April 2, 2002
Present: Chair Carter, Secretary Banks, Chair Emeritus Corbin, Provost Cooper, Parliamentarian Gilbert; Senators Allen, Ash, Bernhard, Blanchard, Braunbeck, Cassidy, Daley, El-Masry, Funderlic, Grainger, Havner, Headen, Hughes-Oliver, Istook, Kimler, Kirby, Levine, Lytle, Marshall, McRae, Misra, Sawyers, Smoak, Tucker, Tyler, Weiner, Wilkerson
Absent: Senators Brothers, Grimes, Vickery, Garval
Excused: Senators Hodge, Hooper, Rolle
Visitors: Carolyn Argentati, Associate Director, Public Services, NCSU Libraries; Carolyn Sommerich, Associate Professor, Industrial Engineering; Susan Barnard, Head, Access & Delivery Services, NCSU Libraries; David Zonderman, Associate Professor, History; Judy Peel, Associate Vice Provost for Faculty Development; L. George Wilson, Vice Provost for International Programs; Susan Nutter, Vice Provost & Director of Libraries, Karl Bowman, Chair, University Library Committee
1. Call to Order
The twelfth 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.
3. Approval of the Minutes, Meeting No. 11, March 19, 2002
The minutes were approved without dissent.
4. Remarks from the Provost
Provost Cooper announced that the next Board of Trustees meeting will be held on April 18-19 and the tenure policies and regulations that Senior Vice Provost Abrams and Associate Vice Provost Judy Peel have been working on will be presented. The changes that have occurred in that document in the last month have been cosmetic wording and organization.
"We were asked, with a very short turnaround, to develop the potential for budget reduction from 1 to 10% in 1% increments. The word later came from the Office of the President that only 1 to 4% will be required at this point and to pay particular attention to "protecting the classroom". We define that as not cutting any of the "1310" faculty positions. One percent of our state funding is approximately $2.7M. We have had to cut both the academic and facilities sides. We went through these exercises last year, producing both a 4% and 7% scenario and now we have this exercise. There may be further exercises. There are a lot of uncertainties. I think that people are looking very hard to preserve academic excellence and to protect our students. We will continue to do so."
5. Patent Policy and Procedures (Policy Attached)
Vice Chancellor Moreland stated that the University of North Carolina system has for many years had a patent and copyright policy. "Approximately a year ago they developed a copyright policy and essentially separated the issue of intellectual property dealing with copyright from the issue of intellectual property dealing with patents. When that happened it required us to go back and look at what our campus had implemented as the procedures that we would use to follow the dictates of the policy of the Board of Governors. Within the Board of Governors’ policy, it is mandated that whatever changes we make in our own campus procedures must be approved by the trustees."
Vice Chancellor Moreland reviewed the changes that had been made in the document. He stated that since this document will be taken to the Board of Trustees, the one thing that they are trying to guard against is that every time one has to change a few words in some of these documents that they do not have to go back to the Board of Trustees. He stated that there is a possibility that whatever they do with regard to royalty distribution it will change again.
"We are recommending that section seven come under a university regulation so that we may change that without having to go back to the trustees. We have permission by the policy if the trustees approve it to make changes in the regulation.
Essentially what is true is that currently the procedures call for a distribution in royalties in which inventors are getting 25%, the laboratory 10% with a cap to the laboratory of $50,000. The Intellectual Property Committee in consultation with NC State and other universities of the United States have decided that the best recommendation at this point is to go to a 40% distribution to the inventors and to leave 60% for the running of the Technology Transfer Program. The recommendation is offered because NC State is trying to bring our distribution in line with other universities which happen to have higher royalty percentages. Also they would be in line with the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill’s distribution to inventors. We do have a number of cases where we have joint faculty. The regulation that is now Section seven has that information in it and that is the one point on which I think we are going to have to do some work with our trustees to make sure that we can get that through."
Vice Chancellor Moreland plans to return to the next Faculty Senate meeting for discussion and a vote on the policy.
Senator Allen wanted to know if there is a cap on royalties.
