FEBRUARY 7, 2006
Regular Meeting No. 11 of the 52nd Session
Present: Chair Allen, Secretary Bruck, Past Chair Daley, Provost Nielsen; Senators Baynes, Blair, Branoff, Brownie, Clark, Dawes, Fahmy, Fauntleroy, Fikry, Gustke, Hanley-Bowdoin, Hooper, Hudson, Kellner, Kinsella, Lindbo, Martin, Moore, Overton, Schultheis, Scotford, B. Smith, R. Smith, Williams, Yencho
Excused: Parliamentarian Corbin; Senators Blank, Robarge, Tetro, Johnson
Absent: Senators Banks-Lee, Culbreth, Khosla, Krotee, Wessels, Young
Visitors: Katie Perry, Senior Vice Provost; P.J. Teal, Secretary of the University; Dianne Sortini, Director, Human Resources; Galen Jones, Asst. Director – Employee Relations; Barbara Carroll, Associate Vice Chancellor for Human Resources; Sharon Lubkin, Co-Chair, Association of Women Faculty; Marcia Gumpertz, Professor of Statistics; Melissa Watkins, Chair of the Staff Senate; Sandee Zechman, Chair Resource & Environment Committee, Staff Senate; Zachary Moser-Katz, Student Media; Marian McCord, Chair Council on Undergraduate Education; Jim Clark, OEEED; Nick Pironio, Student Media
1. Call to Order
Chair Nina Strömgren Allen called the eleventh meeting of the fifty-second session of the North Carolina State University Faculty Senate to order at 3:00 p.m.
2. Welcome and Announcements from the Chair
Chair Allen welcomed Senators and Guests.
Chair Allen announced that the General Faculty Meeting would be held on February 23, 2006 at 3 p.m. in Stewart Theatre.
The Senators congratulated Senator Brownie on receiving the John R. Larkins Award.
Senator Brownie presented some paint peelings that he had gotten from walls around the campus. He stated that as a toxicologist he is very concerned about lead. He plans to have the peelings tested for lead and will report the findings back to the Senate.
3. Approval of the Minutes, Meeting No. 10, January 24, 2006
The motion passed unanimously to approve the minutes.
4. Remarks from Dr. Larry Nielsen, Provost
Provost Nielsen noted that one of the fundamental reasons that he likes his job is that he gets the opportunity on a daily basis to think about making decisions in the context of why we are here as an institution and in the contexts of the principles under which we say we operate. It is a great privilege and a joy to be in an institution like this and to have the position that I have where you sit with people and discuss technical budgetary things but fundamentally you get to say we should do this or that and you can do it on the basis of what is good for the students, what is good for the people of the state, what is true to the principles of an institution that enjoy freedom and that enjoy collaboration and participation. It really is a great job and I want to thank each of you for the role that you play in helping us to think that way.
Provost Nielsen stated that with George Wilson moving back to his academic department they are going to keep the position of Vice Provost for International Affairs vacant and will hire a consultant with a lot of international experience to come in and help to formulate our International Program.
Provost Nielsen stated that the position will be filled with an Interim person for approximately fifteen months. That person will be charged with helping us do strategic thinking, working with NC State community and the Office of the Provost to figure out where we need to go.
Senator Brownie: Last week I was asked by my department head about the finality of a discussion we had concerning promotion and tenure and to my knowledge Senator Robarge’s committee looked at it and sent some recommendations to your office. We have had no feedback from your office as a Senate. I wonder if you could speak to that.
Provost Nielsen stated that it was discussed in the last meeting. The Faculty Senate committee made recommendations and some of them were at odds with what the deans and department heads had told us. We took all the recommendations that came from the Faculty Senate except one and that was the deans and department heads wanted it to read that a committee would be appointed to do the post tenure review on faculty members, and the Faculty Senate wanted it to stay that the entire departmental voting faculty review post tenure review. Seeing that those two were at odds and that I was not going to get a resolution on it, the decision I made was to put in the regulation that it is at the discretion of the unit to make the decision of which way you wanted to go and therefore it retains the option to do either based on the local wishes.
Senator Hanley-Bowdoin stated that the committee had discussed it and the regulation that came out is a compromise between what the faculty recommended and what the administration recommended. One key component is that if you are in a third does not meet expectation; at that point the entire departmental voting faculty is involved. So at some point the entire departmental voting faculty will be involved in those cases that are most problematic and for us I think that helps address some of our concerns about the equity in the process so I think it is a good compromise.
