February 22, 2000
Senators present: Chair Corbin, Secretary Carter, Parliamentarian Link, Chair Emeritus Wahl; Senators Ash, Banks, Bottcher, Brown, Brownie, Elmaghraby, El-Masry, Fitzgerald, Funderlic, Gilbert, Griffin, Grimes, Havner, Kimler, Lytle, Malinowski, Peel, Robinson, Sawyers, Smoak, Suh, Toplikar, Werner, Wilson
Senators absent: Provost Hall; Senators Fisher, Hamouda, Kelley, Markham, Misra, Wilkerson, Willits
Excused: Senator Grainger, Hodge
Visitors: Daniel Bunce, Assistant Editor, Bulletin; Clare Kristofco, Executive Assistant to the Chancellor; Cathy Reeve, Director of Transportation; Ronnie Wright, Assistant Director, Transportation; Joanne Woodard, Vice Provost, Equal Opportunity; Karin Wolfe, Director, Office Academic Personnel; John Borwick, Student Senate Pro Tempore; Marye Anne Fox, Chancellor; Michael Harwood, University Architect
1. Call to Order
The eleventh meeting of the 46th session of the North Carolina State University Faculty Senate was called to order at 3:00 p.m. by Chair Frederick Corbin.
2. Welcome and Announcements
Chair Corbin welcomed Senators and Guests
Chair Corbin announced that the Emerging Issues Forum will be held on Thursday and Friday of this week. Faculty who did not receive their packets in the mail will need to pick them up at the Forum on Thursday.
Chair Corbin congratulated Senator Brownie on putting together packets for the O. Max Gardner Award.
Secretary Carter announced that the nominees for Honorary Degrees have been approved. He encouraged the faculty to speak with their Deans to arrange a formal way of rotating between the departments and colleges to come up with nominations on a regular basis.
Chair Corbin announced that Dr. Jay Baliga, from the College of Engineering will be featured at the next General Faculty Meeting.
Secretary Carter announced that two finalists from NC State’s Student Body have been chosen for the Truman Award.
3. Approval of the Minutes Meeting No. 10, February 8, 2000
The minutes were approved as amended.
4. Remarks from the Chancellor
Chancellor Fox stated that a campus master plan is always a vision for the future. It should represent a vision, not just for five or ten years, but long term and essentially how one related physically to the environment.
"In addition to talking about the Physical Master Plan and how the physical environment influences the campus, the Board of Trustees talked about Legislative funding, tuition, and the potential for generating a capital campaign. With respect to Legislative funding, things are more dire in the Legislature than have been suggested in the past. Every agency with the exception of the university has been told to take a 2% cut. The good news is that we have not been told to take a 2% cut, but we are in an environment where all of the other State agencies are thinking about that kind of strategy as we go forward. The bad part of not being told to take a 2% cut is that we do not know what kind of a cut that we will be expected to take. I think it is a given that we can not expect significant growth apart from enrollment, and potentially in an election year, the response one will get as State employees for incremental salary increase. The university’s request is for a 3% salary increase, and as you know the tuition package which was passed by the Board of Governors gives us more flexibility than we might have expected.
You know that we were doing a dance with the devil in suggesting a tuition increase because one of our firmest principles has been to extend the access and affordability to our students to be able to partake in higher education, and yet at the same time, the political reality of this legislative crunch is such that we felt that we could not in good conscience go forward with management of this university without asking for additional resources. So our request through a special meeting of the Board of Trustees in December was for a $300 increase in which there was a promise that one third of it would be allocated to students’ financial aid. That would give us a $200 increase of usable discretionary money, and we argue that it should be discretionary on the campus and largely related to student services that had been underfunded in the past. In January, President Broad made a suggestion that NC State and UNC Chapel Hill be allowed to have a tuition increase, but that it be $200 instead of $300, and that the remaining $100 that we requested be handled in a special request for additional financial aid (need based financial aid as a special line item from the Legislature). In other words, her request would be essentially identical to what we had requested in November/December apart from the fact that she was suggesting that all of it be allocated to faculty salaries. The Board of Governors, however, did not accept her recommendation and instead came to a compromise with the suggestion made by the Trustees at Chapel Hill. They were requesting a $300 increase every year for five years which would have the effect of almost doubling tuition in five years, and were not willing to make any allocations toward financial aid. They made the argument that it was needed for competitive faculty salaries, and certainly that is an argument which is defensible. The compromised position reached by the Board of Governors was for $300 tuition increase for NC State and UNC Chapel Hill. Smaller increases were requested for three other campuses i.e., East Carolina, University of North Carolina at Wilmington, and UNC Charlotte. There was a differentiation by class of research and non research institutions. Those that are primarily baccalaureate programs were not granted any tuition increase. There had been some differentiation in tuition before, but this was just an affirmation once again that research institutions have a much greater financial need for their operation than do those that do not concentrate on graduate programs.
