NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIVERSITY
Minutes of the Faculty Senate
January 30, 2007
Present: Chair Allen, Secretary Bruck, Chair-Elect Martin, Parliamentarian Corbin, Provost Nielsen; Senators Anson, Blair, Branoff, Culbreth, Dawes, Evans, Fauntleroy, Fleisher, Genzer, Gustke, Hanley-Bowdoin, Heitmann, Hudson, Jones, Kellner, Khosla, Kinsella, Moore, Overton, Ozturk, Raymond, Robarge, Scotford, Shamey, Smith, Wessels, Williams, Yencho
Excused: Senator Muddiman, Schultheis
Absent: Senators Akroyd, Banks-Lee, Lindbo, Mulvey, Murty
Visitors: James Oblinger, Chancellor; PJ Teal, Secretary of the University; Kevin Howell, Assistant to the Chancellor for External Affairs; Tom Kendig, Director of Transportation; Greg Cain, Assistant Director of Parking Services; Bill Swallow, Department of Statistics; Marcia, Gumpertz; Assistant Vice Provost for Faculty & Staff Diversity; Katie Perry, Senior Vice Provost; Lauren Gregg, News Services; David Rainer, Associate Vice Chancellor for EHPS; David Genereux, Associate Professor; Lee Fowler, Director of Athletics; Jose Picart, Vice Provost for Diversity & African American Affairs; Karen Helm, Director of University Planning and Analysis
1. Call to Order
Chair Nina Stromgren Allen called the tenth 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
Chair Allen welcomed Senators and guests.
Chair Allen announced that the General Faculty Meeting would be held Tuesday, March 20, 2007 in room 2215 Williams Hall at 3:15 p.m. The forum will be a panel discussion on graduate education and the graduate student support plan.
The Emerging Issues Forum will be February 1-2.
Chair Allen announced that she and Chair Elect Martin wrote a letter to Mayor Meeker and the City Council asking them to endorse the Hillsborough Street project and renovation.
Chair Allen reported on the Faculty Assembly elections.
The new and continuing for a third time chair is Brenda Killingsworth from ECU and the secretary is Judith Wegner who was chair of Chapel Hill’s Faculty Council.
3. Approval of the Minutes, Meeting No. 9, January16, 2007
The motion passed unanimously to approve the minutes.
4. Remarks from Chancellor Oblinger
Chancellor Oblinger reported that they have achieved a billion dollars on the capital campaign eighteen months early. At the end of December 2006 the campaign stood at one billion fifty-three million, three hundred forty one thousand, four hundred fifty six dollars.
The Park Alumni Center was dedicated on December 8, 2006. It is the new home of all North Carolina State Alumni. Gifted money that has made the building possible stands at approximately $21.5M.
Tom O’Brien has been hired as the new football coach. The Faculty Senate and the faculty in general will be very impressed and pleased with what he stands for as it relates to his involvement in the campus as well as his involvement in the community.
A Search firm has been retained for the Vice Chancellor for University Advancement position. Vice Chancellor Leffler and Dean Johnny Wynne of Agriculture and Life Sciences are co-chairs of that nominating committee. Advancement currently includes Public Affairs, the Alumni Association as well as Advancement Services, which is a database of processing aspect.
Every five years certain administrators including all the Vice Chancellors have a comprehensive five-year review. The five-year review for Tom Stafford, Vice Chancellor of Student Affairs was just initiated.
In the spring John Gilligan will undergo his first five-year review and in the fall Mary Beth Kurz will be up for her second five-year review.
Chancellor Oblinger welcomed participation from the Faculty Senate in all of the reviews.
The Kiplinger Magazine talked about best values in public higher education in America. NC State is ranked twelfth for the first time up from twenty-eighth.
Mayor Meeker noted the letter from the Faculty Senate to the Mayor and City Council pertaining to Hillsborough Street. Students have also been very active. They have had positive editorial petitions in support of what is being proposed in Project A on Hillsborough Street.
The university is now taking positions with various groups relative to the Dorothea Dix property. Chancellor Oblinger thinks there should be a destination park in that area. The university is taking a stand and he thinks it is a stand that has a lot of mutual benefits associated with it, which is one of the things that NC State is known for. He noted that once the decision is made on the Dix property it is forever and we will continue to do our best to influence this decision to NC State’s advantage.
