OCTOBER 7, 2003
Present: Chair Daley, Secretary Weiner, Past Chair Carter, Parliamentarian Corbin, Provost Oblinger; Senators Allen, Batra, Beasley, Bernhard, Bitting, Branson, Brownie, Bruck, DeLuca, Estes, Fahmy, Fikry, Griffin, Hammerberg, Headen, Honeycutt, Hooper, Jasper, Khosla, Krotee, McRae, Middleton, Misra, Peacock, Rice, Smith, Tetro, Tyler, Warren
Excused: Senators Atkin, Kasal, Lucovsky
Absent: Brothers, Matthews, Stoddard
Visitors: Mary Kurz, Vice Chancellor and General Counsel; Herb Sendek, Head Men’s Basketball Coach; Robert Sowell, Dean, Graduate School; Wanda Karangelen, Assistant Director, Human Resources; Tara Britt, Human Resources; Jose Picart, Vice Provost for Diversity and Academic Affairs; Katie Perry, Sr. Vice Provost for Academic Affairs; Judy Peel, Associate Vice Provost; Jim Stern, Staff Writer, Technician; Mark Matthews, Student Senate President ProTempore; Ben Austin, Photographer, Technician; Benny Benton, Editor, Bulletin
1. Call to Order
Chair Dennis Daley called the fourth meeting of the fiftieth session of the North Carolina State University Faculty Senate to order at 3:00 p.m.
2. Welcome and Announcements
Chair Daley welcomed Senators and Guests.
Chair Daley announced that he would be sending the Senators an email asking them to email him on the committee for which they are liaisons to or have been liaisons to regarding whether or not those committees do what they are charged to do.
Chair Daley stated that they would like to try to rationalize all of the committees’ processes to see which committees are really needed and if there is any possibility of combining a few.
Past Chair Carter announced that in today’s N&O there is an article about a new report from the North Carolina Progress Board, which is housed, on Centennial Campus. Past Chair Carter provided a copy of that report to the Senators for their review.
3. Approval of the Minutes, Meeting No. 3 September 23, 2003
The minutes were approved unanimously.
4. Remarks from the Provost
Provost Oblinger introduced Dr. Katie Perry as the Senior Vice Provost, and Dr. Jose Picart as the new Vice Provost for Diversity and African American Affairs.
I would like to lead off with an update of where we are on two searches that are under way. We are in the process of using faculty senators in both the College of Management and the College of Veterinary Medicine to derive by a secret ballot, faculty representatives to the nomination committees for both of those important dean searches. As soon as that process is rounded out with those elections, I will determine whether or not I need to add any additional faculty to those nominating committees for purposes of diversity and rounding out via rank, etc., and then we will move forward. As I said these are two very important searches to us. Both have very strong support outside of the university, and therefore, that support is being taken into account as it relates to the composition of the nominating committees. Both the College of Management as well as the College of Veterinary Medicine owe their success to having strong support during the time before they were stand alone colleges, to the present time, as they have evolved quickly in both cases over time. I also want to thank several of you because we have constituted the Honorary Degree Committee on behalf of NC State University. There are six senators and some former senators involved with that. I want to particularly thank Chair Daley for his recommendations, and I would acknowledge that Nina Allen from Agriculture and Life Sciences, Richard Bernhard from Engineering, Paul Bitting from Education, Bo Kasal from Natural Resources and your Chair, Dennis Daley will be senatorial representatives to this Honorary Degree Committee. Also on this committee are two Council of University Professors, Don Bitser from Engineering and Gerald Lucovsky from Physical and Mathematical Sciences. I was asked to appoint three individuals; Harriette Griffin, College of Management; Michelle Jones, College of Textiles, and Cymbre Raub, College of Design. There are two additional members to this team, one dean, Larry Nielsen from the College of Natural Resources and myself as a non-voting Chair.
