Left Navigation

Faculty Senate Home Agenda Faculty Senate Bylaws Committees General Faculty Items of Interest Mediation, Grievances & Hearings Meetings & Minutes Resolutions Senators

NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIVERSITY

Minutes of the Faculty Senate

October 10, 2006

Present: Chair Allen, Secretary Bruck, Chair-Elect Martin, Parliamentarian Corbin; Provost Nielsen; Senators Blair, Branoff, Dawes, Evans, Fauntleroy, Fleisher, Genzer, Hanley-Bowdoin, Heitmann, Hudson, Kellner, Khosla, Kinsella, Jones, Moore, Overton, Ozturk, Raymond, Robarge, Schultheis, Smith, Williams,

Excused: Senators Anson, Gustke, Lindbo, Muddiman, Murty, Shamey

Absent: Senators Akroyd, Banks-Lee, Culbreth, Mulvey, Scotford, Wessels, Yencho

Visitors: Toby Parcel, Dean, CHASS; PJ Teal, Secretary of the University; John Gilligan, VC Research and Graduate Studies; Stuart Maxwell, Biochemistry; Marcia, Gumpertz; Assistant Vice Provost for Faculty & Staff Diversity; Gary Payne, Plant Pathology; Sidney Lowe, Men’s Basketball Coach; Ross Whetten, Forestry & Environmental Resources; David Winwood, Associate VC for Research; David Horning, Senior Associate Athletics Director; Prema Arasu, Veterinary Medicine; Terri Lomax, Dean, Graduate School; J.C. Boykin, Chair of Staff Senate; Thomas Conway, Dean, Undergraduate Academic Programs; Duane Larick, Associate Dean, Graduate School

1. Call to Order

Chair Nina Strömgren Allen called the fourth meeting of the fifty-third 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, Wednesday, October 11, 2006 at 3 p.m. in the Ballroom of the Talley Student Center.

Chair Allen announced that on October 18, 2006 there would be a celebration for the fiftieth anniversary of the admission of the first undergraduate African American students at NC State.

3. Comments from Sidney Lowe, Men’s Basketball Coach

This is a tremendous opportunity for me because this has been home for me since 1979 when I had my first experience with the pig picking. It has been home for me since my wife and I purchased a home here in 1985, and coming back home to NC State as well because I am back at my alma mater. We have excellent kids and they are going to represent us well on the court and academically. It’s good to be home because I look forward to the family staying together and doing some great things.

Thank you for inviting me.

4. Approval of the Minutes Meeting No. 3, September 26, 2006

The motion passed unanimously to approve the minutes.

4. Remarks from Provost Nielsen

Putting NC State on Notice

We now have on campus the national headquarters for the National Association of Athletic Academic Advisers. They came here because we are acknowledged as having a tremendous program of academic support for our student athletes.

Tuition

Our tuition task force has met and largely concluded that the task force is making a unanimous recommendation to their Chancellor to go forward with the $230 tuition increase for all students. This is a recommendation to the Chancellor, which he will consider and review and make whatever recommendation he believes he should to the Board of Trustees.; The increase is a 6.5% increase over the current tuition. It is the limit that we believe that the Board of Governors will impose on us in their meeting. They set a 6.5% maximum limit we believe for the next five years. The money would be distributed as follows: 37% to financial aid; 9% to the graduate student support plan; 7% to the next year’s class of the Pack Promise students. We also believe that the Board of Governors will pass a restriction that states any campus initiated tuition increases have to devote 25% of the increase to faculty salary increases, which leaves 22% for what we have called academic quality improvement and accessibility improvement.

So far the committee has met five times and have had very good discussions. I think it is a tribute to our students. The one abstention from the vote was the co-chair of the committee, Will Quick, Student Body President. Will is also a member of the Board of Trustees and chose to abstain because he will vote on the proposal when it comes before the Board of Trustees.

There is 20% available for the Provost’s discretion as a way to support compact plan and strategic plan for the university. That 20% of this campus initiated tuition increase would be slightly below six million dollars, which is not a lot of money to support the university next year.