Senator Brownie stated that the faculty is concerned about the six-year graduation rate.
Provost Nielsen feels that a lot more needs to be done about our graduation rate. He would like to see us work closer with the high schools and the community colleges to make the transition as efficient and effective as possible.
Chair Allen stated that she and the head of the community colleges had a discussion about making the transition of community colleges to universities and he said that education was very difficult.
Senator Fikry wanted to know if freedom of expression is unlimited or do ethics, law, and decency bind it.
Chair Allen stated that it is privileged because you are allowed to speak out.
Provost Nielsen stated that it is a very tough thing and as David Drooz, our attorney says, “freedom of speech is meant to protect the speech you don’t want to hear.” Provost Nielsen stated that he finds it fascinating in general that these attempts at coming out to campuses and checking on our adherence to freedom of speech, something seems amidst in that. It is not about freedom of expression, it is about restraint of expression.
5. Faculty and Staff Assistance Program, Barbara Carroll, AVC for Human Resources
Barbara Carroll, Associate Vice Chancellor for Human Resources stated that they have collaborated with the state of North Carolina to develop a relationship for an Employee Assistance Program.
They have contracted with an organization called Deer Oaks, which is a nationwide provider of mental/behavior health services including employee assistance programs organizations in eleven states. Deer Oaks is based out of San Antonio, Texas and they have developed a network of providers across North Carolina.
Services include direct assistance in terms of initial assessment and not extensive canceling services but it will refer patients to other resources. It is not limited to faculty or staff members but also available to family members as well. In addition to the direct services through Human Resources, Deer Oaks will also work to help provide consultation referral services for managers and supervisors.
Deer Oaks will also provide referral services for managers, which would include having someone whose performance is so at risk that we may not be able to continue the employee relationship. This is usually a staff situation sort of compliance assurance so that someone in a substance control situation that continued employment may be contingent upon their applying with intervention.
There may be a death in the department or an act of violence in the work place; this service provides critical incident of intervention and management of that process.
The program is available to all regular employees, EPA and SPA including post docs. It is also available to the immediate family members of covered employees. They do this on a good faith basis, which is if you call and say that you are an employee or a family member of an employee at NC State they will believe you. We don’t send them a person-by-person name. They say that it doesn’t attempt to be abused and we believe them. It is not a program that will be available to students.
The program is in effect as of February 1, 2006. The initial consultation is at no cost to the employee. It is available 24/7 three hundred sixty five days per year that you can get to a live person to talk to very quickly. You don’t have to go through a series of recordings and they will do consultations either by phone or in person. There is no cost for this service. It covers pretty much the broad range of assessment and referrals, alcohol and drug abuse, stress, grief coping, marriage relationship problems, family and even childcare and elderly care. Care giving of elderly parents or children can be very stressful. There are resources available.
They also have an extensive set of web-based tools. They provide information on a broad range of health and wellness.
Associate Vice Chancellor Carroll stated that this is a confidential service and they will get no information back from the vendor about specific individuals. Utilization data will be provided so that they will know how many employees are availing themselves to the service but it is all completely confidential.
Deer Oaks can be reached directly with the toll free number or by going to the Human Resources website and following the links to the faculty and staff assistance program or you can go directly to Deer Oaks website.
Information concerning this program has been sent out through personnel connections.
Senator Fikry wanted to know how many people would be in this program to provide services.
Associate Vice Chancellor Carroll stated that the network itself in North Carolina consists of hundreds of providers. They have an intake center that is staffed by triages and they will direct people to the appropriate level of behavior service.
Secretary Bruck stated that we are opening a door to get help but in many of the things this is not going to be diagnosed and then fixed over a period of a week or a month. In some cases it is going to take long-term intervention and it is sort of like we are opening a door that we can’t close.
Associate Vice Chancellor Carroll stated that this is an entry resource into a structure that for us through the State Health Plan is not an ideal structure because of the limits of the plans that are available. “I think your point is well taken but this is better than what we had. They are not going to abandoned people.”