The Tuition Task Force has met twice. I would recap our first meeting as an updating of where we left off last year in terms of discussions relative to a campus initiated tuition increase. Roughly three fourths of the current task force are individuals who in fact, served on the previous task force. We are in the process of flushing out criteria that need to be evaluated. Last week, for example, was an updating of data from last year relative to how many students we have on financial aid. What is the degree of that financial need? What is their indebtedness upon graduation? All parameters that the Office of the President has indicated, need to be considered as one has a discussion on the feasibility or desirability of a campus initiated tuition increase. The next session we have will be an update on our status that relates to faculty salaries and where we are compared to our peers and nationally. It will also discuss some student support programs that have been funded by campus initiated tuition increases in the past so that we will have a good portfolio of the two things that the previous committee in fact, agreed upon were prerequisite to any discussion of a campus initiated tuition increase. 1) Academic excellence parameters. Faculty salaries are factored into that dimension and; 2) What is the financial need basis of our student population? That would be both undergraduate students and graduate students. We are taking a very comprehensive look at that. The Office of the President has not given us final guidelines or time lines. So I think we are right where we need to be in active discussion of the campus initiated tuition increase consideration.
Tonight is the Student Fee Forum in the Talley Student Center from 7-9 p.m. If you have an interest in that please attend. These need to be participatory sessions. There will be one fee that will be proposed to be increased for which there will be provided testimony tonight, and that is the educational technology fee. We are requesting an increase in that academic fee. You know how that is used as it relates to instruction on this campus.
I hope you saw last Friday’s Bulletin lead story which is the success that we are having as it relates to the capital campaign and in particular, the five million dollar gift of Dottie Park to make possible the Dorothy and Roy Park Alumni Center on Centennial Campus. This was an excellent article as it relates to that particular gift. I will tell you that there were three other gifts that I want to mention to you and did not receive as much coverage as I thought they might. One was the largest gift from an individual ever given to NC State University in the form of, I believe, a charitable remainder trust earmarked for the College of Veterinary Medicine. The amount of that gift was ten million dollars. Another gift was a grant that was awarded to the College of Engineering and the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences in the amount of thirty-three and one half million dollars as it relates to the bio-manufacturing training and education center, which will be built over the next two to three years on our Centennial Campus. Although two colleges are named in this particular grant, as this particular facility and its programs develop over time there will be considerable involvement opportunities across this campus. I would hope that you would not view it as just an opportunity for the Colleges of Engineering and Agriculture and Life Sciences. It will be very participatory. It will be very important as it relates to the future economy of the State of North Carolina. The fourth gift was the Hamlin Family Gift. It was a gift that went to Humanities and Social Sciences if you want to talk about targeting, but I thought it was the nature of the gift that would be highly informative and of interest to each of you. It is, in fact, a targeted endowment that will be used in the College of Humanities and Social Sciences geared toward the retention of Assistant and Associate Professors. Here is a donor that was very sensitive to the budget plight of North Carolina and NC State in particular. They wanted to have their investment in NC State provide for the future of NC State through its faculty and ultimately its students as well. I thought that was a very thoughtful gift geared toward retention at the junior ranks at a time that I think we are all cognizant of some of the stresses and strains on us.
Compact planning has resumed. I have been through all of the Vice Provosts and I was heartened today to start with the deans, with John Gilligan from Research and Graduate Studies present, with Steve Jones from Extension and Engagement present, with University Planning and Analysis present and Dr. Katie Perry present as it relates to the academic affairs dimension of compact planning. It was invigorating to know at even a time as challenging as this fiscal year is that our deans had thought about programs that were already in existence and needed to be enhanced and thought of new relationships that were possible on campus to capitalize on the expertise of others and other units. I was very heartened by this and I would hope that you would be too as it relates to tough times ahead, but at the same time represents some opportunities in the eyes of the deans. I would like to think that it is representative of the Department Heads who report to that dean, and of the faculty who are proud to serve in the colleges represented by the deans.
The Chancellor and I are continuing the listening breakfast sessions that we started in the spring. Those are very informative to both the Chancellor and me, whether it relates to concerns about progress toward degree and the requirement that it places upon faculty or whether it is efficiencies in grant and contract processing which would be really important not just in research but also in teaching and in extension and engagement. There is general concern among all the faculty we have met with relative to budget and I would tell you that we had a very interesting conversation this last time as it relates to replacement of technology, not in our teaching labs or our computing labs for students, but replacement of technology in a driven and deliberate way as it relates to faculty and their access to technology. That is going to be something that we will be paying strong attention to.
Learning in a technology rich environment–we are in the throws of making some decisions about LITRE projects that will hopefully be funded over the course of time. One of the leading candidates that I see right now is to leverage investments that some of the colleges have made, that the Provost Office has made as well in having technology rich environments, be they classrooms, laboratories, or lecture facilities. Ones that are not technology rich just because the equipment is new, but remain technology rich because they are serviced appropriately and they are available at the times that you as faculty want them to be available.