Enrollment projection for next year is in to the General Administration and if accepted it will create a budget cut for us just as it did for the current year because our enrollment projections have exceeded our enrollment for some years and we have decided that we need to bring those back in line so we took a budget cut this year and will take another one next year.

There will be a large increase in distance education enrollment and hence the dollars associated with that, but the money that we are getting from enrollment and distance education is needed to provide the distance education instructors and course work to be able to generate those enrollment dollars.

I would also like to introduce Dr. Terri Lomax who is our new dean of the graduate school. Dr. Lomax joins us most recently from several years with NASA and from a permanent position at Oregon State University. We are happy to have Dr. Lomax with us.

Questions

Chair-Elect Martin wanted to know how the 25% increase toward faculty salaries from tuition is going to play into or not any legislative increases. Is this going to be seen as separate or can they work together toward this 80 percentile?

Provost Nielsen responded, the latter. “President Bowles is very strong on the idea that we need to get to this 80 percentile of our peer group for faculty salaries and will have a large request into the legislature this year for salary increases to get us on the way there and by us committing 25% of our tuition increase dollars to that it shows that we are serious.”

Senator Kellner noted that there was an article in the Technician that recommended that one of our colleges adds a fifth year to their undergraduate program. He wonders, in the context of a 30% cut in general education how this whole matter needs to be shaping up and what sort of thoughts should be given to it and could it happen?

Senator Moore wanted to know the current status of PACE at the campus level.

Chair Allen stated that Vice Chancellor Leffler would report on PACE November 30.

Provost Nielsen stated that he thinks there are some good outcomes for the university. It may help to implement some things that should have been done a long time ago.

Chair Elect Martin stated that low as practicable tuition is an indefinable phrase in our constitution. Is there any conversation that is possibly trying to benchmark that toward the average cost of housing, or the average cost of family car. “It seems that if we could benchmark what that might be we would more readily be able to have intelligent discussions with what tuition increases should or should not be.”

Provost Nielsen stated that it would be wonderful if we had some absolute way to decide what tuition should be or to decide what the cost of an education should be. The interpretation that the Board of Governors has put on this (as low as practicable) is that we need to remain in the bottom quarter of tuition and fees combined for our sixteen peer institutions that we have. We are sixteen out of seventeen and we will remain there with the increase that we have had.

7. Introduction of Dr. Toby Parcel, Dean of CHASS

I asked Nina for a word here, because I would like to thank the Provost today for two things -- first, for informally including the CHASS senators (Greg Dawes, Janet Hudson, Bill Kinsella, and last year’s senators Mary Tetro and Dennis Dailey) in the search for a dean for our college. We thank you for the rather lengthy highly relaxed, dinners with each of the finalists. We had a fine time, and I am sure that the candidates got a clearer sense of the faculty and the role of the Faculty Senate.>

But more important, we want to congratulate you on your outstanding judgment in agreeing with us that Toby N. Parcel was the right candidate for the leadership of NC State's second largest college.

In 1941, Martin Parcel graduated from NC State (in ceramic engineering), little knowing that his daughter, whose appearance was still a long way in the future, would one day be an academic leader here in Raleigh.

Toby Parcel graduated from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill with highest honors in Sociology, Phi Beta Kappa, etc.; I shall mention no more honors and awards because the list is too long.

After completing a Ph.D. at the University of Washington, she began a distinguished career as a sociologist of the family and of labor markets. Work and family remain her professional concern, as she writes, for example, about a recent article; the effects of capital at home on children’s verbal facility in the United States and Great Britain. (On the whole, it seems, it’s better not to be poor.)

After a start at Iowa, Toby Parcel went to Ohio State, where she served as Associate Dean for 8 years before ascending to the Chair ship of the Sociology Department. In 2000 she moved to Purdue, where she served as Dean of the College of Liberal Arts and Special Assistant to the Provost.

And in 2006, she became our Dean in the College of Humanities and Social Sciences.

Having worked at Purdue and Ohio State, Dean Parcel knows what land-grant schools represent in the twenty-first century, and she is bringing that awareness to NC State.