Chancellor Oblinger introduced Kevin Howell as the Assistant to the Chancellor for External Affairs. Kevin Howell was the chief lobbyist for the past six years for Governor Easley. Kevin is an attorney. He was the 1987-88 Student Body President at North Carolina State University. He spent several years with the North Carolina Bar Association and before that he was with Governor Hunt. He has tremendous experience and Chancellor Oblinger is pleased to have him on board.
Chancellor Oblinger reported that there is going to be a real push on accountability (retention and graduation rates and other measures of performance) from the President and his people. They have brought people in from California to analyze school by school in the system, performance criteria, how we have been performing, and what we could do to perform. The Provost will report to the Senate on a recurring basis of the efforts of that group.
PACE continues for the next eighteen months. It has been intensive and has been taken over by Jeff Davies, Chief of Staff for Erskine Bowles. As this decentralizes on our campus we are very much ahead of most of the other campuses in terms of where we are at looking at efficiency and effectiveness as it relates to money that could be saved on the campus, but retained on the campus and allocated to core functions of teaching, research or extension and outreach.
The university is about to undertake another eighteen month study that titles “How the University of North Carolina can best serve North Carolina over the next twenty years”, and Norma Mills who was the chief person in Mark Basnight’s organization for a long time will chair it. She is now Professor of the practice of the School of Government at Chapel Hill and has been asked by President Bowles to chair this effort. This effort will be comprised of the Blue Ribbon Committee of Notable Business Government and Academic Leaders. It will also have a faculty counsel of sixty-eight people representative of the system.
President Bowles rated himself in front of the Board of Governors. He reflected on his inauguration and he particularly noted Kannapolis and the Marine Sciences, both programs that NC State plays a leadership role in.
The last thing that he mentioned with great pride was last year’s increase in faculty compensation. The fact that he has required that if you are going to have a campus-based tuition increase that at least 25% of it will be committed to tenure track faculty salary improvement and his major item in the budget that deals with the eightieth percentile.
Priorities that impact NC State
The system level would include need-based financial aid, $35M; Academic Salary Increases, $120M; Research Competitiveness Fund, $15M; Recruitment of Outstanding Graduate Students, $5.5M of which we would get $1.2; Kannapolis; Supporting New Teachers; Photonics, and the Research Vessel Hatteras for Marine Sciences.
Chancellor Oblinger reported that all system level priorities, all things that are in our red brick budget that is already downtown thanks to Kevin Howell.
NC State Specific
Science Technology, Engineering and Math $1.0M; The Center for Bio-Energy Technology; Entreprenueralship; Regional Economic Development
Centennial Campus Library named for Governor Hunt; The Randall B Terry Companion Animal Hospital at the Vet School; College of Engineering Facilities; and Improvement to 4H campus
Chair Allen wanted to know the Chancellor’s thoughts on President Bowles’ suggestion that there be a lot of faculty input in PACE. She noted that one other faculty member has been added to the PACE Committee other than Senator Hanley-Bowdoin.
Chancellor Oblinger stated that they would welcome faculty. They are looking at everything and are open to suggestions.
Senator Kellner noted that the Chancellor had mentioned that the Park Alumni Facility was built entirely with external funds. He wanted to know how such monies are raised and whether they are considered separate from the billion dollars that were raised in the larger fund. Could the same fund-raising model be used for the construction of other buildings that the campus might need, such as an arts facility.
Chancellor Oblinger responded that the model is alive and well. He doesn’t know how many individual givers are associated with the alumni building. The lead naming gift came from Dorothy Park and it was $5.0M. There were seven or eight donors that gave one million dollars.
Senator Kellner wanted to know who oversaw the initial contacts and the identification of the need for an alumni center, in order to raise the naming gift and the other gifts.
Chancellor Oblinger responded, “Ultimately the Chancellor did however in reality it was the development officers that worked for the Alumni Association who report to Terry Wood, the Vice Chancellor for University Advancement.”
5. Electronic Student Course Evaluation
Karen Helm, Director of University Planning and Analysis reported that there is a university policy that governs the evaluation of teaching. Some departments have developed their own online evaluation systems. Others still use bubble sheets, which are scanned by the university and sent to her office for report preparation and still other departments use methods that she is not familiar with.
UPA looked at the old system for course evaluation as a whole and saw signs that indicated some serious problems. Looking at spring 2005 the university taught 5,891 sections, UPA received scanned data sets for 2,337 sections so they assumed that the data for other departments were being handled other ways. Of the 2,337 data sets, 315 data sets were problematic and there was no report generated for those. The 2000 data sets that were left the response rates ranged from 4 to 200%. For the 2000 sections that had satisfactory data sets the overall response rate was 46%.