Vice Chancellor Moreland responded no. There is no return of royalties to the laboratory. It is all to the inventor(s).
Senator Allen asked about the speed of the distribution
Vice Chancellor Moreland stated that one thing the Intellectual Property Committee mentioned is the concern that there is not a fast enough turnaround to get the inventors their money.
Vice Chancellor Moreland stated that the royalty distribution to the inventor is 40% of gross. The part that goes to the university is paying all the charges.
Senator Tucker stated that he does not understand, "you say 40% and what I read here is 15% and it is currently 25%. I would think that there is a high probability that in future years that it is going to be 15%."
Vice Chancellor Moreland explained, that the current statement is in the current University of North Carolina policy. It says that gross revenues must be 15% or greater. This proposed regulation is going to be the current Section 7 of the NC State Policy 14.01. The reason we would like to go this route is because if there is going to be substantial changes in this policy in the future they will probably take place within this section. The most important part of this statement has a definition of what is meant by gross revenue and it tells what it includes and what it does not include.
Senator McRae stated that under this administrative regulation the percentages are determined by the Chancellor rather than as stated in the original policy.
Vice Chancellor Moreland stated that the regulations would have to go back through the process of administrative approval via the University Council. "Our process has always been to go to Executive Officers, the Deans Council, Faculty Senate, and the University Council."
Senator Daley stated that any difference with the regulations versus the policy is that changes in the regulations do not go to the trustees, but would come back to the Faculty Senate.
6. Remarks from Karl Bowman, Chair of the University Library Committee
Dr. Bowman discussed a response from the university library regarding changes in the way that fines have to be dealt with, security in the library, and new rules.
What the committee has tried to do in concert with the university library staff and others, is to put together what they think are the best choice solutions for the problems. He would like to receive feedback so that the committee can fine tune the proposals and put them into effect for Fall 2002.
"The court has ruled that library fines have to go to counties. In a recent court decision Wake County Superior Judges ruled that university library fines for overdue materials must be turned over to the counties in which they were collected to support the public schools. In the North Carolina School Board Association versus Boyles, several counties in the surrounding area sued twenty state agencies including the Department of Transportation, the Department of Revenue, and the University. The plaintiffs claim and court has agreed that our library fines are governed under Article 9, Section 7 of the constitution which provides that the proceeds from all penalties and forfeitures of all fines collected in several counties belong to and remain in the counties and shall be faithfully appropriated and used exclusively for maintaining the free public schools. This ruling went into effect December 2001 and may be retroactive until 1996. NCSU libraries budget to collect approximately $140,000 per year in fines. We need to fix this. In order to replace some of this revenue and to avoid cut backs in personnel and service without imposing additional burdens on users, we need to take a different strategy on the whole library fine issue. The good news in the proposal is that we are even recommending elimination of overdue fines on the library. The concern of the library really is having library books available to users, and that is why the fines are there. We are seeking to broaden enforcement and follow-up on existing overdue library material and also have existing charges that will be appropriate for cost or replacement in processing these library materials when they are not returned by the borrowers. The first proposal that we have is a whole approach to materials management.
The idea is to maintain a good broad group of borrowing privileges for our users. When the book is overdue, there would be an appropriate grace period where it could be returned. At the point and time when they hit a wall, then the user would be charged for the replacement of the book and an administrative fee of $25. This is very similar to what Duke University is doing with their system and it seems to be working very well.
You also have to establish an Appeals Committee, because there could be instances whereby there are legitimate reasons why a book did not come back on time. There needs to be a way to reverse some of these potentially high prices that might be incurred under selected situations. That appeals committee would consist of faculty and student advisory subcommittees of the University Library Committee.
There are certain services that the library provides: recall of books out that are needed by another individual, as well as reserve materials or laptop computers. These fines would have to remain as such. They need to be retained because the incentive there is to get the item back quickly so that it can be brought back into circulation.
Senator Lytle wanted to know what happens in a case where the borrower says that he/she returned the book and the library says that the book was not returned.