Galen Jones, Assistant Director of Human Relations stated that this program is an assessment and referral program. One of the wonderful things about Deer Oaks is that as an organization they have done a lot of work with the elderly and with community groups that are underprivileged. One of the things that you will see when you go on their site is the community links program and that program specifically provides help for people who do not have health insurance and so if our health plan did not provide the full body response the extended term response that was needed they would work with individuals to find community resources to pick up. One of the real benefits of this program is that whether you call as a manager about a problem with an employee or whether you call for yourself they open a case and they will follow you.
Senator Baynes wants to know how the program can address conflict resolution and if the faculty or staff member would be comfortable going to someone.
Associate Vice Chancellor Carroll stated that just because some people are disagreeing doesn’t necessarily mean that they need serious counseling. There are also other resources available that might be worth mentioning and as it happens some of it is available through Human Resources. “We do have an organizational design and consulting function within Human Resources where they will actually come in and work with managers. We also have the employees relations function itself, which is a consultation service that will work with managers. We have a mediation program with trained mediators and if you have workers that simply can’t get past certain issues if both parties will agree to a neutral facilitator we have those resources available.”
Senator Yencho wanted to know if graduate students were eligible.
Associate Vice Chancellor Carroll stated that they are students first therefore they did not include them.
Provost Nielsen stated that Rhonda Sutton who use to work in the Office of Equal Opportunity as the Harassment Officer has moved over to the College of Veterinary Medicine to be a counselor in two regards; 1) there are many people who are very connected to their animals and are having trouble dealing with this and she will be available to help and also to help the faculty staff and students in the College of Veterinary Medicine deal with those same issues as it relates to the treatments that they are giving the same as doctors and nurses might get in the medical environment when they are dealing with deaths. It will be interesting to see how that program works. I think the College of Veterinary Medicine was able to do it because they have this client outreach area that needs that help and to carry it over to the faculty, staff, and students is an extra benefit. As far as I know no other college has that.
Associate Vice Chancellor Carroll stated that they have not promoted their services historically to the faculty because Human Resources historically have held down the SPA realm. “In the past couple of years as we have taken over some administrative scope from the Provost’s Office in terms of doing EPA related activities we have expanded our consulting services so they are available and Galen Jones and Diane Sortini would be the main contacts folks for you if you are dealing with EPAs.”
Associate Vice Chancellor Carroll stated that it would be great if we had a childcare center on campus. In the best scenario that looks like a three to eight year process depending on how quickly they can drum up the money. “In the mean time we figured that there were some interim solutions that would begin to address our interest in trying to provide these resources. The logical thing would be to have NC State identify centers where we have a critical mass of participates so that the RFP the way that we are designing is one that would have us identify centers with certain criteria and we would actually guarantee a number of slots in that center so that they would be kind of an NC State team member and we would get enough people hopefully from our campus to participate in those centers that there would be some sense of affiliation and some opportunities to share pick ups, etc., and we are working on that as we speak.”
Senator Fikry: Do your advice have legal standing that would stand up in court and say that you advised me to do that.
Provost Nielsen stated that when you choose to put your child in the daycare center it is your responsibility and the daycare center’s. The university will not have a legal role in that.
Senator Fikry: If they are not part of the university, then why not?
Carroll: The daycare center themselves would not be part of the university. My hope is that the people would engage in good decision-making.
Chair Allen: Is there funding at all coming from NC State?
Provost Nielsen: Two things are going to have to happen and one is we will have to pay these daycare facilities to enter into this agreement with us and secondly we want to subsidize. We want this opportunity not to be limited to two professors’ families, we want it to also be available for staff that are not paid nearly as much money as some of you are. We are going for the best facilities we can get and I’m going to have some way to subsidize it so that staff can afford to do it also. Some of that is going to depend on location as well. Our goal was to get a couple of centers within a mile radius of campus. There aren’t any and where they all tended to be are in Cary and that is not really doing the trick. We hope to have this in place by fall. We will build a daycare center at NC State but we need $5M and somewhere to build the building. If we get the building built then we can create a physical mode that will allow it to operate. We have begun the process of talking about fund raising on this project.
Senator Martin: If we have colleagues with small children looking for day care, how should they get in contact with the program?
Carroll: We expect to have this out for bid in time for the fall semester.
I think the more realistic startup given what it takes to do is that we may not actually get it up running until the beginning of the calendar year. First of all we have to know that we can find providers that will engage in a deal with us before we start really publishing this. We are optimistic that we can provide a compelling deal for someone but it is not a foregone conclusion that we will be able to engage quality of care at the level that we want. The best centers tend to be the ones that are most full so you have to understand that there may not be people that want us to buy twenty slots in their childcare center.