Senator Middleton stated that he heard some disturbing news about the progress of some colleges on campus in the area of diversity. “I would like for you to articulate for me if you can, what the university means by diversity and what kinds of steps are being taken to actively become a more diverse community.”
Provost Oblinger stated that he is committed to diversity in lots of different forms. That will express itself in lots of different ways. “I think if you look at the composition of the faculty, I would say just about anyway you want to assess whether or not we are more diverse than we were years ago, the answer is yes. We have made significant progress in certain locations. I think it will take a concerted effort, well beyond one or two or three or four individuals. It has to be represented in all that we do and that means everyone that is working on this campus. I do not think we turn to an individual per se and say what are you going to do about that. If there is someone you could turn to and say that to, it would be me. I have already had conversations with the deans. There are some deans who have excelled at their process for recruiting particularly faculty of color and they have had great success with that. Others have not.”
Dr. Picart stated that he has had an opportunity to talk to people and he appreciates the concerns about the number of minority faculty on campus, and what direction are we headed in terms of increasing those numbers. “I can assure you that in the coming weeks and months that Provost Oblinger and I will be talking specifically about what actions we can take. I am open to ideas and suggestions. I am completely open to the kinds of things that we can do to improve the number of faculty that we have here. We have got to work cooperatively with the colleges to make a difference in that area. That is what I am going to propose to do. It is going to take some walking around and talking with some people and then of course committing resources to it. I hear what you are saying and we are going to get to work on it.”
Senator Middleton commented that he is not only speaking about the presence of faculty of color, but also students. “I just could not believe it when I heard someone report that one of our professional colleges simply has an atrocious record of admitting qualified black students to this university. I just could not believe that a faculty committee would cancel out students just because they do not fit in certain categories.”
Provost Oblinger stated that he is only aware of one professional college on the campus. “I hope you are aware that we are coming back either in the late fall or early spring with a very well designed survey from University Planning and Analysis, in concert with Dr. Picart’s office and other offices, on a campus climate study. There will be a follow-up on focus groups that permeates faculty, staff, and students particularly focused on students about the environment. That is going to be very thoroughly questioned. We would not be doing the survey if we were not prepared to take actionable items from that survey and do something about it. I want to also say as it relates to students in particular, I met with Thomas Conway on numerous occasions and we have looked at how we go about recruiting. We are looking at the details of what we do and why we do it and how we can be more effective. A lot of this targets not just the faculty, in fact, Thomas will be specifically targeting our student population, both undergraduate and graduate students.”
Senator Headen stated that he thinks this is a good topic. He noted that two Faculty Senate Committees are looking at diversity. He wanted to know, given what was stated earlier, is this an important issue to raise in the search for the new deans?
Provost Oblinger responded, absolutely. “We want to leave in those searches no stone unturned. I would say that when Dan Solomon reported to the deans group approximately one and one half years ago on his successes in diverse recruitments and using the right vehicles to get the announcements to the right places. Just making an appropriate available announcement opened some doors for some of the rest. I was dean at that time and took note of some of the things that we were not doing and incorporated those and had much better success. There is no reason that everyone has to reinvent the wheel. We can learn from others and that has been particularly true in the deans group.”
Senator Tetro stated that she heard that Chapel Hill is initiating a request to the Board of Governors to raise the out-of-state percentage from 18 to 22% and wonders where NC State stand on that since it does not meet eighteen.
Provost Oblinger responded, no but you may be surprised who does meet the eighteen percent other than Carolina. Talking about elevating the cap for out-of-state students, Carolina first surfaced it, but I can tell you that Elizabeth City State, Western Carolina, campuses that are in close proximity to state borders. If you factor in that Elizabeth City State is 45 miles from Norfolk, that to many students in Virginia, Elizabeth City State and Fayetteville State might be very attractive for an out of state experience and it is one hour away. There are several schools that are pushing the eighteen percent limit and the board seems to be headed toward allowing it in certain cases. “I think they have not decided on what the cases are going to be. The original story that I saw that focused predominantly on Carolina dealt with, it would not count against the eighteen percent if they are National Merit Scholars, National Achievement Scholars, or National Hispanic Scholars. Stellar students would not count against the eighteen percent cap. That is still I think, being discussed. For us, it has been a long time since we have approached eighteen percent. We waiver between twelve and thirteen percent. I think a lot of it has to do with our disciplines. I think a lot of it has to do with our history of trying to serve the needs of North Carolina.”