This tuition increase, as well, was accompanied by President Broad’s suggestion for a separate line item increase for financial aid, and indeed the supplemental budget that she submitted on behalf of the General Administration includes a request for $36 M in need based financial aid for students. Whether this will pass is an open question. If it does pass, however, we will of course be in a position where instead of having $200 in discretionary investment per student, we would have $300, and not only for one year, but in the second year an incremental $300 for a total of $600. This means that we would have a great deal more flexibility than was suggested in a plan that our Trustees approved.. Also, we would have the ability to respond to retention packages to have more money for set-up packages for new faculty so long as we can address the space issue. We are at a stage where it looks as if the Legislature will not intervene i.e., in their delegation to the Board of Governors. The tuition package should go through. There is no will apparently for the Legislature to intervene to reverse that. Nor is there any political will to allow an additional increase in the next year which some of the smaller campuses have been looking to. The fact that we moved quickly in the fall has been reflected in the tuition increase that we have. If we had not moved very quickly, and if we had not involved our students in that discussion over a very short period of time, it would be unlikely that we would be able to get a tuition increase for the next three years. One reason that has not been discussed very significantly about why a tuition increase is appropriate, is the national scene with respect to student financial aid.
At the beginning of the Clinton Administration, Pell Grants for those who are neediest gave a total of $2300 to students toward the cost of their education. That has now increased to $3300, and the proposal in the President’s budget this year is to increase that to $3500. Pell Grants go toward total cost of attendance, and as a result, the fact that the $3500 figure exceeds our tuition and fee package does not leave federal money on the table.
However, the President is also suggesting two other means for student financial aid. Scholarships will provide $1500 in tax credit, and at $1500 of course, that does not also exceed our tuition and fees. This year in his budget he is making another proposal which is something he calls the college opportunity tax deduction. That will provide a tax deduction for tuition and fees only up to $5,000, not for the cost of attendance, but for tuition and fees only. Since tuition and fees do not equal to $5,000, it means that residents of North Carolina would differentially lose compared to states that have high tuition/high aid. With respect to what is happening in Washington, it makes sense for NC State to have a higher rather than a lower tuition base accompanying that higher tuition with enhanced financial aid to address those students for whom this poses a financial burden.
Like all institutions in the UNC System, NC State will have a 2.1% cost of living adjustment, plus $300 each year, that is beginning in Fall 2000 and continuing in the fall 2001. We will have a discretion, subject to the approval of the President, in how those funds will be invested. We will undoubtably invest them in student services or as we promised the students in our discussion during the fall. But because the amount is higher than we requested, we will also have the ability to address other campus needs. Exactly how those will be formulated has to be delayed until we see about Legislative action i.e., until we see about what is being undertaken as a line item for faculty salaries and what is being undertaken with respect to the student financial aid packages. If both of those are retained or increased, as will be proposed by some of our supporters from the Governor’s submitted budget, then of course that will leave more flexibility with what to do with the incremental tuition income. In any case, I want to emphasize once again that a $300 tuition increase brings us approximately $6.0M. Six million dollars is less than 1% of the university’s operating cost. Although this looks like a big deal to a student who is paying that tuition increase, the change that will be accomplished in the university is really very small. We will see it with respect to services that can be delivered to particular students. We will see it with respect to our ability to build a particular program. If we were to allocate this money as an across the board increase, it would be lost in the noise. That is why it is very important for us to have well formulated priorities and to make investments extremely well.