Dr. Bowman stated that he does not have an answer for that question but thinks it is an important issue. He stated that he views that as procedure whereas the committee is presently focusing on policy.
Dr. Bowman stated that there are concerns about library access and security. They have a proposed rule change for Fall 2002. Students and other individuals that use the library are concerned about the individuals that are allowed access to the building after hours. "This is a state run university and the reality is that there are periods of time that the library is open where we have to allow the public to have access. We do have unique resources that you can legitimately restrict to users that would more appropriately be in the library at certain periods of time. There is a proposed rule change for Fall 2002 to increase the number of hours during which time the DH Hill Library building is restricted to the NCSU affiliates and to add enforcement procedures for this restriction. Presently between the hours of 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. there would be restricted access in the library where people would have to show NCSU identification."
Senator McRae wanted to know if the enforcement would deal with people who entered the library prior to 10 p.m. and are still in there past 10.
Dr. Bowman responded, that would be handled through enforcement individuals in the building who would be checking identification after that time.
Senator Tucker wanted to know if a survey of the library’s contents have been conducted for rare books (color prints), etc.
Carolyn Argentati, Associate Director of Public Services, stated that many of them have.
Dr. Bowman stated that the final document deals with overall rules for use in the NCSU Libraries. It deals with issues such as animals in the library, children and minors, clothing that needs to be worn in the library, computer use, definitions for destruction or damage of materials including vandalism of software or hardware in the computer areas, disruptions, filming and photography and the food, drink and tobacco products regulation, etc. The committee would like to institute this set of rules. They would like the Faculty Senate to review and help modify this policy.
Senator Kimler wanted to know what would happen if a sixteen year old who does not have to have parental consent came in to do an Internet search for materials that their parents might find problematic. "Is there a need to change the age to eighteen?"
Dr. Bowman stated that there is certainly the computer use policy for the library that would govern a lot of that.
Carolyn Argentati noted that there is a separate freedom of access policy on their website.
7. Remarks from George Dixon, Vice Provost, Enrollment Management Services
"The message that I bring you from undergraduate admissions is a very positive one if one judges how popular and how successful an institution is at attracting the best and brightest students, especially those from its own state. North Carolina State continues to be the most popular university in the entire state of North Carolina as judged by statistics on the number of North Carolinians that seek admission to our institution relative to other institutions within the state.
We will have more than 12,000 candidates seek admission each year for 3600 available spaces. Last year we had as a target 3600 freshmen, and because of the softened economy we found that we had a higher-than-projected yield of students to whom we offered admission. The result was a class of almost 3800 freshmen, contrasted with the 3600 that we were projecting admission for. It is the first time we have missed a projection by more than 1% in almost ten years or longer. The same experience was noticed at other institutions. So we adjusted this year. The Office of Admissions was planning to take into account the shifting yield. September 11 certainly is going to be a factor in students’ decisions on where to enroll. We have made fewer offers than last year--projecting a higher yield. We also established a pretty substantial waiting list to deal with any surprises because of the effects of September 11 or the continuing effects of a softening economy. We are expecting a class of 3600 freshmen this year. The class profile is impressive. Averages are a misleading statistic but nonetheless, I think, impressive for you to be mindful of. The freshmen class grade point average is a 4.02, meaning we are admitting kids who are taking significant numbers of advanced placement and honors courses and earning mostly A’s and B’s. That is driven by North Carolina’s public school heavily weighted system. Even looking at our out-of-state candidates without the benefit of that heavy weighting, the average GPA is 3.85 to 3.90. For the first time in the history of this institution, average SAT scores are well over 1200 for admitted students on this year’s freshmen class. We are admitting a highly qualified freshmen class. Admissions has not lost sight of the need to be diverse and the need to be very representative. We have students from all 100 counties in our state. Academic diversity is important to NC State as I hope you all, as teaching faculty, recognize. We are aggressively recruiting agricultural students as well as the very best possible students for the College of Engineering, the Business School, Humanities and Social Sciences, and not surprisingly the great popularity of First Year College for those students who are very bright and very capable but are not ready to make a commitment in one direction or the other.