Her experience is a great advantage to Humanities and Social Sciences.

May I present Dean Toby Parcel.

Remarks by Dr. Toby Parcel, Dean of Humanities and Social Sciences

Thank you for welcoming me here today.

It is a privilege to join you as dean of humanities and social sciences and I would like to spend a few minutes talking to you about what we are about and where we are going in CHASS.

We are very proud of the role we play in serving NC State undergraduate students through basic courses in English, Composition, Communication, Languages, electives. These courses help to provide a liberal arts background that is so essential in today’s changing world but at the same time there is a lot more.

Our college serves close to 4400 undergraduate majors; students of psychology, public affairs, philosophy, religious studies and many more areas.They become teachers, go to law schoolwork for major cooperations all the while using their education from CHASS. In addition, we train more than 750 graduate students in fields such as creative writing, sociology, public administration, technical writing, public history and others and last but certainly not least our faculty are nationally and internationally known for their research in both basic and applied areas, for their works of fiction and poetry and for their service to the professions to the state. I look forward to sharing more with you over time about the many faces of CHASS. I think we have a very bright future.

We are particularly enthusiastic about doing all we can to support NC State new strategic plan that stresses the importance of state becoming a more comprehensive university. We have a big role to play here and we are up to it. Several activities are going to be very key. First we are working to build our graduate programs. Already colleagues are at work proposing a new PhD program in public history, which builds upon a nationally known masters degree in the same field.

These PhDs are not traditionally placed on faculties and academia but rather seek employment in museums and other venues that play a vital role in bringing history to the public hence public history. Also in planning is a PhD in Spanish. This degree program will have a strong cultural component. Colleagues in that unit also hope to establish graduate exchange programs on the peninsula as well as in Latin America an integral part of this degree program.

Also under discussion a new PhD program in Social Linguistics and an MA in Philosophy; recent introduction of a women’s study’s major, which we are going to celebrate next Monday evening, a German studies major are illustrative of the greater bret of offerings at the undergraduate level, an undergraduate major in East Asian Studies is also at the planning stage. Building on an already strong faculty in Japanese this major would offer both a Japanese track and a Chinese track, the latter enriched by our developing partnerships with China.

We will hire and support faculty of the twenty first century. The more CHASS faculty I meet and the more I get to know their accomplishments the more impressed I am with their qualities so the foundation is very strong but we need to increase our faculty numbers both to support new graduate programs, take better care of the students we already have and to strengthen our research profile.

We currently have sixteen recruitment committees at work to select both faculty and leadership to build the future of our college but at the same time we also need to invest more in supporting faculty scholarship to help them improve their teaching and research productivity. To me there is nothing more important than building the quality of the faculty. There are also other aspects of the university’s strategic plan to which we will contribute. We have a vital role to play in promoting K-12 education. Our specific responsibility in teacher training is the content in the areas such as English language, global languages and social studies to complement the pedagogy that is taught in the College of Education. This is an important partnership for us and it is one that we take very seriously. More generally I think partnerships with other colleges are important because we can do so much more together than we can in isolation.

Finally our college can and already does play a major role in producing the scholarship of diversity and in providing scholarship relating to internationalization. We look forward to contributing to these aspects of the university strategic plan as well.

We will leave behind once and for all any notion that CHASS is just a service school. As I noted above we have multiple roles and we are proud of all of them. We need to get the word out so that this more balanced vision is known throughout the state and the nation. Accordingly I have appointed a committee to draft a communications plan for our college, one that I will present to the CHASS advisory board and to others on campus for feedback. Then we will implement taking full advantage of both print and electronic means to tell our story of our research, our teaching and our engagement. So look for our new CHASS magazine by Spring 2007 in addition I would like all of you to be on our electronic mailing lists for a news letter that will keep you up to date on what is going on in CHASS.

In addition in the future I see a college that has stronger interdisciplinary tides than maybe it has had in the past or right now. We are growing our interdisciplinary programs within CHASS with new programs in Africana Studies, International Studies, Women in Gender Studies among others but we need to look outside the college as well. For example, the new initiative in analytics could be an interdisciplinary effort to which CHASS would contribute. Colleagues in Philosophy for example are concerned with the ethical implications mass of data and the privacy risks as we begin ever more efficiently searching these large databases.