Senator Griffin stated that the issue of diversity at this level should obtain the possibility of further reconciliation of what the concept of African American means because if you look at Dr. Picart, one would not automatically associate him with Puerto Rico. “ There is a significant percentage of this kind of representation throughout America. In this new dispensation it seems to me the issue of diversity has got to be looked upon at an entirely different level. When we think about where we go to look for new recruits let us consider the fact that we have a dramatic change in the composition of the population in North Carolina. Even when we look at the recruiting of deans and students, the history of diversity, gender not withstanding, should be considered at a much more sophisticated level rather than the typical sort of African-American.”
Senator Brownie stated that he has been in the College of Veterinary Medicine approximately twenty-two years and his personal feelings as far as diversity is concerned in the Veterinary College are very poor. “I have come to the conclusion that if I am going to judge this university from what I see in the Vet School it is just lip service and I unfortunately or fortunately see the university policy of diversity as lip service up until today. I hope that what I am hearing will take it to a different level than I have seen in the past.”
5. Remarks from Herb Sendek, Men’s Head Basketball Coach
Coach Sendek shared a story about his childhood to make an important point. He made it clear that education was important to him and served as the vehicle for his family to move beyond the laborers life afforded to his grandfather. He graduated with a 4.0 in high school and graduated with a 3.95 in college.
“Education is important to me. So often today there is this great abyss that exists between academics and athletics. The perception on the academic side of the fence is that we are these arrogant corner cutting jocks who have no real care when it comes to academics, that young men and women are used for their athletic prowess, that we cannot be trusted, that we are always up to something. Perhaps you have heard some comments along those lines. I come today to reassure you as representatives of the faculty that in our men’s basketball program here at NC State the value of education is stressed on a daily basis. We have a very structured program, one that is committed to excellence. Everybody doesn’t come in with the same advantages as the person to their right or the person to their left. Please know that values, that I am sure that this esteemed room holds dear, are shared with our men on a daily basis. We have had tremendous success since I have been here at NC State in helping young people who might otherwise without basketball never have had a chance to go to college, and in many cases were the first person in their entire family, like my father, who earned a college degree. We will continue to try to represent our university with great integrity. We will continue to represent you with great class and character. We are about ready to unveil a new academic reformed package in higher athletics. There are two components; 1) academic reform and 2) an incentive/disincentive package that coincides with it. Let me first address one branch of that reform package.
A lot is made of graduation rates not only for athletics departments and sports teams but for our universities as well. If I can just put your microscope on men’s basketball in particular though I would like to share with you some of the dynamics that we have to deal with in trying to graduate our young men. We have a culture that exists today that makes graduation at the end of the progress very challenging.
They say that it typically takes 4.6 years to graduate from college for the average student. It is no longer a four-year curriculum. For instance, someone who comes to NC State and wants to study Sociology, and is not an upper tier student and has to take some pre-requisites may need as many as 137 hours to graduate. At the rate of fifteen hours per semester for eight consecutive semesters you do not get the one hundred and thirty seven hours. So before you even get past Labor Day of your freshmen year you are looking at more than four years to graduate. Second, the way it is in basketball now, if I play in the ACC I have tremendous earning potential when I leave. If not for the NBA I can go overseas and make relatively good money, in some cases six figures. Some of the dynamics that start that process begin in the spring of their senior year where they are securing agents. They are going to try-out camps. They are going on interviews. If they don’t take advantage of those kinds of things in a timely manner, they will not put themselves in as good a position to make that kind of money. We can get someone right to the doorstep of graduation, but because of the opportunities they have to continue playing basketball, they are not able to complete their degree at that point. So statistically we never get credit for them. We look at these graduation rates in the News and Observer and we gasp, not factoring in perhaps the dynamics of the number of hours, how long it’s taking some to graduate. You now couple that with what is happening on a global scale in our sport of men’s basketball. Furthermore, those statistics do not reveal, as you know even for regular students, anyone who enrolls as a mid semester student. Someone may have a 4.0 GPA and come in and graduate in three years. But if they enroll in January they do not count for you. If anyone transfers they count against you regardless of how good their grades are. I think we need to look beneath the surface of graduation rates as we consider how well we really are doing.