We are at a place where one or the other major issues that remain with respect to the supplemental budget which has been submitted by General Administration is the bond issue. In my experience, the greatest problem with faculty retention with respect to outside offers at this university, despite the fact that we are underfunded and faculty salaries are a challenge, is that we have so many of our colleagues who do not have adequate space to do their scholarly work. For the last several weeks I have been giving at least one talk to community groups around the state saying how important this bond issue is to the future of this institution. We are already at the stage where we are becoming increasingly selective in our admissions. Increasingly as we become more selective and as we exceed our physical capacity for classrooms and offices and undergraduate laboratories and research laboratories, that decision is going to have to be made more and more frequently. Unfortunately what it will probably do is enrage our Legislators rather than cause them to vote for a bond issue. We are going to be calling on you as faculty when you have connections in the community, to help us make that case. I think we will also have to involve students more actively to visit their homes and make the case for space on campus.
The joint Legislative Committee from the House and Senate in North Carolina will be visiting campus on March 17 to see first hand the situation described with respect to space and the need for capital investment. The Advisory Budget Council of the State will also be on campus at a time which is yet to be affixed to determine whether a declined, study which so eloquently and dramatically documented our spacial need, has real relevance to the quality of education that we are offering.
Another group of visitors who will be coming to campus in March is a group from the United States House of Representatives. The entire Agriculture Appropriations Committee is having an off site meeting on our campus on March 27, 2000. This is in partial recognition for the outstanding programs that are being accomplished in the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences and a tribute to the fact that the USDA has located their Eastern Research Hub on the Centennial Campus. It is an occasion that should promote some self congratulations, and of course, it will represent an opportunity for us to make the case that USDA should have a larger fraction of its budget in peer review proposals for which our faculty would be competitive.
We also have Founders Day coming up on March 7, 2000. There are three recipients of the Watauga Medal that will be honored that night. They are Terry Curtain, former Dean of the College of Veterinary Medicine; Jack Jordan, an extraordinary contributor to the College of Forest Resources; and Blanton Whitmire, who has made major contributions to Entomology in the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences. There will be a $15.00 charge for the dinner but we will encourage your attendance and it is a wonderful evening for the university."
Senator Gilbert asked Chancellor Fox questions concerning two articles in the Chemical and Engineering News
1) Repeating a Bad Law
Senator Gilbert wanted to know if it is appropriate for the university to take a position on the Shelby Amendment.
Chancellor Fox responded that the university has taken a position on it. She stated that she took a position as an individual, as a Chancellor, and she encouraged Governor Hunt to take a position on behalf of North Carolina. In addition, on behalf of the National Academy, she was the one who testified against the Amendment at the President’s Councils of Advisors on Science and Technology.
Educators Decline INS Plans to Charge Foreign Students
Senator Gilbert feels that if this goes forward, it could be costly to the university.
Chancellor Fox agreed and noted that this is a law that requires a charge to be levied against the students, but it needs to be collected by the university and the university would assume liability for that.
She stated that editorially we have protested this law as well. Dean Stewart has initiated a study that would document exactly how costly that law would be. Chancellor Fox stated that she signed a letter three weeks ago on this.
Senator Sawyers stated that there was a concern brought to his attention about whether there are quotas by counties when admitting students to the university.
Chancellor Fox stated that there are no such quotas, nor will there ever be quotas of that sort. It could be that at some point in the future, in order to build diversity that applications will be encouraged more strongly from those remote from Wake County than from those who are here.
Senator Kimler stated that he wonders about the reaction from President Broad and the Board to our falling on our sword once again and not requesting tuition money for faculty. In particular we had placed other needs first while Chapel Hill went forward with the salary request which will increase the disparity between the campuses in their average salaries. Is there some sense that in the schemes that we are being given assurances that they will fight for line items if we are not going to do these things through raising of tuition?
Chancellor Fox stated that she thinks Chapel Hill is going to be under some pressure to back off from full allocation of their tuition money to faculty salaries, and the political wisdom that guided our tuition increase was that these were real needs that we were not meeting and at the same time a political reality that our Board of Trustees would not have approved a tuition increase that was allocated entirely to faculty salaries. She thinks that the case to put all the money into faculty salaries to make NC State competitive with their peers is one that can be made. To do that to the exclusion of student services is one that she thinks looks self serving and has been claimed to be self serving. Therefore, she believes that in the end, Chapel Hill is not going to be permitted to do what they initially claimed.
5. New Business
A. Physical Master Plan Update
Mr. Michael Harwood, University Architect, showed a series of images to help the faculty get a sense of how the Physical Master Plan is grounded in the tradition of the university. He displayed one that was prepared by the Civil Engineering Department in 1913 and stated that a lot of their early plans were not forward thinking documents, but were reflections of what was there on that date. He said it was not a useful tool but it was interesting to see this connection between what the students were doing and what on the administrative side we needed to do in terms of the plan.
