September 18, 2001
Present: Chair Carter, Secretary Banks, Provost Cooper, Parliamentarian Gilbert, Chair Emeritus Corbin; Senators Ash, Bernhard, Blanchard, Braunbeck, Brothers, Cassidy, Daley, Elmaghraby, Funderlic, Garval, Havner, Headen, Hooper, Hughes-Oliver, Istook, Kimler, Kirby, Levine, Marshall, Misra, Rolle, Sawyers, Smoak, Tucker, Tyler, Weiner, Wilkerson
Absent: Senators Allen, El-Masry, Grimes, Lytle, Vickery
Excused: Senators Grainger, Hodge
Visitors: Clare Kristofco, Executive Assistant to the Chancellor; Kathy Brown, Library Administration; Benny Benton, News Services; Judy Peel, Associate Vice Provost; Joanne Woodard, Vice Provost for Equal Opportunity; Bruce Mallette, Vice Provost
1. Call to Order
The second meeting of the forty-eighth session of the North Carolina State University Faculty Senate was called to order at 3:00 p.m. by Chair Philip B. Carter.
2. Welcome and Announcements
Chair Carter welcomed Senators and Guests.
Chair Carter asked the Senate to take a moment for reflection on the events of the past week. He told the faculty to especially remember members of the university family like Eric Cranford, from the class of 1992, who died during the crash of the American Airlines flight into the Pentagon.
A moment of silence was taken to observe those that were affected by the tragedy.
Chair Carter passed a sheet of stationery around for the senators’ signatures to be attached to a memo being sent from the Chair of the Faculty and the Secretary of the Faculty to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Henry Hugh Shelton, expressing thanks to providence that he was not involved and to express condolences on members of both the military and civilian worker at the Pentagon who were lost.
Chair Carter stated that the University is looking for ways to help. He plans to ask Professors Ellis Cowling and Jim Clark to meet with some of the faculty to come up with some suggestions on what the faculty might do.
Chair Carter wished a Happy New Year to those celebrating Rosh Hashanah.
Chair Carter is concerned that, in our frustration to lash out at people who might be responsible for the tragedy, some frustration is clearly misdirected. He feels that it is inappropriate in our country and certainly inappropriate at the university. He stated that the students have undertaken an initiative to develop what is being referred to as a safe haven for students who are facing threats or verbal abuse. He noted that one way to express that is through the use of wearing a white ribbon. Chair Carter stated that he thinks it would be most appropriate for faculty to comment about that sort of inappropriateness during class.
Chair Carter presented Chair Emeritus Corbin with a souvenir gavel for his services on the Faculty Senate.
Chair Carter announced that the students are holding a "Student Unite" meeting on the brickyard tomorrow at 12:25 p. m. to promote unity among the students. Faculty have been invited to join them. Speakers will be representing various religions of students at NC State as well as a speech by Vice Chancellor Stafford.
Chair Carter announced that former Commissioner Jim Graham will be at the next meeting on October 2, 2001.
3. Approval of the Minutes, Meeting No. 1, September 4, 2001
The minutes were approved as amended.
4. Remarks from the Provost
Provost Cooper announced that there will be a New Faculty and EPA Reception on Wednesday from 6:00 - 8:00 p.m. at the Talley Student Center.
The university is holding an open house for the recruitment of undergraduates on Saturday, October 20, 2001. This is basically for fall freshmen recruiting for next year. Approximately 8,000 visitors are expected. Almost all of the colleges are involved. Statewide announcements are going out and invitations have been sent to 20,000 prospective students from the Admissions recruitment records.
On December 7, 2001, a Brotherhood Dinner will be held. This is a dinner largely arranged for the African American Community. It will begin with a reception at the McKimmon Center. The honoree is Robert P. Moses who founded a project called the Algebra Project. He has written a very noteworthy book entitled Radical Equations: Math Literacy As A Civil Right.