Helm stated that they received section data sets sometimes months after the end of the semester, which made them worry because there were some potential for generating incomplete reports.
Centralizing the data collection system would improve the quality of the data and putting it online would make the data collection far more efficient.
Approximately one year ago Provost Nielsen asked University Planning to lead the design and implementation of a single online system for end of course evaluations. At the same time last spring the Evaluation of Teaching Committee also revised the university regulations for this course evaluation system accordingly.
Helm’s first step was to assemble a technical team to develop the system consisting of people from University Planning, the Registrar’s Office, and DELTA and they were advised by two members of the Evaluation of Teaching Committee. They considered all of the online systems that were currently deployed by some departments in the university and ended up moving the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences System up into a university platform and eventually they added folks from CALS to the implementation team and ended up piloting a new process in December for the fall semester. After moving into the implementation phase in December it seemed clear that they had to reconstitute the project team adding faculty and students. Undergraduate and graduate students were added as well. Their goal through the system remained very high. Helm stated that a very high response rate is important, a high response rate in every section because only if they have a high response rate in every section will the instruction of every section receive valid data.
Another goal is data security for both students and faculty. Students want to know that their instructors will never know who gave which response. The results describing faculty, the security of those data are also very important. They are considered part of the faculty’s personnel file so they are protected by law and by university regulations. They send individual reports to the department head that distributes them to the faculty members. Public reports may not include any data that include individually identifiable data so if there is a cell with less than five in it that cell will remain blank.
Another goal for the system is faster reports, which is less of a hassle for the departments. Eventually as they phase this in all courses on campus and off, fall, spring, and summer will be included in this system and they will also provide a function so that individual instructors, departments and colleges may add unique questions.
Helms stated that they piloted in December with seven departments. All four departments were in the College of Management, as well as statistics, computer science, and marine, earth, and atmospheric sciences. The class evaluation website was opened from December 2 to December 12 and it included only on-campus courses. There were 24, 240 possible surveys. Response rates were received from 60.4% of those possible responses. Department by department the response rates ranged from 46 to 74%. Response rates appeared to be lowest for labs. The potential students participating were almost eleven thousand. Of those students 53% completed all of the surveys that they were asked to complete. Twelve percent completed one but not all and thirty-five percent of the students did not participate at all. Seventy seven percent of the instructors in the pilot had a response rate greater than 50%, twenty three percent less than 50%. Helms said they have started to evaluate the December pilot by looking at the process data and by debriefing the pilot department. In the next few weeks they plan to ask participating students for suggestions and feedback on making it better.
Karen Helm’s Observations
What made the difference in response rates? We tracked the response rates by hour of the day, by day, by department and whenever there was a message to students there was a bump in the resource. It was clear that departments whose heads communicated with faculty and with students had the highest response rates. Faculty communicating with students is an ingredient in making this system work. Sixty percent may be a respectable start to an experiment but we have a long way to go until we have achieved a satisfactory response for the whole system.
What else did we learn? The students found it easy. The process worked well. Out of the eleven thousand students who could have participated in it we received only nineteen help desk calls. All of those were minor and we were able to address them within minutes.
For the high response departments the data was a much higher quality than what we had seen in the previous system. We also discovered as you would with any new process that there are a number of questions we had not anticipated.
The Next Step
Helms stated that their next step is to finish evaluating the fall pilot, decide very soon how far to scale up the process in the spring semester. They plan to work hard on developing some strategy for improving the response rate including incentives (positive or negative). They received feedback from the pilot department that they should consider the dates when the website is open and there were some issues related to full email boxes that needed to address.
6. LGBT(LesbianGayBisexualTransexual) Center
Dr. Bill Swallow, Professor of Statistics reported that the proposal had been discussed in committee for some time. The proposal went to the full University Diversity Advisory Committee at the beginning of the semester and they were unanimous in their support and wrote a strong letter of support. The Student Senate passed a resolution of support with approximately two-thirds approval. The associate Deans for Academic Affairs also unanimously gave their support.
Dr. Swallow attended a town meeting in early December to offer an opportunity for anyone in the university community to speak. Many of the students had been afraid because of some of the negative atmosphere so they formed groups so they wouldn’t have to leave alone. He thought it was a good meeting and an opportunity for people to express their feelings.