We are also very diverse in terms of gender. We are seeing more and more women both in the freshmen class in general, and in the traditional male fields of science, engineering and technology. This year we expect to be approximately 22% ethnic minority in the freshmen class. The largest percentage will be African-American students at twelve percent and the other ten percent represented by Hispanic, Asian, Native American, etc. The message I want to send is a very positive one. We are in demand by a broad base of students, very bright kids.
The most difficult part of the work that we have in the Admissions Office now is dealing with those families that had, from their historical perspective, some realistic expectation that their children would be able to study at this great university. Many of them are not able to do so because of the competition and the demand. Fortunately the State of North Carolina, with its sixteen publics, offers the opportunities for them to study at a wonderful public university. The great majority want to study either at NC State or Chapel Hill which drives the competition and the profile and makes us become increasingly selective as that demand continues to go up. We do know from all of the demographics that the number of high school students is increasing both in our state and in our region. You may be surprised to learn that in the year 2010 there will be 10,000 more high school graduates than there are this year in the state of North Carolina. Therefore the demands for admissions against limited spaces, the more competitive the process is going to become. We try to balance that fine line of being a public land grant university offering access and opportunity to a wide range of students against the reality of having more qualified students seeking space than we can possibly admit."
Senator Hughes-Oliver wanted to know how does NC State’s average GPA’s and SAT scores compare to Chapel Hill’s.
Vice Provost Dixon responded that GPA and class rank would probably be on a par with Chapel Hill’s. If you segment Chapel Hill’s out-of-state population from their in-state population, our in-state students look almost exactly like theirs. Their out-of-state population does not resemble the in-state population at all. It looks more like an Ivy League school. They have such incredible demand from out-of-state. For example, Carolina will have approximately 16,000 applications per year. Approximately 8,000 will be from in-state students and 8,000 will be from out-of-state students. NC State will have approximately 12,500 applications. Approximately 9,000 in-state and 3500 to 4000 from out-of-state. Carolina’s 8000 out-of-state applications are applying for about 350 to 400 spaces. The other 8000 in-state kids are applying for the other 3200 spaces. So it is two separate populations. NC State’s is more similar and the out-of-state population very closely resembles the in-state population.
Senator Hughes-Oliver wanted to know the female versus male ratio.
Vice Provost Dixon stated that at this point and time it is approximately 55% to 45% male to female. This year’s class is shaping up to be about 53-54% male to 46- 47% female.
Senator Tyler wanted to know how many transfers NC State accepts per year.
Vice Provost Dixon stated, "We will bring in approximately 1150 transfer students and we will have 3600 candidates. Transfer applications are running almost 17% ahead this year over last as we are starting to see the fruits of the collaboration between the University of North Carolina system and the 58 Community Colleges system under what is known as the comprehensive articulation agreement. This agreement’s intent is to ensure that the first two years here are reflective of the first two years in any of the sixteen member campus system, so that students know exactly what they are going to be able to transfer and what is going to apply toward a degree.
Senator Blanchard asked, "Do we have a commitment to these students that they will be admitted if they do well at the community colleges for two years?"
Vice Provost Dixon said that there is not a specific campus by campus commitment. What is absolute is that any student who goes to a community college and earns an Associate Degree will find a place at one of the public universities. The difficulty is some universities are simply more popular than others because of reputation or location. The real challenge that the university system faces is making the campuses that are less attractive from a student’s interest point of view more attractive to accommodate that growth.
Senator Kimler wanted to know if Vice Provost Dixon has given any thought to taking in fewer students this year since there is still the extra load from last year that is trying to get into courses which are full.
Vice Provost Dixon stated that they are actually shooting for a range of 3550 to 3650 new freshmen, hoping to come in at the low end of that range to accommodate for last year’s budge.
Senator Lytle stated that in the past there has been a financial penalty if the projections were missed and too many students were admitted. He wanted to know if that is still the case and how much leeway he is given.