Senator Yencho stated that he really likes the idea of a daycare center here on campus but the potential problem that he sees is unless that daycare is super huge it is not going to provide the childcare opportunity that most people would want. It is going to only have slots available for a limited number of students. “I’m wondering whether it might not be better for NC State to continue along the path that you are marching right now and to develop a network of childcare providers in the various communities that are allied with NC State and I say that Cary, Garner, Fuquay, Knightdale and then you have options but you could in effect be a gold stamp of approval as long as we are doing our homework and provide that option. That might be the best way to go in the long run to provide as many slots for all your kids because there are a lot of kids here.”
Provost Nielsen stated that the benefits of having something close are real. “So I think this is a good thing. There are a lot of things that doesn’t make sense to me. We had one that we were subsidizing and it went out of business. There are questions of having leverage and making it work. This start on it is our commitment to it and I want to let you know that the Chancellor is committed to this idea and both Charlie Leffler and I as well.”
Senator Kinsella: What would be the duration of the contract with the successful bidders.
Carroll: We would probably go in for a two-year contract and then renew at a year at a time.
Provost Nielsen: We also recognize that people who make a commitment to a childcare facility if it turns out good they want to stay there. We have some details to work out on how we might do that.
Dr. Sharon Lubkin: If they need 170 slots that is indeed too big for one childcare center.
Carroll: It is mathematically impossible to have the three things that we want which are, extraordinarily high in quality, absolutely convenient to everyone and we don’t want it to be costly.
Visitor: I agree that we need to go both directions. Some people need to have childcare near their homes. I would be supportive of two plans; one to subsidize and possibly work with independent centers or a chain that people could have near their homes but also as a person who had two children to have your child close by to go and see when they are very young would be a great advantage. Also I don’t think we should stop with daycare. I think after school care is a huge challenge for me as a faculty member and its kind of easy here to manage. The YMCA down the street is doing it very well and we have great facilities here too so that is something I would like to think about.
Carroll: There actually is quite a lot of high quality child care here unlike a lot of other university communities, more of it is available here; consultants were actually surprised how much quality they found and it is dispersed around the community. One of the things that they did for us was they did a demographic analysis of our employee population by age and zip code so we know where our faculty and staff live so we did an analysis based on who would be likely to use it and are there more efficient pockets to be trying to affiliate with and we have that information in our hip pocket as we are working on this project.
Dr. Sharon Lubkin: Have you thought about leveraging Centennial Campus partnership? Those companies would also benefit from an onsite childcare facility. Why not bring them in as partners to build and finance?
Carroll: Thank you very much we will get you on the committee.
6. Issues of Concern
Senator Lindbo stated that several faculty members on campus are concerned about the amount of spam mail that they are receiving.
Chair Allen stated that there is a way of getting rid of it. She will pass the information along.
7. Old Business
REG 05.02.08 Evaluation of the Scholarship on Extension and Engagement
Senator Hanley-Bowdoin, Vice Chair of the Personnel Policy Committee stated that the committee saw a draft of a set of regulations to replace the existing regulations on what constitutes scholarship activity and how to evaluate it in extension. Their role was to review it and make recommendations and move forward. After receiving it they realized that it was very general and that there was nothing in it that spoke to extension. The committee also reviewed the RPT policy that have been changed dramatically over the past couple of years and came to the conclusion that pretty much everything that was in this recommended document has now been addressed in the RPT. The committee did not see a reason for providing specific rules for scholarship and extension.
Senator Hanley-Bowdoin stated that when you have academic or research scholarship that those are included in the RPT and part of the staff process so it didn’t seem reasonable to distinguish extension. “We came up with two recommendations.”
- We recommended that the post change to the existing rules be withdrawn. We do not think that they are necessary in the contexts of the current set of regulations online and that they were developed at a time in parallel with any of the existing changes and they basically are current RPT rules and regulations have now addressed many of the concerns that the committee was going to try to address.
- We recommend that the existing rules on evaluation of scholarship and extension regulations be withdrawn because they are out of date, they are in conflict with some of the RPT regulations that are now in place and in view of the same idea that the RPT rules cover all the different aspects of scholarship now be extension, research, or academic that there is no reason to have a specific set of regulations out there for extension only.