They want to credit institutions for retaining students. They want to discredit us for not retaining students. Coaches change jobs. Every spring it is like a carousel. Faculty members change jobs. They go from one institution to another. Chancellors and Presidents change institutions and yet we look as if there is something wrong if a student gets homesick and transfers or someone has an opportunity to play more than they are playing at their first institution where they may be on the bench and they decide to transfer or any of the other 101 reasons kids transfer today. Ironically what we find is those who transfer from our university usually graduate at a higher rate than those who stay. Why? They get an extra year. They have five years to graduate. The way these are translated through statistics and the newspaper, you would think that the athletics departments and institutions were doing disservices. There will be a lot more talked about and written regarding academic reform. Graduation rates are always a hot button topic in athletics. I would just submit to you that sometimes because of the dynamics that we have in our sport that there is more than those numbers might indicate. That does not diminish the fact that we want to graduate every one of our men. We want them all to pursue their degrees even if they come back years later like David Thompson will do this December when he finally gets his degree from NC State.
With all that being said, it has been a tough year for coaches. We have a head basketball coaches’ summit coming up next week in Chicago to talk about the integrity of our profession and it really should be an interesting day. I also want to assure you that our profession is a good profession with really good people representing it. I don’t know these days that you could pick any profession that has not had some warps. We have good people with integrity and when we do have those people, I would ask for the faculty to support us. We are under tremendous pressure to win. Think about yourself for a minute, the last time somebody criticized you. Was it private or was it public? Was it one person or was it one thousand, or ten thousand? Was it on the news or was it in your kitchen? We want coaches to have great values. We want them to do the right thing. We want them to pursue excellence in the things that we cherish at institutions of higher learning. Yet, when we have these people, maybe the season doesn’t go as well. We might be better off if our faculty stood up and said listen, we like what is happening in our football program, in our basketball program, in our baseball program. Our men are being taught good values. They are pursuing academics to the best of their ability. We are represented with integrity. The minority will speak up. There is not a more powerful influential group in all of higher education than you are. We need your help. We need your support especially if we are going to carry forward the kinds of missions that you as a group would hold dear. Rarely do you see that, yet it would be such a great message to send because it seems to me that each year that desire to win grows and the monster gets bigger. We want all these virtues on the one hand but the monster just keeps growing in size. How many did you win? How many did you win by? I think it is really important that there is not a chasm between athletics and academics and that there is a sturdy bridge built between the two. We share the same kinds of values and missions that you all do and I want to let you know that. With that in mind, I have been working with our Provost as well as a couple of the deans to hopefully next year have a team work seminar where we work to raise some money for the university as well as embrace a variety of our constituents. We thought we would do an interesting form of team work seminar where we include some basketball practice, some film sessions, team work from a sports angle combined with team work in other areas. We may have someone come in and talk about the teamwork involved in a pit crew, how you get the tires changed, car fueled and ready to go in eight seconds. That is teamwork. How about in an emergency room when someone comes in the middle of the night with his or her life on the line, the kind of teamwork it takes to save that person. We have a lot of interesting ideas that bring teamwork from a lot of different landscapes and we are going to work to put together a teamwork seminar that joins in partnership our university through the Provost’s Office and a couple of the colleges on campus together with NC State men’s basketball.
Finally I was asked a couple of times to talk about expansion this afternoon. I think it is really important that we do this. All of the ins and outs of expansion have been well documented. We are at a point right now where it has happened. We have expanded to eleven. The next question remains, are we going to go to twelve. I don’t know that it serves us any purpose right now to be labeled if we were one that disagreed with expansion. The point, I think we have to move forward as a conference, as a group of institutions and now determine if we should add a twelfth or not and make the best of the setup for our student athletes. I don’t think that anybody is served at this point to continue to debate what has already happened. You make a decision and you move forward with it and I think that is where we are as a conference. That decision has been made. Good people can agree to disagree. We need cohesiveness now. We need togetherness as a conference and we need to move forward so that we will make the next best decision regarding a twelfth member.”
Senator Bruck stated, “The integrity in which you run your program and the other athletic programs are run at this university I would personally say are second to none and I compliment you and the other coaches for that. To me it seems that to NC State University this package is a sucker punch. What is to prevent me at some fifth class university who decides to become Division I to put in a bunch of programs to take kids who are illiterate, get them degrees, keep them qualified but boy they sure know how to put the ball in the hoop and those are the ones that you are going to have to be playing against. I fail to see what is in this for NC State University.”
