are short changed because of under investment by the Legislature in the past. Chancellor Fox stated that they also recognize that they have a pending bond issue with the State, i.e., that they are asking through the university for three billion dollars. NC State’s share over a five-year period would be approximately $450 M, and the ability of the State to fund faculty salary increases, the bond increase and to continue to provide significantly enhanced core support for programs is going to be strongly affected by the flood which has had major impact on the tax structure of the State of North Carolina. The flood has had one positive affect with respect to the situation for student unmet need. Namely the federal government is going to be putting $10M into a pot for financial aid for college students who were affected by the flood. NC State’s estimated share will be roughly one quarter of that. Chancellor Fox feels that it is not enough to address $42M in unmet financial need, but at least it will be something. Under those provisions she made a presentation to the Board of Trustees last Thursday because the question was raised about sequencing through committees. No decision was made. The Trustees will take advice and council and will provide input before the December 15, 1999 deadline which is necessary to submit tuition increases to General Administration.
Chancellor Fox pointed out that with respect to the College of Veterinary Medicine, the administration asked for an additional increase. She stated that the College of Veterinary Medicine is a highly selective program. There are only twenty-seven such programs in the United States. NC State ranked last on a graph of tuition and fees in 1998. She said if you were to look at the profile, with a $750 increase, assuming no increase in tuition and fees in competitor institutions, NC State will still rank last. Even if you look at the student’s tuition and fees plus a $750 increase and adjust that for available scholarships and grants, NC State still ranks last. The College of Veterinary Medicine has therefore, proposed, because they have also compelling needs which were developed as part of their compact planning process, a number of things that are necessary to bring the College into alignment with their peers and to in fact, invest into these kinds of discretionary things that make the difference in terms of programmatic quality. As part of the compact planning process, the College of Veterinary Medicine has suggested that it is necessary over several years to get to a $3,000 increase which could be done by having $750 increases for four years. A $3,000 increase would move NC State from dead last up to two from being dead last in the country.
Chancellor Fox stated that it is possible that there will not be a tuition increase approved by the Board of Trustees or the Board of Governors. If a tuition increase is not approved, the university will not close. There will continue to be underfunded students and underfunded programs. As a result, the difficulty in building NC State’s representation and recognition among peers, and being able to deliver the high quality education will be that much more difficult. It is for this reason that she has recommended that as a modest increase, $300 for one year and then continuing that. She feels that kind of incremental income will be able to make a difference in some of NC State’s programs. A $300 increase would generate $6.1M of income for the university and the unmet student financial need is estimated both internally and by General Administration for a full time student to be approximately 35% of that value. Roughly $2M would be allocated to unmet financial need and $4M would be available for those programs. She noted that those unmet programs would suggest that approximately an $11 M investment is needed. Three hundred dollars are chosen just as a reasonable approximation. It goes approximately one third of the way to fund those programs at peer level without making financial aid for students any worse than it is now. The allocation of $2.0 M back to students for financial aid would leave the situation unchanged. It is not a favorable situation now, but it would be no worse.
Senator Sawyers wanted to know the Chancellor’s opinion on the need for salary dollars versus enhanced benefits for faculty and staff.
Chancellor Fox responded that the compensation table looks very much like the salary table. NC State’s compensation package is significantly lower by three to 5% than its peer institutions. If you look at compensation, the university is worse off in terms of absolute dollar amounts than with faculty salaries.
Senator Sawyers noted that at the General Faculty Meeting, Provost Hall mentioned some new incentives to help colleges attract minority faculty. Senator Sawyers feels this has been a problem in the College of Management particularly in the Department of Accounting where in the last few years minority candidates have been lost to institutions that have offered them in some cases, 25% higher starting salaries. He wants to know when more will be known about these incentives and when they will become available.
Provost Hall responded that a draft proposal for the establishment of a faculty hiring assistance program is currently circulating among his colleagues. The document will be reviewed by the University Counsel because of the issues that are raised relative to dealing with historically under represented groups. By mid January, they plan to put a program in place. He added that work is also being developed on a spousal hiring policy with some dollars identified to deal with those issues as well.