Vice Provost Dixon stated, "There is a plus or minus 2% leeway for the university’s total enrollment. The penalty comes if you overshoot by more than that target plus or minus 2% you are not necessarily funded for those students. The result is not enough faculty to teach and keep the class ratios low, which is why we monitor those numbers so very closely. There is also a concern at the graduate level. It is a complex issue we are trying to manage and balance the whole process."
8. Remarks from L. George Wilson, Director of International Programs
"It is a pleasure to be here again. It is really a pleasure to be starting next month in this capacity as Vice Provost for International Programs. I am committed to making the International Program at North Carolina State University your International Program, not mine. I do have a passion for facilitating international experiences for faculty and students and I think that is very important these days. There are many ways to play this out. Together I think we can probably achieve this goal of providing an international experience for anyone who wants to have one. It changes the lives, especially of our students. Every time I have talked with a student who has returned from one of our "Study Abroad" experiences and internships, they say "it changed my life." It means that you will have a better appreciation for the cultural differences, a better understanding of who we are here in the United States, who we are here at North Carolina State University and how to better relate to people.
I have already had several inquiries about facilitating some international collaborations. I have been operating for the past five years in the College of Agricultural and Life Sciences in this same mode as Coordinator of International Programs. Thankfully, I have already been involved during this period with several people in other colleges.
The last couple of years we have virtually been without permanent leadership in International Programs. Yet, during this period, our Study Abroad Office and our Office of International Scholars and Student Services have done a superb job. I feel like those people have already made me look good. I think they have been strong in their purpose and commitment and that now I am going to be serving as their cheerleader. Another group which has been the glue during this transition period has been the Committee on International Programs. They are the ones that I will be listening to, along with every one of you here."
9. Upcoming Media Training/Experts List
Daniel Bunce, Editor of News Services stated that every two years News Services sends out the Experts List that they circulate to both regional and national media to use as a resource for experts in given fields of expertises. News Services are looking for either new experts to add to the list (new faculty on campus, and current faculty) to update their information to be included in the next list that will be published this fall.
On Friday, June 7 from 8:00 - 1:00p.m. News Services will be having a training seminar for faculty and other administrators on campus. They will be bringing in outside experts to get new tips and pointers to deal with both print and electronic media. Bunce would like the senators to share the information with others in their colleges.
10. Unfinished Business
Governance Committee (Report Attached)
Senator Ida Smoak, Chair of the Governance Committee reported that the committee has been busy collecting responses to surveys on departmental leadership. They have summarized the responses that have come back to the committee.
There was a ten question survey developed jointly by the Academic Policy and Personnel Policy committees last spring. Six questions were condensed from the original ten question survey. The survey responses are based on this six question survey.
The participating colleges were CALS, Education, Engineering, CHASS, Management, Natural Resources, PAMS, Veterinary Medicine and approximately thirty departments.
Questions and Responses
What qualities and credentials must our department leaders possess in order to understand and respond to the needs of their colleagues?
To this question people obviously thought about these aspects of departmental leaders. The responses were very diverse between and within colleges. It was really difficult to identify specific patterns of how the responses went within or between the colleges.
To what extent should departmental leaders conduct scholarly teaching, research and/or extension programs in their field of expertise?
In this question we basically got the whole range. Responses ranged from greatest extent possible all the way to none. The greatest response was approximately 50% in terms of the time put toward scholarly activity. This may not be totally accurate because the responses depended on who responded and how they felt. The range was from "greatest extent possible" down to about "twenty-five percent."
Senator Funderlic wanted to know if there were any comments from departments regarding whether you teach or not.
Senator Smoak stated that there were comments on teaching. Usually some people said the departmental leader should teach one course or they should be relieved of at least one course if they were already teaching two.
The majority of opinions were that the head should maintain some active scholarly activity to be an effective administrator. In order to do this, better administrative support is needed.
To what extent should departmental leaders facilitate faculty mentoring of junior faculty?
The majority of responses were "head should organize mentoring by senior faculty" and that "mentoring should develop from relationships within departments."
It was again difficult to establish any type of pattern between or within colleges on this issue. The responses were all over the place.