Coach Sendek stated that it is his personal opinion that it does disproportionately affect us. “I think that we have a very challenging institution. I have been at some other really good schools and I find matriculation here for our men is challenging. There are some questions regarding the point that you bring up that I think are very important. Some of the measuring sticks that they will use to judge or evaluate us will be against ourselves, our own student body. That is a check. They are also hoping that from a statistical standpoint there will be some balance in all the schools. I think there is a group of Presidents who are concerned with the low graduation rates of student athletes in general: Men’s basketball and football most specifically. We are losing young men to the pro ranks at greater rates than we have before. I am at the point when I go out to recruit for NC State that I try to also get good students. Once again that is all relative. This past freshmen class the weighted GPA was more than 4.0, our SAT hovers around 1200. There are just not a lot of guys who could make three pointers who are 6' 11" who could run 240's, who also have a 4.0 GPA.”
Senator McRae asked the coach to comment on the Vanderbilt situation.
Coach Sendek stated that it is difficult for him to comment on the Vanderbilt situation because he is really not privy to all the internal dynamics that went into that decision. He does not know what it means in terms of daily operations. He thinks that there is expertise you gain through experience. “There is a lot more to anybody’s job than somebody who doesn’t do it would ever realize. The same is true with athletics. Athletics is the common denominator field. Everyone thinks that they know something about sports. They have either played or coached somewhere along the way. Let me assure you that there is usually more to it than someone could ever realize unless they did it for a living. So I do think that it is important that we respect administrative who have spent a lifetime gaining experience in athletics in particular.”
Senator Bitting stated that over the years he has had the pleasure and opportunity to get to know some of the student athletes from working with them and in so doing he has become amazed at times that they do as well as they do given their schedules. “Would you help those of us not as initiated by maybe going through a day just to give us a sense of the obligations and stresses that might be found on a typical day.”
Coach Sendek responded that all of their men are registered for fifteen hours. They have to carry a minimum of twelve to be eligible to play. They are taking a full course load of work. At this time we are allowed to have basketball related activities excluding travel. On a typical day they will finish class and we will practice for a few hours in the afternoon. It is a physically demanding practice. One that would make most of us want to go home and take a good nap. Typically after practice they eat. As soon as they eat they report to a study table or to a tutor and they spend the better part of that evening doing schoolwork. We play games in February and last year for the first time in school history every one of our games was televised. Roughly one half of those were on national outlets like Fox, Sports Net, ESPN, ABC, CBS and just to put you in their shoes imagine sitting in that 1:30p.m. class on a day of the Carolina game. Twenty thousand people are going to watch you in a few hours and you are trying to concentrate on Shakespeare, or we will go and play at Maryland. As this group well knows the game could start anywhere from seven to nine o’clock at night. After the game is over we travel back that night so that they do not miss school the next day. While the rest of the class that you are teaching is studying for that exam, our guys are playing. It is not just the physical investment, it is the mental investment when you perform at that kind of level under those kinds of pressures. We typically will pull up to Reynolds Coliseum in our bus at 3:00 a.m. in the morning and we demand that the guys are at their 8:00 a.m. class. It is more severe if they have a test the next day because they have to take the same test as everyone else in the class. If we are competing against the kind of student body that we are talking about, it is a very challenging endeavor, even for our best students. Unlike football where you only play one game per week, we may have three games in a given week in basketball. I guess I am a little self defensive and I have my fist up, when it is presumed that we as coaches do not care about the academics of our players and the graduation rates are paraded out there as symbolic of the fact that that is not important to us. It may be the case in some instances that we have a challenging row to hoe.
Senator Fikry wanted to know which comes first, study or the game.
Coach Sendek stated that they could not be excused from playing a game because someone on the team has an exam.
Past Chair Carter stated that one of the issues that contribute to this sense of division is the fact that there are big discrepancies in what coaches are paid and what the faculty is compensated. “There was a comment at the last Athletics Council meeting about a family. A family means that we are all pulling together. When we have a situation in this state where the academic programs are being cut and yet any money we make from whether it is the expansion of the ACC or whether it is winning bowl games, those earnings go just to the Athletics Department, we don’t feel like it is a family. When I get a grant the indirect cost comes into the university, those needs are prioritize. This does not seem to be the case with the Athletics Department.