Provost Cooper stated that a report has also been received on the Faculty Salary Equity Study. The report was completed by an external consultant. There are gender equity issues dealing with women faculty and their pay scale and also minority faculty and their pay scale compared to the rest of the campus. The study indicated that there are race and gender inequities among faculty salaries at NC State. The process for handling these inequities will be shared first with the Deans’ Steering Committee and then with the Deans’ Council likely to occur on September 27, 2001. Shortly thereafter the information will be disseminated to department chairs. Then there will be a request for a case by case justification for salary increases. Enrollment money is being set aside to hopefully erase this inequity as much as possible this year. The average amount over the entire group of women faculty averages to $1000. For minority faculty the average is $2,000. There are more than 250 people affected.
Provost Cooper stated that, particularly at the faculty interface, one has to be sensitive to the response of the students to this great disruption in daily life. It will affect the ability for the students; some students to hand in assignments, some to take exams. He has not received many immediate requests for understanding etc. One that he did receive was the daughter of someone who worked at the Pentagon that actually took an exam on Tuesday. He stated that the professor was understanding and noted that there is a mechanism to erase that grade and replace it with another opportunity if the student desires. He feels that there are going to be a lot of missed assignments, missed homework, and exam schedules that will have to be adjusted, and he hopes that faculty will accommodate as much as possible.
Provost Cooper stated, "The other thing that I can suggest that we have to be alert for is this whole question of the backlash and how it can fall on students from the Middle East and others of the community. We want to do everything that we can to prevent that. I can tell you that there have been at least two incidents on the campus that I know about. We have to be vigilant. Chancellor Fox, Vice Chancellor Stafford, and I attended a meeting of the Muslim students, and told them that we would have zero tolerance for these kinds of acts. We want to make the campus a safe place for our students.
The other thing that I think we can anticipate, which is a more chronic issue that we have to be aware of, is that we are going to have our students begin, as is happening around the country, to express pacifist instincts and concerns that may or may not resonate well with other groups on the campus. It is expected that we have a diversity of feelings about how the United States should behave in all of this. We can anticipate that there will be a lot of different voices that may or may not agree with the main thrust of what our government is going to do. We want to make sure that, as we anticipate some of this happening, students are safe in the environment in which it occurs."
Senator Funderlic wanted to know if that is zero tolerance for the pacifists.
Provost Cooper responded, "I would say that if students are essentially spitting on other students, and throwing stones at other students, we have to make sure that we have civility in behaviour that we observe. If there are people that try to physically intimidate students assembling, then we have to step in and deal with that sort of thing. None of this is happening at this point. We have to realize that it could, and be able to respond appropriately."
5. Memorial Statement for Dr. Fred Tarver
Secretary Banks read a memorial statement for Dr. Fred Tarver, Professor of Food Science. A moment of silence was observed in recognition of his service.
6. Unfinished Business
Chair Carter stated that a recommendation was presented last week to ask the colleges to initiate discussions on appropriate leadership styles within their colleges. There was a suggestion that ten questions be developed into a standard form with suggestions of attributes of a departmental leader. There was some discussion over the value of such a survey being used, etc. He stated that it seems that there was a consensus that at least it would get off the mark.
Senator Hughes-Oliver stated that it would be nice to develop a short introduction as to why we want input from our faculty on these issues. In the Statistics department they are about to begin searching for a new head. With the blessings of the other Faculty Senators in the College of Physical and Mathematical Sciences, the Statistics Department Faculty have already started responding to this and the question she is asked is, " Why are we doing this?". She feels that it would be nice to get a short page of the reasoning and to also get the endorsement from the Chancellor and the Provost.
Chair Carter suggested that Senators Banks and Kimler organize that. He noted that most faculty are unaware of what flexibility they might have.
Provost Cooper stated that to some people they (department heads versus department chairs) are interchangeable definitions. To others they are very specific limitations, etc. In any system, even one that has prescribed uniformity there is a difference of behaviour that is all over the place. He stated that there tends to be departmental tradition and you have to allow for that kind of diversity. He thinks there is a certain connotation to the term department chair. There is a certain period of service. There are certain requirements for consultation. In some cases various votes that are recorded; as opposed to a department head who is supposed to determine consensus and make decisions; and not be accountable by a strict vote on department matters. Also the period of appointments can be a little different, with much more interaction between the dean and department head as opposed to the faculty. He feels that he certainly can be comfortable in any system. The system where he thinks they better described department head characteristics is at Purdue. From his perspective, either system could be fine. He stated that it probably would be better to have one or the other system, and uniformity with respect to the expectations and procedures.