Gerontology provides another possible area for collaboration. Already there are colleagues in psychology sociology well engaged in research on aging. So how could we partner among these colleagues and also extend out to others across campus to tackle key issues to help our elderly. We need to work more effectively on these interdisciplinary teams and some of these initiatives should come from CHASS. CHASS shouldn’t always be just asked to join something that others have initiated. I look forward to helping all of that happen.

We also need to build our resource base in order to better support each aspect of our mission. I am already working with our Provost regarding the CHASS budget so that we can evolve to the point where we have a budget adequate to meet the growing demands of our students and the needs of our faculty. We also need to do more to generate our own resources so I have been very busy meeting donors, alumni, and other friends of CHASS and the university. It used to be that deans of arts and sciences at state universities were only marginally involved in development but I can assure you that those days are long gone. I look forward to helping CHASS raise private funds as another key fiscal building block for our college.

Finally our faculty need to become more active in bringing in grants to support research to be sure there is a decent foundation here and I am also pleased to learn that colleagues in the humanities have been very active and successful in this arena, which is something to be applauded particularly given the lower levels of funding available in some of those fields. In the aggregate the college needs to step it up. I want to help heads and faculty work to make that possible over time.

I very much value the trust that the Chancellor and Provost to place in meet to lead CHASS in meeting its part of the university’s mission. I am certainly grateful for your warm welcome and for what I hope will be your support of our college in implementing this vision in years ahead.

8. Equity Acquisition Policy

Dr. David Winwood, Associate Vice Chancellor in Technology Development and Innovation stated that the regulation is to clarify the rights and responsibilities of all the parties who are involved in those cases when we have a technology transaction in which the university will receive some equity, some ownership in a company in exchange for licensing. This is typically a start up company. Last year the university entered into six such arrangements and altogether we now have sixty-three start-up companies originating from NC State’s technologies. This is a very active area of involvement for NC State.

This policy has to line within the policy of the UNC System. As a research extensive institution we occasionally have an opportunity to accept equity for a licensing agreement from a company. The startup company may not have cash available so instead of providing us with a cash arrangement for exchange of access for intellectual property as may be the case an established cooperation very often the start up company would prefer to give us a small percentage ownership in their company. This opens up many other areas of potential conflicts that are different from those situations where we simply accept a royalty payment from a company and this policy is really designed to limit any of the adverse institutional conflicts or personal conflicts for investigators for departments for the university and for various offices within the university involved in completing these transactions.

One of the reasons that NC State engages in this activity is consistent with our mission in terms of economic development or do we want to commercialize our technology sometime through small business or start up companies when it is appropriate to do so.

Chair Allen wanted to know how many companies have accepted equity this year.

Dr. Winwood responded that every startup company that we have done in the last several years has been some equity so it is almost always the case.

Any restrictions that are imposed are the result of our having to adhere to the UNC System policies. When the equity transaction actually happens, when it is conveyed from the company to the university from the time of the license agreement and there is a distribution that happens to the inventors as well we want the company to transact that equity to the inventor directly. NC State does not want to be a position of holding equity on behalf of an inventor.; There are too many liabilities associated with it so in these cases we would have the licenses issued directly to the inventor and again as pointed out in the UNC System policy and in our policy the inventor who receive that equity is responsible for securing their own tax and security and legal advice.

One aspect of the document is that a founder of a company is not eligible to receive equity from a university share. A founder is any university faculty, staff, or student inventor who is really an integrated part of the startup company. This basically says that you cannot double dip as an investigator as an inventor. You will receive your distribution directly from the company and not from the university’s portion of the transaction. However any founder is still eligible to receive proceeds from royalty generation that we receive.

Again, part of the UNC System requirement which states that only one office in each campus may be responsible for negotiating licenses on behalf of the subject institution and at NC State it is the office of technology transfer which is unless otherwise approved by the Chancellor or Vice Chancellor. The normal practice is that this work this type of negotiation as very much a partnership with our faculty inventors so we are working OTT as a team with them to try and identify suitable investors and other management.