What should be the length of contract (number of months) and term of initial appointment? Should the number of terms be limited?
The most common response was that the length of contract needs to be basically a full year appointment. The length of initial appointment varied from one year to permanently. The most common response was somewhere around a three to five year initial appointment. The response of whether the number of terms should be limited.
The responses were very diverse. There was no identifiable pattern within or between the colleges.
What characteristics of departmental leader reviews are desirable? Who should review them and how?
The review frequency varied from "every one year" to "every seven and one half years." The most common responses on who should review indicated "everyone within the department" or a "committee of senior faculty and administrators." Most people think the review should be done with a standard evaluation or survey instrument of some type. Other ideas were interviews, town meeting discussion within the department, secret faculty survey, self assessment by the head and then a summary of the review that is presented by the dean to the faculty of the department.
Should the departmental leader be considered primarily a college administrator or a faculty representative?
The majority of opinions were between faculty representatives and both.
Senator Smoak stated that it is stated in the Faculty Handbook the proposed role of department heads.
The goal of this survey is to open a dialog across campus regarding departmental leadership, and to enhance awareness of opinions within and between colleges regarding departmental leadership
Recommendations from the Governance Committee
Departments should be allowed to choose the form of departmental leadership that is most appropriate.
Faculty should have greater input into the form of leadership that is most appropriate to their departments.
Senator Kimler pointed out that one thing that does not come up very frequently is quality of the departmental leader as being a visionary and someone who leads and directs the department.
Senator Grainger stated that it seems to him that the heads versus chairs is a very fundamental big question. He is dismayed that there is so little channeling of opinion. It seems like the shotgun effect all over. His question might be "Is it the way we did the job?" Would that be a reason why we are not getting a very clear signal? The other thing is that the response from within the various departments, was a very low percentage, indicating that apparently it was not a big deal to a lot of people.
Senator Wilkerson stated that she disagrees with the low opinion. They had 126 people from CALS to respond. The majority of her faculty was satisfied with current leadership.
Senator Headen commented that the College of Management decided that it did not matter whether the position was called head or chair. What mattered was the interaction and how it is working. It is working for the department because faculty do not spend a lot of time talking about it. In some sense the absence of a large amount of uproar may be a positive rather than a negative statement.
Senator Grainger stated that what he has heard in some discussions in the College of Engineering is that it is important that the faculty know that there are options for leadership even if they are not exercised. Secondly whether it is heads or chairs is again not really germane to the proper running of a department so much as if there are very clear exit ramps for the faculty to take if a leadership is in trouble with its faculty. It seems to him that a very important thing is to create a mechanism for the faculty to exercise so that the review is not aimed at the personality but rather at leadership issues.
Senator McRae commented that he thinks the disparity of the number of responses had to do with whether you could make anonymous responses or not In the case of the CALS response, there was an anonymous website that one could use, whereas they did not have this in the College of Engineering.
Senator Hughes-Oliver wanted to know what were the response rates for the various colleges.
Senator Grainger stated that in his department they got 6 responses out of 50 who were eligible to respond.
Senator Kimler stated that he received a high response in his college.
Senator Blanchard commented that it is very explicit in the Faculty Handbook that the deans appoint the department heads. She noted that this change cannot take place by just developing bylaws. A change will have to take place in the handbook.
Senator Dennis Daley reported that the committee has approved the RPT policy revisions. He stated that coming up in the future will be the faculty appointment review revisions regarding professional development plans, statements of mutual expectations, and the annual activity reports.
The committee is about to receive a document that compares NC State benefits to our peer institutions in terms of benefits policy. The document will be forwarded to the Faculty Senate as well.
Chair Carter stated that the new compacts will be requested in the fall. What is being requested now that the deans are responding to is a request based on current budget constraints.
Provost Cooper stated that during the month of April there will be a series of meetings where the deans are going to be reviewing past history of compact planning in general. He and the Chancellor will be attending that meeting. "In the fall it is intended for us to go to another round of interactive processes to develop compacts for the future."
Chair Carter adjourned the meeting at 5:00 p.m.