Coach Sendek stated that Lee Fowler, Athletics Director would be much better equipped to address that concern. Obviously money drives a lot of things for us. I think from a financial standpoint the way it has been set up historically for some time is that we are independent. We don’t receive any state appropriated monies. We operate independently of the university from a financial standpoint.
Coach Sendek invited the faculty over to see a practice and to see what the team goes through on a typical afternoon.
6. Issues of Concern
Chair Daley reported on the concern regarding library journal editors. He stated that it is being looked into and he is talking with the person who submitted the concern to make sure that the Senate is clearer about what the person’s concern is.
Chair Daley stated that the concern from Senator Bruck on the budget situation has been sent to a committee and they are now in the process of coordinating with the Staff Senate. The Staff Senate is planning to take the lead on a resolution.
Senator Warren proposed an issue of concern on budget effects within the university system. She would like the Faculty Senate to recommend that Chancellor Fox take three related actions:
1) appoint a representative task force on budget priorities that would include faculty staff, students and administrators
2) make any further cuts strategic rather than across the board.
3) insure that the entire NC State budget, not just the academic affairs side of campus and not just the state appropriated budget be transparent to this task force as well as to the university community as it makes these difficult choices.
Chair Daley assigned the issue of concern to the Governance Committee.
Senator Bruck stated that he has had a number of questions from faculty members that address the exact same questions but on a different hierarchy. “I often get the feeling that you take our Chancellor and Provost and they are caught up in a system where a number comes down from above. I don’t need to point out the fact that we have a President (I don’t mean at this university) that has lost six hundred and fifty million dollars in permanent funding to the system and I have had the pleasure of serving on the Faculty Assembly that was beyond a joke in terms of faculty having an input at the Board of Governors and the Presidential level. I would like to know from there where the priorities are being struck across these universities because I do not think our Chancellor or Provost have that much to deal with. They have a very thin playing card.”
Chair Daley stated that in CHASS the Multidisciplinary Studies Department has been disbanded and moved into the Dean’s office. The concern was raised about the ability of Deans or others to disband departments. There was a task force within CHASS. Part of the concern here is that it served a much wider university audience than just the College of Humanities and Social Sciences. There has been similar mergers or disappearances in the College of Education Departments and the College of Veterinary Medicine.
Chair Daley assigned the concern to the Academic Policy Committee.
7. New Business
Senator Nina Allen, Chair of the Governance Committee reported that there are currently eighteen total mediators in the program.
Human Resources have facilitated eighteen mediations since 1999, all of which met the criteria and were successful. Both parties agreed to attempt mediation, attend the schedule sessions. They participated and either in oral or written, agreement was created. Human Resources also handled twenty-one requests that did not proceed to mediation; ten withdrew before finishing the process.
Eighteen grievances were filed; six were not pursued by the grievant, nine went to grievance committees and eventually ended up with the Chancellor.
Senator Allen stated, “Mediation seems to work and I think we should be very proud of the good mediation process we have. I think it is by far the better way to go if possible. If mediation is simply not possible, one needs to have the good grievance procedures that hopefully have been revised to become better than they were.”
Revisions to Grievance and Mediation Policies
Mary Beth Kurz, General Counsel stated that what she tried to do to in preparation for the transmittal to the Governance Committee was to make sure that she was very clear in the two documents where the changes were.
The changes were basically prompted primarily by the Board of Governors changes to its own grievance and mediation procedures, which resulted from a task force, comprised of faculty and some administrators at the Board of Governors Office of the President level. The major changes address the change that was primarily the result of the Board of Governors actions.
The second impetus behind the changes were suggestions from grievance committees. There were a few instances where we had some grievance committees and through the process of going through the grievance and the examination of the grievance procedures there were some incongruity in references to sections or other policies that would apply. I think it was important that every time we would make changes to other policies if they are mentioned in the grievance procedure we would have to make the same changes. Better formatting in one instance if it is not done in another creates some problems and the committee highlighted those and we tried to address those as we made the other revisions.
The third were the recommendations of the committee that Fred Corbin had appointed, the Select Subcommittee of the Government Committee. I really owe a debt of gratitude to Kathy Brown because she helped me understand particularly the section in the appendix in terms of how grievance committee panels, chair panels and how the committee themselves were actually selected.