Mr. Harwood stated that it was not until 1957 that NC State had its first master plan that looked at the campus. He said it is important to note in our present plan that we have started filling in some of our court yards.
Mr. Harwood stated that in 1965 there was the dumb bell scheme where the main focus was around the brickyard and the academic functions, and then there was a companion concentration on the other side of the railroad tracks where the residential life activities centered around the Carmichael Gymnasium and the new Student Center.
In 1978 another Master Plan was prepared which is notable for design of the courtyard. As the campus continues to grown, this becomes more important with more features of the campus, and one that the current plan enhances and builds upon and uses as the tool for describing what is unique and important by NC State.
Mr. Harwood stated that the first Master Plan for Centennial Campus was in 1987. The significance of this particular plan was not only that it was NC State’s second Land Grant, but also as plans were being made for how to integrate into the land that NC State already had. He stated that they began to look at a way of defining the campus based on some programmatic themes. They developed some guidelines that helped guide them in achieving this plan and also was important in terms of emphasizing the space between the buildings rather than the buildings themselves. Mr. Harwood said in 1994, they developed a plan that started to define things in terms of neighborhoods. He noted that the 1994 plan was important because it was built on a series of workshops.
Mr. Harwood showed a composite of the 2000 acres that the plan addresses. He explained that the plan is 2000 acres and more than nine million square feet. He noted that N C State is a community of 35,000 people.
Mr. Harwood handed out a summary of the Master Plan. He said the summary was presented to the Trustees and University Council. They are planning to present it to the Student and Staff Senates next week. The plan was produced largely in-house. There was a series of workshops focused on a number of the precincts on campus which were led by Smedes York. As those workshops concluded, he also chaired an advisory team where the Faculty Senate was represented by Chair Corbin. There were a great number of people involved in the advisory team. They oversaw the work of a number of task forces that were the ones actually doing the work (taking the 1994 plan and improving it and giving it some of the shape and form that is seen today). They also used some focus groups. Mr. Harwood noted that there were also representatives from the City involved incorporating the efforts of the Hillsborough Street partnership.
Mr. Harwood stated that the document and plan exist to fulfill other objectives. It is not in and of itself a reason to exist, but it needs to work with the programmatic drivers.
Mr. Harwood stated that the Paths is the image from the area in front of Caldwell, Thompkins, and Winston. He said again in this document they talked about how they are going to connect spaces, and that this is an example of a place where we have something that is indicative of the scale and size and some of the features.
Mr. Harwood stated that they have a series of guided principles that are elaborated in the handout. Each was developed as part of the workshops that were held for each precinct.
Environmental Sustainability is a principle that is very important given a lot of things known now about environmental sciences and a lot of progress that has been made in the last few decades.
Mr. Harwood said campus safety is something that they do not want to overlook. He feels that it is very important to have a sense of community that is not threatened in any way.
Mr. Harwood stated that from their guiding principles they have developed some standards and some guidelines that relate to architecture and have described something that is called the NC State style and that is that every building has a role to play. The roles are different and collective of some of the programmatic issues. There is also discussion of the relationship of buildings to the natural surroundings and environment. They have also developed some landscape standards that describes the different types of shared open space, different kinds of court yards, the brick yard, etc. Mr. Harwood stated that they have discussed some of the materials and the way that one would move through the building to the campus and how they would get from one neighborhood to another.
Finally they have some natural system standards documenting some of the lessons that have been learned with the issues from Rocky Branch, and also some general statements about things that add to NC State’s sense of community and add a lot of value and diversity to its neighborhoods.
Mr. Harwood stated that housing is another driver for increasing the variety of options of types of living arrangements for the students. Transportation services are going on in parallel, as we assess our inventory and make some determination about what to demand for parking, where that needs to be located and how that gets factored into this plan to make sure that we have the appropriate parking facilities, transportation services, pedestrian connections, etc. We have space and quality standards that have been worked on recently in conjunction with General Administration looking at a system-wide benchmarks to use in evaluating how we can be efficient with the resources that we have.
Mr. Harwood stated that the ten-year plan describes the resources that are needed to achieve these objectives.
Senator Brown wanted to know what the next steps are in the plan.
Mr. Harwood responded that the next step is for them to disseminate the information. He said there is a broad cross section of the campus that has been involved. Hopefully they have been letting people know what is going on. He stated that their goal is to try to get out and let people know a lot about what is going on. This is the informational phase.