Dr. Swallow noted that Princeton Review rated NC State seventeenth in terms of most gay unfriendly campuses among 361 campuses.
What is the purpose of the Center?
Swallows responded that there would be multiple purposes for the Center. This is faculty and staff, not just students that would be served. There is a larger university community that could become more interested and certainly could be influenced in ways that would create a more welcoming campus climate.
The Center would offer a safe space for that core constituency. A place where they could go and be assured that they were welcomed and could introduce their partner as their partner just as straight people do. They could have meetings and get together and there would also be resources there of interest to them. There would be counseling in a more relaxed and formal nature. There would be a number of programs organized by the center as educational purposes.
Dr. Picart, Vice Provost for Diversity and African American Affairs stated that one thing that emerged from the conversation was that there needs to be some education. He thinks the center could be a resource to the university in terms of providing education about issues.
7. Resolution on Support for Proposed LGBT Center
Senator Paul Williams, Chair of the Resources and Environment Committee presented a resolution on support for the proposed LGBT (LesbianGayBisexualTransexual) Center.
A motion was made and seconded to suspend the rules to pass the resolution on its first reading. The motion passed unanimously.
A motion was made and seconded to adopt the resolution. The motion passed unanimously to adopt the resolution.
A motion was made and second to reinstate the rules. The motion passed to reinstate the rules.
8. Issues of Concern
Chair Allen requested that the Academic Policy Committee review the recommendation to establish a department of elementary education.
Chair Allen received a question about EPA professionals being part of the Staff Senate and a question about EPA’s being on the Faculty Senate. Chair Allen assigned the issue to the Governance Committee for it to review and report back to the Senate.
9. Parking Proposals
Greg Cain, Assistant Director for Parking Services stated that in the last couple of months the Department of Transportation has been doing some studies. One has been a peer study with other university parking and transportation systems that replicate ours similar in size. We have a large number of parking spaces comparingly for capital for most universities. A lot of flexibility in our system and the costs are fairly low when making these comparisons.
The negative is that it does work against having a good transportation demand management program with alternative transportation. The department works very hard to have car pool programs, transit operations that are efficient and effective and many other forms of alternative transportation.
Transportation did a parking precinct study. The “B” permit holders have access to more than 11,500 parking spaces on this campus. The “C” permit has access to more than 10,000 spaces. If Raleigh zoning codes were applied for campus precincts to look at the parking availability and based that on academic square footage North Campus would actually have 57% of spaces that would be required based on that academic footage. When you move to central campus and apply similar numbers it jumps to 270% so there is a significant amount of parking on the central campus. The highest occupancy rate found was in the coliseum deck, which approaches 91% at peak times, which for the purposes of the way the deck is used, that is considered full occupancy. The “B” occupancy was around 79% and “C” was sixty eight percent. Forty-five percent of the permits sold can park somewhere on each of the five campus precincts.
Cain stated that in the last year they have identified some excess space on Centennial Campus and it is sold for $7 per month where employees can park their vehicle and car pool to other parts of the campus.
Cain stated that they are also working with facilities toward expanding the transit operations since they don’t begin in time to capture the housekeepers and some of those employees that start working as early as 4 a.m.
Cain reported that starting this fall we are going to go to a three-year permit, which would decrease cost.
The “AV” designations are being changed to “UV”, which will stand for University Vehicle. Any yellow plated vehicle can purchase a UV permit. Their goal is to cluster those as much as possible and try to get those state vehicles parked in areas that are acceptable to them. A financial incentive is being offered. A permit will be provided for parking in that location at $25 for the year and that will be combined with a hang tag of permit combo that also is a gate card and will allow access to North Campus for the purpose of loading and unloading.
Currently regulations allow departments to buy whatever they want but under the proposed regulations the only departmental permit will be a U (universal) that allows parking in almost all unreserved spaces. Departments can purchase that permit and it can be used for those employees who really need to have access to prime parking and they don’t have that type of permit on their personal vehicle. It is fully intended for short-term temporary use.
Transportation is proposing an increase in parking fees this fall. The proposal for the vast majority of employees with a B, C, or Deck permit, translates to either seventy-five cents or one dollar per month. The student range will be from zero to twelve dollars and reserved spaces will increase to $900 per year.
Senator Robarge wanted to know if there is a possibility of moving forward not to think of the 9-5 type of assignment of space, to think more in terms of a twenty four hours access where people can have access at different times.