Again the key points coming from the system level down to NC State is that one office has to maintain responsibility for actually participation or license agreement negotiation.

There are few limitations placed on the university, which are all quite reasonable and sensible. We may not accept or hold a controlling interest in any licensee in any startup company. We are not in the business of running companies. We want to make sure that a startup company or a small company has an opportunity to bring our technologies to the public benefit but we don’t run the business.

We will not accept more than a 25% share of equity in a licensee. Typically it is a much lower number than that. Also the university may not make any direct investment in any licensee from which we have received equity until that licensee are publicly traded on the stock market or is independently valued.

Certainly no officer or employer of the university who has been involved in negotiating or administrating this equity agreement on behalf of the university receives equity. Once again that restriction goes away at such time as the company is either publicly traded or independently valued. We have been behaving this way for the last several years.

If an inventor, faculty member is enrolled in a company and the faculty member works on his own time, using his own resources, what happens?

Winwood stated that the decision as to ownership is made by the intellectual property committee, not by the office of technology transfer.

Vice Chancellor John Gilligan added that there is another risk that if something does proceed with an outside company and it is not brought before the IPC and things are wildly successful twenty years down the road and the university finds out that they really did have an ownership issue with that company that is a much bigger risk than getting it taken care of upfront. When you do that you don’t have to worry about that downstream issue.

9. Graduate Student Support Plan Faculty Taskforce

Dr. Gary Payne, Chair of the taskforce stated that the Faculty Tuition Remission Committee was charged to develop a plan to cover the short fall in tuition remission funds for graduate students. He noted that International and non-resident US students have to pay out of state tuition. Non-resident students can usually get that waived after one year by applying for residency in North Carolina. International students cannot get North Carolina residency so they are on graduate student support plans for the duration of their graduate program. The recommendation from the committee on this issue reflect a common goal of developing a plan that is as equitable as possible across all Colleges in the University, and that encourages the development of student representation. The committee also recognizes the importance of TR funds in supporting non-resident students throughout their graduate careers as well as facilitating their recruitment to NCSU.

Specific Recommendations:

1. The committee recommends a review of the entire structure of our GSSP and a comparison of how other schools address this issue. We suggest a comparison with our peer institutions. Faculty should play a key role in this evaluation, which should address how Research and Teaching Assistantships are funded and distributed.

2. Colleges should implement a proactive plan to balance the percentage of nonresident and resident students.

3. To encourage efforts to balance nonresident and resident students, colleges with balanced graduate populations should only be asked to match the TR funds if all other avenues to address a shortfall have been exhausted. The need for matching funds from these colleges should be reassessed annually.

4. Currently, Facility and Administrative receipts from research grants are being used to cover the shortfall in TR.  For this reason, the committee recommends that priority for TR funds be in the order of Ph. D. students first, research masters students second, and professional and no research masters students last.

5. Exceptions to the GSSP should be carefully evaluated and only allowed under special circumstances. We realize that the requirements for completion of degrees differ across departments, and exceptions to the GSSP may be justified in some programs. In other programs, however, greater oversight by individual departments could reduce the number of exceptions.

6. A proactive plan should be developed to encourage students to obtain North Carolina residency within their first year. Departments should require that domestic students initiate the process as soon as they begin their graduate program. Those colleges that are very successful in converting graduate students to North Carolina residency after one year should not be penalized by the TR plan.

7. When the current GSSP (Graduate Student Support Plan) was designed, faculty were assured that the requirement of students to enroll in more credit hours would provide for a self-supporting GSSP. If some of these funds have been diverted to other uses, we strongly encourage a realignment of the funds back to the graduate program.

8. The FTRC also recommends that any TR assessment that may be necessary to fund the GSSP be applied to all sources of funds for graduate students. Ledger 2 and 4 accounts should not be exempt.