He stated that they would love to have the faculty’s input. It will help them to make the plan better. He said the specifics may shift. They think the bedrocks of the plan are the guiding principle, and the concepts of their neighborhoods.
Mr. Harwood stated that, at the Trustees meeting in April, they intend to have a plan to present in draft form. They plan to gather all the responses and reactions, and then ask the Trustees to approve it.
Senator Funderlic wanted to know about the schedule on the Executive Conference Center and if it includes rooms for overnight lodging.
Mr. Harwood responded that approximately 250 rooms would be provided in a hotel and a conference center, and a golf course would also be a part of the center. The projected year to have everything completed is 2002.
Senator Funderlic wanted to know if single family housing is still in progress.
Mr. Harwood responded that housing areas are in the plans. It will not be single family. The single family housing has been discussed from time to time but there are no plans momentarily.
Senator Gilbert stated that there seems to be a rumor that Governor Hunt will be giving more of Dorothea Dix’s campus to the university at the end of his term. He wants to know if Mr. Harwood has any idea where that will be?
Mr. Harwood responded that he is not aware of that rumor.
John Borwick, Student Senate stated that since environmental sustainability is not quantifiable, he wants to know how do you waive the benefits of a new project like housing, for example on Centennial Campus with the burdens to the environment.
Mr. Harwood responded that he thinks that environmental concerns are going to be developed. He stated that there are a number of things that have been established already. There is collaboration with the School of Design and a studio that has been established that will have a focus on the master plan, and that will be a laboratory for them to test and evaluate some of the principles and how that will play out in parts of the campus.
Chair Corbin thanked Mr. Harwood for his report.
B. Parking Proposal Update
Cathy Reeve, Director of Transportation reported that Transportation is one of the many functions on this campus. Their role is trying to get people to and around campus in a way that helps them to do their business, but at the same time they have to build a system by designing operations that meet the master plan.
Ms. Reeve stated that they would like to continue to focus on some areas where they feel that they need to make changes to paint the big picture. One of the areas is in residence parking to look more at defining where that parking should be and to make it more approximate where residence halls are. She stated that they are currently spread out and that has a lot of implications not only for the students, but also how it affects travel and traffic patterns on campus because there is a lot of flow and flexibility allowed.
The other is a concern that has been coming to Transportation for years on service vehicle parking. They have looked at how university service vehicles park compared to departmental vehicle needs, and recognize that those can be different needs and that they are probably competing for the same space. It might be better if Transportation separates those needs. The other is to look at North Campus parking. That is one area they plan to look at in the future particularly for 2001-2002 to have more specific recommendations.
Ms Reeve stated that Biltmore has been re zoned to a "C" and the "B" permits that everyone has will expire in August. They do recognize that there is a need for employees to have access to North Campus. One of the proposals that they must review is automatically grandfathering everyone in with the "B" permit that expires to a "C" for their zone if they work there.
She stated that they did a survey between schools and colleges and they heard back overwhelmingly that we need more transit systems. The Department of Transportation wants to start focusing their services more on the campus transit service so that people can leave their cars and take the bus.
Ms. Reeve stated that Transportation’s projected revenues and expenses through 2002-03 are the basis for asking for a graduated "B" increase of 3% for the next three years. It comes out to be compounded over those three years at approximately a 12% increase. There will be a $10 wolfline increase for students’ fees. Transportation is still not making money on this because their largest expenses continue to be with the wolfline service. Eighty percent of that will be paid with students’ fees with the remaining 20% paid by Transportation. Transportation is also responsible for maintaining all of the parking lots and the routine repairs. They have capital outlay items as well. Those are the two bigger items that have an impact on the budget.
Ms. Reeve stated that the approval process is through the Physical Environment Committee. On March 1, 2000, the Transportation subcommittee will meet and will discuss it in detail. One week later, the Physical Environment Committee will make a final decision and this will be taken to the Board of Trustees meeting in April, and whatever is approved will go into effect August 2000.
Senator Gilbert wanted to know what will happen to the BR stickers.
Ms. Reeve responded that there will not be a change.
Senator Gilbert wanted to know if it is possible to identify some space in Hillsborough Square that would require a C permit.
Ms. Reeve responded that they are proposing that the lower portion of Hillsborough Square be zoned a "C" They are also planning to try an experiment with a North Hall "B" and offer people that.