Cain stated that technology is certainly there to do it but the negative side to that approach is that they have had some lots where they did that and all the spaces didn’t get used and there were complaints from students and their parents about how they were being made to walk so far in the dark and there were also safety issues.
Academic Policy Committee
Proposed Practice for Handling MP3 Files
Senator Neal Blair, Chair of the Academic Policy Committee read the information they received on the proposed practice:
Submitted to Academic Policy Committee by Katie Perry (1/23/07) for review
Any faculty member who creates MP3 files of their lectures and offers them through a commercial vendor must provide a copy to the Library. The Library will provide access to the file through their electronic reserve system to the students currently enrolled in the class. The Library also has MP3 players available for loan, so students without a player can borrow one and access the files. This process will be the implementation of the University invoking its shop right to these materials.
Senator Blair stated that the intention was to make sure everyone had equal access to these files especially disadvantaged students.
Senator Kellner wanted to know if the proposal is currently in effect. He also wanted to know whether the files are downloadable or streamed. Can an individual own a copy the way one can an article (PDF) on e-reserve?
Senior Vice Provost Perry responded yes, it is downloadable.
A motion was made and seconded to extend the meeting five minutes.
The motion passed.
Senator Blair stated that the committee thinks this is a fair solution. Some of the committee members had a concern that this is perhaps dealing with a system that has already been seen with the myspace issue. He feels that there should be a discussion to think about the future of how this should be dealt with.
Senator Bruck wanted to know what prompted this proposal.
Provost Nielsen stated that a faculty member started selling his lecture and it became a concern because it might give an unfair advantage. The issue was discussed in his office and the result was in the course of delivering a lecture you are in fact performing work on behalf of the university and because you can record the lecture it is okay to sell it, however the university retains a right to that material because your lecture is in fact what we pay you to do. They bought the shop right that says we have the right to use it in class and you have to provide us with a copy.
A motion was made and seconded to extend the meeting five minutes.
The motion passed to extend the meeting five more minutes.
After some discussion on the proposal Senator Blair moved that Senior Vice Provost Perry draft a memo for consideration by the Senate. The motion was seconded and passed unanimously.
Senator Robarge moved to extend the meeting five minutes.
The motion was seconded and passed to extend the meeting five minutes.
Personnel Policy Committee
Senator Robarge, Chair of the Personnel Policy Committee reported that last year there was a proposal for mandatory training on unlawful discrimination and harassment for North Carolina State employees that has been revised and sent forward. The committee reviewed the proposal and recommended some minor changes and still as a group supports the mandatory training on campus of all employees regarding unlawful discrimination. That proposal will eventually go forward.
Policy 0420.06 on personal relationships among faculty, staff, and students is a very short regulation that needs to be changed because the current document mentions things like professional relationships which is in reference to employment and consulting as well as discrimination. Those are now covered by other regulations across the campus. There was some wording regarding certain things that needed to be inserted, which was a recommendation by the Board of Governors. The committee reviewed the changes and discussed it with Joanne Woodard and recommends that the Faculty Senate approve the policy.
Senator Robarge moved approval of the policy. The motion was seconded and passed unanimously.
Regulation 05.20.24 – Post Tenure Review of Faculty
A recommendation was brought forth by Senior Vice Provost Perry to make large changes in the regulation specifically an addition to section 4, which is standards for meet and does not meet expectations. There are changes regarding the clarifications that the departments will do post tenure review by rule and there are specifications to review documents that must be prepared. Also confusion in regards to the SME in the fact that post tenure review only refers to the period between either when you were granted tenure and your first post tenure review or the period after your post tenure review and the subsequent post tenure review. The Committee discussed this with Vice Provost Perry and among themselves. The committee is recommending that the Senate accept all of the changes proposed. They are viewing this as a continuance expansion and fully intend that in the future there will be additional revisions and fine- tuning of this.
Senior Vice Provost Perry stated that the essence of the edit is that the standards are now in the document and they are not going to be in each department. The other two changes are things that were missed in the Board of Governors dictate that we have to have relative to the plan, and the removal of consecutives, which the deans were very strong about because if that is not included you can get a does not meet and you get to do the bare minimum of getting by the following year and then you can go back off track again.
Chair-Elect Martin moved to table the document. The motion was seconded and passed unanimously.
The motion was made and seconded to adjourn the meeting.
The meeting adjourned at 5:25 p.m.