Senator Smoak wanted to know if the proposed increase will change the rankings of NC State.
Chancellor Fox responded that the rankings will remain the same which is near the bottom.
Senator Wilson wanted to know about salary equity.
Provost Hall stated that the salary equity study has been recommissioned. He thinks it is important to understand that the salary equity study applies to everyone. There were some anomalies in the way that the study had been done in the past. Those anomalies are being corrected by more fully desegregating the data and especially the individuals that are brought into the cohorts. None of the analyses in the past have been subjected to any kind of confidence level analyses. An appropriate salary equity study will be accomplished by April 1, 2000 which should put the administration in a position of at least beginning to address these issues. His anticipation is that the process by which they are going to get to salary resolution will be a little different than it has been in the past.
Chancellor Fox introduced Natalie Duggins as Provost for a Day.
5. Unfinished Business
A. Resolutions 5-9 of the 1998-99 Faculty Senate
Chair Emeritus Wahl reported that resolution number five speaks to the University Calendar. The Senate asked that a study be commissioned to study university calendar issues to establish a realistic and flexible guideline which promotes the diverse activities at each institution, and to delegate to the constituent institutions greater authority. He stated that the response received from General Administration was that we already have the kind of prerogatives mentioned.
Chair Emeritus Wahl stated that he raised the question about a nine-month appointment versus an academic year appointment. It was brought to his attention that a calendar date like August 16 through May 15 was what most understood as a non full year appointment. Several Senators at the end of last year presented arguments that if one had to prepare for classes and just look at the calendar, there were somewhere between one and two weeks minimal time required to fulfill his/her appointment. Chair Emeritus Wahl raised the question of whether or not going from nine-month to an academic year appointment was a wise decision. A portion of the response received is that defining a responsibility that faculty relative to the academic year calendar rather than specific dates were preferred which would "leave as much individual opportunity for faculty to plan their schedules as well as institutional flexibility in configuring the required class days on the calendar."
Chair Emeritus Wahl reported that resolution six pertains to benefits. It is his understanding that things are going well.
Chair Emeritus Wahl reported that resolution seven pertained to awards for university service. He feels that the Personnel Policy Committee should continue reviewing this resolution.
Chair Emeritus Wahl reported that resolution eight called for an ecological audit. This was a follow-up to the Emerging Issues Forum two years ago when Governor Hunt pulled some people aside and said "we would like to have a sustainable state and in particular we would like to have NC State lead the way to demonstrating that sustainability." Since that time, an eighteen member environmental sustainability task force has been appointed. It is chaired by Dean Larry Tombaugh from Forest Resources. The essence of the response to the resolution was that while this may well be an appropriate thing to do, they preferred to allow this sustainability task force to do its study and perhaps in the spring of 2000 come up with an action plan which may not involve an ecological audit.
Chair Emeritus Wahl reported that resolution nine was debated the most. The debate was led by the Engineers in which everyone agreed to it. Namely, that academic computing and infrastructure support was less than what everyone would be happy with. The Senate resolved that the Chancellor should act immediately to address these problems through appointment of a faculty administration committee with full authority and that a standing committee be formed to provide a continuing and broad faculty input for academic computing and infrastructure. Chair Emeritus Wahl said that is underway. Sam Avery and Frank Abrams have provided a long detailed response to the request that is presently underway of study through a task force.
Chair Emeritus Wahl noted that he discussed with members of the Resources and Environment Committee the desirability of making sure that the Senate stay apprized of what is going on.
B. Third Reading: Resolution on Modifications to Reappointment, Promotion, and Tenure Procedures
Senator Bottcher read the resolution for its third reading and moved its adoption.
The motion was seconded.
After a short discussion on the resolution a motion was made to call the question. The motion was seconded and passed with one opposing vote.
The resolves were voted on and passed with one opposing vote.
Senator Kimler proposed an amendment to Whereas six to make it more descriptive.
Senator Bottcher proposed an amendment to Whereas four by inserting a comma, E. G., after the word necessary.
The motion was made and seconded to approve the whereases as amended.