Senator Brownie stated that the Vet School’s parking zone has changed from "C" to "D" which creates a problem for them to park on campus. He does not feel that it is practical for employees who work at the College of Veterinary Medicine.
Ms. Reeve stated that last year when they were looking at the "D" and the "C" areas at the Vet School, they were looking at making the area part "C" and part "D". They could not make the students "C" so they elected to go with the "D" permit. She informed Dr. Brownie that he can purchase a "C" permit if he chooses to.
Senator Suh from Centennial Campus commented that they do not come to North Campus just for fun. They come only when they have to. He stated that when they come they do not find a "B" space available. He said the alternative is not to come. He suggested designating time limited spaces for a B permit. Senator Suh said they would like to come to the library but because of the parking problems, they chose not to come. He feels this is a major issue.
Ms. Reeve agreed and stated that it is her duty to give the faculty this information so that she can get feed back. She said there are so many issues out there and wonders how do they make the right decision.
Senator Funderlic wanted to know how does $270 compare with peer institutions. He also wanted to know if George Worsley is making a profit.
Ms. Reeve stated that Mr. Worsley has reviewed it. She stated that when you look at it, it only represents covering cost at existing levels of what they can project their expenses will be. Transportation’s operating expenses at 3% a year increase, transit at 5%, the expenses associated with facilities and repairs are projects that have been planned. So we have a planning-based budget in that respect. She stated that there is no position within Transportation now that says that they will go out and build parking for future demands. They did it ten years ago with the Dan Allen Parking Deck and they are still paying for it. She said if that is the direction the campus community supports, then that is something that they are willing to do.
A senator said a number of faculty members do not feel good about the parking situation on campus and they see it getting a lot worse. They do not understand why some parking spaces are being chipped away and they are not seeing any parking spaces provided anywhere else, and parking fees are rising.
Ms. Reeve stated that unfortunately that happens. They are going to take two and three spaces here and there. The replacement or compensation policy reads that they have to replace parking in a comparable manner prior to the project removing the original spaces. She stated that it is a tradeoff between the parking and other improvements in the university.
A. Governance Committee
Senator Elmaghraby, Chair of the Governance Committee reported that he would like the Senators to read for consideration at the next meeting, the first draft of the Grievance Procedure for Faculty and EPA Professionals.
B. Resources and Environment Committee
Senator Brown, Chair of the Resources and Environment Committee announced that the committee will be meeting Wednesday with Sam Averitt as a follow-up to his presentation at the last meeting.
C. Personnel Policy Committee
Senator Bottcher, Chair of the Personnel Policy Committee reported that the committee has been reviewing two issues. Primarily, to address the issue of required written summaries of annual reviews of faculty. He stated that there was a request by administration to consider a change in the wording in the Faculty Handbook to clarify this issue so that Department Heads would be required to provide written summaries of annual reviews of faculty. Currently those are only required at the reviewed faculty member’s request. Karin Wolfe has submitted a questionnaire to all department heads on campus and has received numerous responses. She will have the results available for the committee next week.
The other issue focuses on clarification of current policies regarding transportation with the changes with classifications of retired faculty and phased retirement. Some of the wording may need to be clarified.
Senator Funderlic reported that it seems that the administration (when looking at the tenure and promotion procedure changes) wants uniformity and consistency. He stated that it has gotten to the point where tenure and promotion packages are turned back because they have the wrong fonts.
Chair Corbin stated that the Reappointment Promotion and Tenure Committee is in place and Senator Banks is a member of the committee and will be glad to have expressions of concerns and questions.
D. Academic Policy Committee
Senator Banks, Chair of the Academic Policy Committee reported that the committee met last week and spoke with Dr. Sarah Rajala, Associate Dean of the College of Engineering. He stated that there is big discussion within the university concerning progress toward degree, and graduation rates. The ideas that the committee has discussed with Dr. Rajala were some of her concerns, as the College of Engineering saw them, with respect to contract with partners toward degree, and some of the associated complications. Senator Banks stated that they are in a data gathering phase to try to collect as much information from as many different sources as they can to get a feel for how they can best address those issues.
E. Liaison Reports
Secretary Carter reported that the Environmental Sustainability Task Force decided on three priorities which are waste treatment reduction, energy conservation, and natural systems restoration.
Chair Corbin adjourned the meeting at 5:15 p.m.