Senator Tucker stated that he is trying to learn the current status. His thought is that the discussion was almost completed.
Senator Headen from the College of Management submitted the following document that was written by Senator Beverly Tyler. He noted that he wanted to get a sense of the correctness of the statement:
DEPARTMENTAL LEADERSHIP AT NC STATE
Chancellor Fox and the Faculty Senate have asked all departments at NC State to discuss the functions of departmental leadership and the features they consider desirable and relay the results of that discussion through their Faculty Senators back to the Faculty Senate. The focus of the discussion should not be the merits of the title "heads" or "chairs" but rather the merits of various forms of leadership. This campus wide discussion is not intended to lead to a policy decision, which will dictate how department leadership should be defined. It is intended to open a dialog across departments and colleges so best practices can be shared and departments can learn what has worked well where and why.
In order to initiate a discussion without calling a meeting, I would like to collect your thoughts regarding desirable features by asking you to respond to the following open-ended questions by October 1, 2001. I will take your comments and synthesize them to create a statement, which I believe represents faculty’s opinions in the Business Management Department. I will then share that statement with departmental faculty for a final review before the summary is shared with the other COM Faculty Senators, Dean and Faculty Senate. I will not share individual faculty comments with anyone else. All communications on the topics will be confidential.
What qualities and credentials must our department leaders possess in order to understand and respond to the needs of their colleagues?
To what extent should departmental leaders conduct scholarly teaching, research and/or extension programs in their field of expertise?
To what extent should departmental leaders facilitate faculty mentoring of junior faculty?
What should be the length of contract (number of months) and term of initial appointment? Should the number of terms be limited?
What characteristics of departmental leader reviews are desirable? Who should review them and how?
Senator Kimler stated that he and Senator Banks will write a short introduction that will fit the history. He noted that the full report has that history.
Senator Misra stated that one particular instance that he would like the Provost to comment on if possible is, "I have heard there are faults with having the head, with a top down structure. Some say that none of the departments that have the chair system was effective; that the department must be a mature department. To people who suggested it that way, I asked, "What do you think our department is?" The answers varied. I would like the Provost to comment if possible."
Provost Cooper stated that he does not have an agenda about this kind of question at this point. He thinks it is a matter for consensus building and for discussion. He said that it seems like a process that is well started and we will see how it plays itself out. He does not have strong opinion about this right now.
Senator Funderlic stated that the Senators from Engineering wanted to know whether the Provost and Chancellor supported this dialog as has been suggested. They implied that they want something in writing. He does not have a problem with sending messages out saying that the Provost and the Chancellor think this is a good idea because he is quite sure that they do. Senator Funderlic said the senators think it would be good to have a formal statement or verbal statement from the Provost and the Chancellor.
Chair Carter stated that the Provost has made his position clear and the Chancellor will be at the next meeting . If there are further questions, she can be asked at that time.
Senator Hughes-Oliver suggested that the document says very clearly that people should come with their own opinions, not necessarily restricted by their past views on what the chair is or what the head is.
Senator Havner stated that, at the meeting of the Engineering senators which Senator Funderlic referred, he and Senator Grainger were emphasizing if there are options and if there may be options in the future to have clearly defined procedures for following one or the other of these options in selecting a new leader of a department. In the Faculty Handbook the procedures are quite clear and ultimately the dean makes the selection. There is very significant input from the departmental faculty and part of that is an elected input and part may be an appointed input. Senator Havner stated that he does not think there is any procedure that one can find in the Faculty Handbook that permits a department to say , "I think we need to choose a new leader." He said, if there is to be some option, then it has to be there in print. It has to be a clear procedure. "Rather than discussions in quality of leadership, it seems to Senator Grainger and me that that needs to be brought to the fore and that perhaps coming out of discussions in the various departments and colleges, might be some initial definition of what such procedures should be."
Provost Cooper observed that when he was in the faculty ranks, the dean always had the final say. The department could present its expression, and in almost every case, the dean agreed with that. He encouraged thinking along the lines of supporting a strong dean system.