9. Any change that results in charges to contracts and grant funds should not take effect until Fall 2007 and should exclude graduate students who are enrolled prior to this date

Long Term Solution to the Problem

1. We recommend increased support from the State of North Carolina for out of state students. This could be done either by increasing allocations to the tuition remission program or by waiver of out of state tuition. The goal is for full GSSP support for all graduate students.

2. We recommend that faculty be included in an expression of concerns about out of state tuition for graduate students directly to President Bowles and the UNC system administration. The theme of such a representation would be that NC State is doing everything it can to use TR funds efficiently, but our graduate and research programs are in danger of being severely limited by the current lack of availability of adequate State TR funds.

A strong and viable graduate education program requires a blend of well-qualified in-state, national and international students. The committee recommends a program that encourages the participation of all three groups in our graduate program.

Questions and Answers

Is there an assumption that what counts as balances would be the same across colleges?

Payne responded that there would be differences across colleges.

Will there be differences in terms of cultivating certain culture in the colleges?

Payne stated that he firmly believe that colleges should really work at recruiting in-state students and US citizens. “I know that is difficult but if you work at it you can get the numbers up.”

Payne stated that overall he thinks the trend has to be the balance between national and international students. “What we don’t want to see happen is that we use all the graduate student support on international students, the taxing of other colleges to help subsidize them and colleges that have ready pools of post docs. The trend is going to push them to get a post doc.

If it takes less US students would it decrease the number of international students?

Payne stated that within a range there would be a certain portion. We are never going to argue about taking less students, I don’t think that is the goal of this university. The goal is to try to maximize these funds for graduate student support.

Are we playing the numbers game or are we worried about quality?

Payne stated that we try to balance for diversity. Clearly I don’t think economically we can support that many international students.

Senator Hanley-Bowdoin stated that if a large number of international students are in one college it really puts a strain on the whole system and the consequences of that can be very detrimental in other colleges and that is the real problem so there really have to be a way to come up with an equitable approach that recognizes the diversity across the colleges and also is allowing us to live within our means.

Is it correct that GSSP is funded from out of state tuition receipts?

Dr. Larick, Associate Dean of the Graduate School stated that the initial graduate student support plan is designed to be sustainable. We did in fact increase registration to full time; nine credits and three credits after the prelim. We did intend that money from the increase in enrollment would come back to the plan to sustain it and that has not happened as efficiently as it should have. The reality is any tuition that is paid goes to the cashier’s office and it doesn’t come back into the GSSP. It goes to the general university budget and it is used for the whole teaching mission. There is no sustainable direct funding that goes back into the GSSP. Increases have resulted from the Provost and Vice Chancellor Gilligan putting money into it from campus initiated tuition increases.

Where do the out of state tuition funds go?

Larick stated that it goes just like any other tuition. It does not come back to the graduate student support plan.

Provost Nielsen stated that all tuition is part of the university’s budget. There are two sources of money that supports what we call the budget; tuition payments and appropriation by the legislature that comes in and is allocated out.

Comment: It just seems like the GSSP should be self funding out of this out-of-state category because if you don’t have the out-of-state student who doesn’t pay the out-of-state tuition then you don’t have the money.

Senator Hanley-Bowdoin stated that when it was originally presented to the faculty it was presented to faculty and agreed upon by the faculty because it was going to be self funded and self supported and we were going to be all cost neutral. That was the understanding that the faculty had and I think if it had been clearly stated at that time that there wouldn’t be a cost to control the process there would have been a lot of faculty in opposition to the implementation of this.

Provost Nielsen stated that there was an expectation that there was a specific source of revenue that was going to be earmarked to fund the graduate student support.

Vice Chancellor Gilligan stated that there was a general understanding that as graduate enrollment increased that money would be filed back into not only the graduate student support plan but to those colleges that were growing for faculty positions and the compact plant, etc., but with any kind of organization I think that kind of institutional memory has been lost because it was never a formula. What has changed over time is that we have probably added more international students in a higher fraction than what was present at the time ten years ago so that has probably changed as a result of the realities of the many disciplines and the growth in those colleges that have grown. There has been tremendous growth. It has not all gone back into where we would want it to go for various reasons. The state did put more money into this in 1999 and there was a review of this not long after that so there has been a review over the last ten years.