We met with members of the committee who devised the suggested replacement regulations and after significant discussion with them I think we all came to the conclusion that they agreed with our recommendation and that they were very concerned that the existing regulations be repealed but they also recognized that maybe the time for their committee had passed and that we did not need a new set of regulations in place of the ones that we were suggesting be repealed.
A motion was made and seconded that the proposed changes to REG05.20.8 be withdrawn as being no longer needed or appropriate given the current Academic Tenure Policy (POL05.20.1) associated regulations. The motion was voted on and passed unanimously.
A motion was made and second that the current regulation REG05.20.8 be repealed, as it is no longer consistent with the Academic Tenure Policy (POL05.20.1) and associated regulations.
The motion was voted on and passed unanimously.
Question Regarding Bonus Leave for 12-month Faculty Appointments
Senator Hanley-Bowdoin stated that a question was brought to the Faculty Senate regarding the bonus leave and who can be awarded the leave and who cannot. As it stands unless you have a 12-month appointment as a faculty member you do not get the bonus leave.
It is clearly stated in the original legislation from the legislature that if you are not part of the leave system, if you do not acquire leave as a normal part of your position which nine-month faculty do not then you do not get the bonus leave. The university policy has been written to match the legislature so it is not something where we have any lead way here in terms of how this is implemented and if there is to be a change it is something that would have to go all the way back to the legislature and be re-evaluated at that level.
Senator Martin: Do we know the percentage of twelve-month versus nine-month employees?
Senior Vice Provost Perry responded approximately 1000 to 300.
Past Chair Daley: Is there anyone else other than faculty that does not earn annual leave?
Senator Clark stated that the original problem that was brought up is that with the extra days like summer and we could not find anyone because they were on leave, the problem is that there is still work to be done.
Secretary Bruck pointed out that the news and observer talked about what looks like a surplus for the first time in a long time. “I would encourage the Senate that if they feel empowered to take this issue up or others in the form of a resolution maybe it should be done.”
Senator Hanley-Bowdoin: I would have agreed with that before our committee looked at this. I think you have to “be careful what you ask for.” If you are not part of the leave system there are some bonuses and you need to balance whether you want to risk those versus five days of paid leave.
Senator Bruck stated that he senses that there is an inequity in the reward system that exists right now and certainly if we are talking about three quarters of our faculty being nine-month employees perhaps they should be rewarded in a way that amounts to their performance.
Senator Hanley-Bowdoin stated that something she learned is that if you are on a nine-month faculty appointment and if you are part of the state retirement you get a full year credit toward retirement for a nine-month appointment. Now if you are a twelve-month faculty you get the same amount of credit for twelve months of work. “Like I say you have to be careful here because positions are compensated differently and I’m not even certain I would argue that there is inequity because I think you are comparing apples and oranges.”
8. New Business
Senator Martin: Some of you have received a memo issued by John Gilligan with the subject “Urgent Visits to Congressional Offices in DC.” “Please inform Matt Peterson Director of Federal Research Affairs or myself of visits that you or your staff or faculty take to our congressional offices, Senate or House in DC on any related university business. This is especially important now that the old southern budget negotiations have begun. We are asked frequently about the priorities of the university by these same congressional offices. The colleges, my office, and the Chancellor set these priorities. It is very important that we are aware of our efforts in DC in support of these programs so that we all achieve the desired results.”
Senator Martin: I don’t think any of us disagree that we should not be arguing counter to what the university would have argued but there are a variety of concerns I have with this kind of memo. First of all we faculty are not at all in the list of who sets priorities, in fact, neither is our Provost. We are told that in simply the colleges Vice Chancellors for Research’s Office and the Chancellor so setting priorities need to be a broader issue than just those three areas.
Second of all, all of us I believe are members of professional organizations who are campaigning and begging us to go visit our congressional representative whether it’s the AAAS, for me the American Chemical Society, the National Labs that I work with, so all of the other agencies are compelling me to go and talk with my congressional delegation and that’s why I do not understand why the university comes across with messages like this that either are “big brother-esq” ask or they are afraid that I am going to misrepresent them. I think this is an issue that should be a very serious concern to all of us faculty and I would urge that we as a Senate adopt some kind of resolution in opposition to this sentiment, that in fact should be encouraging us, not causing us to hesitate contacting any of our elected representatives. I believe that this is a democracy. They need to clearly hear from both faculty and administration not one or the other.