Chair Carter recommended that the senators from each college discuss with their respective deans and administrators the procedure for generating nominations from their colleges.
Chair Carter stated that this issue was raised last spring in the contexts of faculty benefits such as discounts. He referred it to the Resources and Environment Committee for further discussion.
Chair Carter stated that the return on investments issue was raised last spring. The Executive Committee will discuss this issue to determine which committee it will be assigned to for further discussion.
Chair Carter suggested inviting the person from UNC Chapel Hill that is in charge of investments to meet with the committee, or comment to the Faculty Senate as a whole on what they are planning to do at UNC-CH.
Chair Carter stated that the issue on TRACS was a concern that too much leeway is being given to special groups at the university, whether they are athletes, the Honors Program or the Scholars Program. Registering for courses and course sections early and getting a jump on the general student body is a question as to whether this should or should not be. The senators who raised it wanted to know if this was being abused.
Chair Carter assigned this issue to the Academic Policy Committee.
Chair Carter stated that there is a continuing concern over the policy for copyright. This comes in part from the faculty who have gone on record as indicating that they would wish to make some amendments. "We needed to have our proposal in by a deadline and we have met that deadline. There were a number of points with which we were not satisfied and we reserved the right to address those at a future date."
Chair Carter stated that the Student Senate has identified a serious concern over the definition of plagiarism. Perhaps the Senate could look at that as well, since it is the faculty who clearly will make the judgement in their courses as to whether a student is properly given credit. The faculty should work with the Student Senate in trying to make a recommendation for appropriate wording of the policy.
Provost Cooper stated that Interim Provost Moreland took the initiative on the copyright evolution. In a series of actions in recent weeks, a final version was submitted to the Office of the President, a version he believes was signed off by the University Council. The Office of the President made some editorial comments and sent it back. It was reviewed last Monday by the University Council, which includes Deans and Executive Officers. The revised document was approved. Provost Cooper stated that there is now a current version of the copyright rules and regulations in place. He is sure that there are ways of evolving that document. He said, "We will accommodate what means there are to do that. Right now we have a copyright document."
Chair Carter asked the Resources and Environment Committee to identify the areas that are still of concern to the Senate and to perhaps invite Student Senate representation.
7. New Business
Report of the Knight Foundation
Chair Carter stated that the Executive Committee will discuss how best to address the request of the Knight Foundation Report. The Knight Foundation’s request is to have a resolution of support from the Faculty Senates of Division One schools.
8. Issues of Concern
Senator Elmaghraby stated an issue of concern from colleagues in Engineering on the University-wide Evaluation of Instruction survey.
Associate Vice Provost Judy Peel reported that last year they had five departments that piloted the university-wide evaluation instrument. All five of those departments have requested to continue using that instrument this year. Although they do not have the funds in the Provost’s office or in the University Planning and Analysis Office to support it, John Lapp, who was on the Evaluation of Teaching Committee, is organizing the format to continue the use of the instrument for those five departments. He has requested a small amount of funds to continue that. At this point, those five departments will continue the use of those common core of questions. "We are hoping to have further discussion in the Faculty Senate related to the instrument and the procedure and look at the academic regulations that need to be adjusted if we do decide to implement some common core with the optional questions. Right now those five departments will use it both this fall and spring semesters.
Since the policy says that student evaluations are part of our review system, that means that they are part of the faculty member’s personnel file and as a result they are not public information. Therefore they can not be released to the Technician or the News and Observer. I think we need to separate the two different types of review for teaching evaluation that we can do. We can do formative review which is developmental, but also do summative review which is used for reappointment, promotion, and post-tenure review. All of that information is personnel material and becomes part of the personnel file. Only faculty members, people in their departments who serve on personnel committees or other legal procedures that require use of those documents have access to that information. Those would be the circumstances in which those materials would be used. They would not be public information. The material that is gathered for summative reviews for personnel decisions is part of the personnel file and therefore is not public information."
Chair Carter assigned the issue to the Academic Policy Committee.
Chair Carter adjourned the meeting at 4:45 p.m.