The motion passed without dissent.
The motion to adopt the resolution was voted on and passed without dissent.
6. New Business
A. Faculty Memorials Secretary Carter read memorial statements for Dr. Clement L. Markert and Dr. Charles M. Stanislaw, who were both Professors Emeritus in the Department of Animal Science.
Senator Kimler offered an additional paragraph to Dr. Markert’s memorial statement.
A. Personnel Policy Committee
Senator Bottcher reported that the Personnel Policy Committee addressed four issues this semester.
Reappointment, Promotion, and Tenure Procedures
Senator Bottcher stated that the committee was asked to review the revisions made to reappointment promotion and tenure procedures. The Personnel Policy committee met jointly with the Academic Policy Committee to discuss the changes and issues concerning faculty. A Resolution on Modifications to Reappointment, Promotion, and Tenure Procedures was developed based on the discussions. A request for the Chair of the Faculty to appoint a Reappointment, Promotion and Tenure Committee to report to the Faculty Senate by March 7, 2000 was added to the resolution.
A new program to help resolve disputes among faculty, EPA professional staff, SPA employees, and students was developed as an alternative to the formal grievance procedures. Sheri Plenert gave a presentation to the Faculty Senate on September 28, 1999. Since then there have been discussions to broaden the topics to be mediated. The Governance Committee has prepared a revised version of the mediation policy and procedures. The draft revision will be considered by the Faculty Senate in the spring. Senator Bottcher stated that the mediation program is underway and the committee believes it represents an improvement and an alternative to the formal grievance procedures.
Senator Bottcher reported that the committee is pleased that the issue of benefits has been given high priority by the Board of Governors. They feel that it has essentially been dealt with.
The nine-month appointment concern relates to the fact that recent calendar changes in response to the mandated 150 class day requirement have caused faculty with academic year appointments and contracts with specific dates to work a few extra days (before August 15 and after May 15) to prepare for class, attend commencement, or conduct other work.
The Office of the Provost has begun to investigate a more generalized concept of academic year appointments which would be supportive and respectful of faculty commitments and meet the institutional need to be flexible with the actual dates which bound the 150 days of classes. It appears that the administration will expect the faculty to be flexible in preparing for class while meeting the academic year requirements.
B. Academic Policy Committee
Senator Banks reported that the committee is in the data gathering phases on three separate issues. He noted that the committee has heard from Harriette Griffin and Doug Wellman on the diversity task force and asked them for some clarification on a couple of issues; what specifically the faculty can do to increase diversity and clarification of precisely what diversity might mean in all its different avenues. They have agreed to discuss the issue more with the committee in the spring.
On the issue of the use of social security numbers, the committee has been collecting data on that, looking at what sister institutions are doing and trying to solicit some response from the Registrar’s office about any possible ramifications of the use of another number, and why the university at one time had used another number for all students.
The committee is working with the University Academic Operations Council. The University Academic Operations Council has put forth a group of approximately twenty separate issues to try to improve the Students’ Success at North Carolina State University’s progress toward a degree. Those issues were ranked with the top five being selected and one of those was a measure of intent to majors. Senator Banks stated that they plan to visit the registrar and members of several colleges to look at the impact that such a policy would have.
C. Resources and Environment Committee
Senator Brown, Chair of the Resources and Environment Committee handed out a copy of the committee’s report and stated that the committee’s report is composed of a summary of their review of the Master Plan.
8. Liaison Reports
Senator Gilbert reported that the Retired Faculty Committee decided to conduct a survey on the activities of Emeritus Faculty. The information received indicated minimal activity to some quite extensive activity. With the data that they have in hand, he urged the Governance Committee to actively study the concern.
Senator Markham stated that the Governance Committee addressed that issue last year. The committee received testimony from a number of retired faculty and reached a conclusion on the issue.
Chair Emeritus Wahl reported that the Athletics Council met last Friday and in addition to being concerned about parking during graduation, they were more seriously interested in the fact that there will not be a golf team for women next year.
Secretary Carter adjourned the meeting at 5:00 p.m.