Senator Clark: Does the memo itself not state for university business.
Senator Martin: My question is when I go to support the Department of Energy funding for a national lab, is that university business or is it not? When I go to ask for greater funding for the National Science Foundation, is that university business, is that American Chemical Society business, is that AAAS business, is that the three month part of my contract business? What business is that? How can they differentiate university business from any other business?
Provost Nielsen: The meaning here is that we don’t want you going down there saying you are representing North Carolina State University and North Carolina State University wants this thing to be funded, please do it for us. That is the only intent. The university has no problem and encourages you to go and speak on behalf of the National Science Foundation budget or the Department of Energy Budget, etc. and I did it a lot for things when I was representing a society for some other program as a dean with the blessing of the university. It is meant to know about and perhaps curtail your activities if you represent them as being an NC State request because the congressional delegation as you might imagine gets an official one from us.
Senator Martin: I react very strongly because I think we are much better off to have a high level of communication and deal with specific issues rather than to restrict participation. I have never heard a call from this university at any level of administration encouraging us to go interact with our representative.
Chair Allen noted that her dean has funded her several times to go to Washington.
Senator Martin: I would like to see that being more the norm than this shot across the bow that was intended for broad faculty dissemination. When people are earmarking that it is counter productive. But don’t we need to deal with those issues instead of setting a global policy to cover all conversation with legislators to deal with the problem? It gets back to the issues that Chair Allen raised of being of free expression with respect to academic policy.
Provost Nielsen stated that he doesn’t think that it relates to that. It relates to your activities as an employee of the institution on university business. That is the intent. Again the memo is not intended to stop you from going to Congress. It is to coordinate our efforts.
Senator Moore stated that we really try to get the grass roots involved and march on Congress with an army yet the tone of this memo is we don’t need any help, we don’t want any help, stay out of our way you are going to mess things up. It might be nice to say if you are going let us know. Let’s work together, we can do things. It would be nice if we were asked to help rather than told to keep your hands off.
Provost Nielsen stated that it is a point well taken.
Senator Yencho stated that he thinks it is wise university policy. “ I have always felt that it is an important process that we all speak with one voice and it is the way the colleges in the university can prioritize projects that they want to move forward. I have never felt as a faculty member that I am being excluded from that process because in many cases there is a note that goes out and if you are asked if you have high level projects that you are interested in moving forward please send your ideas on to the dean and then the deans can put the ideas together in a coherent package. I think it is a wise policy for the university to progress along this way. State can get so much cross current that it is important for us as a university to move forward that we are all on the same page. Now if they are hearing five different messages from various constituencies in the university we are not going to do that so at times your own interest may not be advanced but I trust our administrators that they are advancing the overall interest of the colleges in the university and that is what we pay them to do.”
Senator Martin: I agree with you to some degree on major initiatives they do need to be communicated but I think we need to also be careful to recognize that we are not just dealing with major initiatives. A case and point that I will raise is something like the graduate student support plan. This is something that directly has impact with organizations such as National Science Foundation and National Institutes of Health and as we all know the policy was sort of being forced through without faculty input, and really did not have a recognition of what the granting process is all about. So this is clearly an issue where the faculty should have been much more involved.
Senator Hanley-Bowdoin: I think the graduate student tuition plan is we have open dialog. We have a committee and have a written report from a faculty committee. It will come back to the Faculty Senate. I think it is very important that we keep a very open mind and we are very positive about this process and not let it get bogged down because of issues that we have about communication. Communication has got to improve but I also think we cannot turn that into such a big issue that we don’t accomplish some of these other goals that we need to do and right now I would really prefer not to color the graduate student support plan faculty task force with the added issue of how we communicate to certain people in administration. I think we really want to focus on that issue and hopefully we will have a positive outcome that will be a compromise position as most things are but will reflect our faculty input.
Senator Martin: I fully respect that. I just raise that as an issue where communication has not been as open as it should be if we were going to have this policy where both faculty and administration can speak with one voice.
Senator Brownie reported that the Athletics Department has completed thus far interviewing for candidates for the volleyball position. They have not yet met to deliberate the final outcome but at this point they have looked at four candidates.
A motion passed to adjourned the meeting at 5:05 p.m.