The graduate school is in the process of responding to the Task force report.

Vice Chancellor Gilligan stated that the NIH restricted its amount of support for tuition purposes.; It actually affects our in-state. Instate students will be okay on the out of state side but it is going to cause a shift in thinking. We are working on a response to this report.

Larick added, what we are going to try to include would be to look at the economy of graduate education because it is also important if we are going to look at by college then we need to also realize that a category 4 College of Engineering doctoral student brings $41,000 to the university in enrollment increase funding so we bring in a new doctoral engineering student then the state gives us $41,000 so in a worse case scenario we are going to pay for the entire time a TA is here. If we take off from the $41,000 we get, instate and out of state tuition, health insurance and a stipend we still make money as a university.

If we talk about limits I want us to make sure that we look at the economics of graduate education completely; the inputs and the cost of that.

If I am hired here as a department head, is there a course on how the graduate student support plan works?

Larick stated that he thinks transparency would help up immensely when it comes to things like enrollment planning that has to be done at the departmental level and if people had a clear picture of where they stood and what they could do it would help us in that annual event at the graduate level.

Gilligan stated that there have been applications forever in individual colleges and department. You have to look at it and say over the years until this year no one were ever charged it they were over their limits because there was always enough reserve to cover an individual college that went over their limits. Just keep recruiting. You have to create the demands many times before you get the stuff coming back. The best advice is to increase the demand and increase the number of good high quality graduate students here in order to generate the revenue that will come back.

What are the category four programs that you said were getting $41,000? What are the other categories? Are the category four appropriate to date to today’s definition or were they defined twenty years ago?

Larick responded that the College of Engineering and the College of Textiles are the category fours. Life Sciences I know fit into category 3; Physical and Mathematical Sciences fit into category two generally; Humanities and Social Sciences fit into category one. Some of the agriculture programs I think also fit into category one.

Provost Nielsen stated that we get $41,000 if we take an engineering doctoral student. You get $41,000 if our enrollment growth projection projected that student. The university is funded on a budgeted enrollment plan, which, is how many students we say we are going to take. If the number we say we are going to take next year is larger than the number that we are going to take this year then we will receive some more money because of the budgeted projected enrollment growth. The reality is that our actual enrollment isn’t generating the dollars that the projected enrollment says it should.

The Legislature figures how much money need which, they call the requirement and that money is made up of the tuition revenue that we generate and the difference between the total requirement and the tuition money that our budgeted enrollment says we are going to get. If we don’t make the enrollment that we projected there is a shortfall because we didn’t get those tuition dollars in and that is what we are dealing with. The place where we have not been making our enrollment is in graduate education. What that means is that we projected this money and we have allocated it all out but we don’t have all the students there that deserve that money.

There have been several comments that we will look at these ideas, revisions, etc., could someone define who, that we will be and will faculty be included in part of the we?

Gilligan stated that based on the results of the faculty committee review and the previous proposal of the graduate school right now meeting, Dean Lomax will respond how they see these recommendations and get a written evaluation of that and either present data and show the effect of that or of comments from other colleges and then at some point I will take a look at these reports and make a decision soon if I am going to recommend that we do this, the matching thing for next year. If we don’t decide to go through it I am going to have to make cuts in other things because I can’t continue to suck on that graduate student support plan for my other sources.

Dean Lomax stated that as part of their compact plan they would look at what is going on with the GSSP and work to improve it and make it more transparent.

Chair Elect Martin stated that it was suggested that they draft a resolution as a follow-up to this discussion.

Chair Elect Martin presented the resolution for its first reading.

A lengthy discussion was held on the resolution.

A motion was made and seconded to extend the meeting by 10 minutes.

The motion was seconded and passed unanimously.

A motion was made and seconded to adopt the resolution. The motion passed unanimously to adopt the resolution.

Chair Allen assigned the regulation on conflict of interest to the Personnel Policy Committee for review.

Adjournment

A motion passed to adjourn the meeting at 5:15p.m.

Footer Nav