The primary changes resulted in terms of mediation. As you know mediation has been a strong effort that I think this university has led in terms of the system’s institutions in coming up with mediation as a priority. While we have always had mediation it has sort of operated separately. The parties could choose to do so. There was not any integration within the actual grievance document itself. Now as a result of the Board of Governors changes, there is a requirement that in the grievance process if the parties have not had the opportunities to mediate that the Chair of the Faculty or some other way that there would be an affirmative highlighting to the parties to the grievance once it has been filed. Do you wish to engage in mediation? If that, in fact, is a desire of both parties then the mediation would be tolled. Also in terms of the Board of Governors, even if you do not file the grievance and you wish to mediate and the parties engage in it then there will be a tolling as well. We have built in a process so that there is appropriate notification and then the time deadlines. We also want to encourage that if mediation is not going to resolve it that we have a timely grievance proceeding. Not only timely for the faculty member to get resolution but also the university as well.
The second issue relating to mediation is of course if you are going to have mediation, usually sometimes the parties are sometimes at a lower level. Department Head is often a respondent if you have a salary adjustment dispute or a grievance relating to class assignments, etc., the Board of Governors Policy requires that the mediation agreement be signed by those people with the authority to actually enforce the decision. There are many instances where the department head for example would not have that authority and so it would either have to go to the dean or to the Provost. The provision in here is that the person with authority who may not necessarily be the respondent to the grievance must sign the mediation agreement.
The other major change is that our current process involves the committee hearing the evidence and making a decision. The fact-finding and the decision comes in the form of a recommendation directly to the Chancellor. What was recommended by the task force, and which not occur in situations where there is a recommendation in favor of the faculty member for an adjustment, is that it would be the committee’s decision to go to the parties to give them the opportunity to say, “Well I have read the decision of the grievance committee and I agree with it so I am going to carry it out.” In fact, if it is an agreement between the parties then it stops and does not have to go to the Chancellor at all. If there is not a resolution then the decision would be forwarded to the Chancellor.
The other major change was that the Board of Governors has consistent management flexibility and giving powers to the institutions within the system. In the grievance appeal area you can appeal to the Board of Trustees for all grievances, except you can go beyond the Board of Trustees for non-reappointment grievances.
The next issue in the Board of Governors policy was to dismiss grievances other than non-reappointment grievances where the employee leaves the university unless the Chancellor permits a continuance because it is in the best interest of the institution.
One of the things that was done in the nature of clarification is that we had an inadvertent appointment of someone who was in a promotion and tenure decision who actually was involved with the decision in terms of the grievance case also serve on the grievance committee and no one understood at the time that that probably constituted a conflict of interest. Someone tried to attempt to raise it in the grievance but all the parties agreed that they would go forward with the panel that was there. It was a significant enough issue that we built it directly into our process.
Senator Allen moved approval of the revisions to the grievance process. The motion was seconded and passed unanimously.
Senator Allen moved approval of the mediation process revisions. The motion was seconded and passed unanimously.
Special Faculty Ranks
Senator Scott McRae, Chair of the Personnel Policy Committee reported that in the last semester the committee began looking at a draft of a regulation on special faculty ranks and appointments. They made some suggestions at that time that were accepted by the Provost’s Office. Since that time there has been a number of changes. The committee re-examined the regulation and would like to present it for approval.
Senator McRae stated that there are many things in this document that will help with defining who the special faculty are and what conditions they serve under and will go a long way with having some consistency between the colleges as to how these special faculty ranks are defined and what their actual jobs are. Senator McRae reviewed the report and moved approval.
Senator Batra stated that the visiting faculty title has been used in the case of an individual who has been hired in a tenure track position but does not have citizenship and is now going to wait for a permanent visa. “Appeals have been made to the federal government and if that process takes more than two years then I think we may have trouble retaining that individual under the proposed group. You may want to consider how you handle that.”
Senator McRae stated, in that case the person is really in a tenure track position. He does not think a prefix is appropriate.
Senator Batra stated that it is used because until the person has citizenship, apparently the rule does not permit him to appoint them with the title of Assistant or Associate.
Senior Vice Provost Perry stated that they are not in a tenure track position until the requirements for that position are met. So they are in a Visiting mode at that point.
Senator McRae stated that visiting as he understands it from this regulation is in the future, someone who actually already has an appointment at another university.
Associate Vice Provost Judy Peel noted some updates on the handout.
After further discussion, Chair Daley sent the document back to the committee.
Chair Daley adjourned the meeting at 5:13 p.m.