FACULTY SENATE MEETING
October 9, 2007
Regular Meeting No. 4 of the 54th Session
Present: Chair Martin, Secretary Kellner, Past Chair Allen, Provost Nielsen, Parliamentarian Corbin; Senators Ambaras, Akroyd, Anson, Bernhard, Dawes, Domingue, Evans, Fauntleroy, Fleisher, Hanley-Bowdoin, Havner, Hergeth, Heitmann, Hudson, Levy, Lindsay, Moore, Murty, Overton, Ozturk, Poling, Raymond, Ristaino, Schweitzer, Williams
Excused: Senators Lindbo, Robarge, Scotford, Shamey
Absent: Senators Genzer, Muddiman, Mulvey, Ting, Wessels
Visitors: P. J. Teal, Secretary of the University; Marcia Gumpertz, Assistant Vice Provost for Faculty and Staff Diversity; Amber Joyner, Student Senate – Chairman of Academics; Katie Perry, Senior Vice Provost; Cheryl Brown, ACE Fellow (Office of the Provost); Thomas Conway, Dean, DUAP; Kevin Howell, Chancellor’s Office; Lee Fowler, Athletic Director; Ken Esbenshade, Associate Dean – CALS; Louis Hunt, Enrollment Management; Cindy DeLuca, Enrollment Management; Jim Oblinger, Chancellor
1. Call to Order
Chair James D. Martin called the third meeting of the fifty-fourth session of the North Carolina State University Faculty Senate to order at 3:00 p.m.
2. Welcome & Announcements
Chair Martin welcomed Senators and Guests.
The next millennium seminar will be October 16 at 6 p.m. in the Stewart Theatre. The title is “Green is the New Black: The Future of Architecture Sustainable Style”. Charlie Rose will moderate a debate of some of the nation’s leading architects.
October 23—The Women’s Center is sponsoring the twentieth annual “Take Back the Night”.
Chair Martin plans to contribute fifty dollars on behalf of the Faculty Senate. He welcomed other contributions from the Senate.
The Listening Forum for UNC Tomorrow will be Wednesday, October 10 at 4 p.m. in the McKimmon Center. Chair Martin encouraged participation.
Chair Martin asked for faculty volunteers to serve on Monday, October 22 from 11a.m. – 1p.m. for the “Wear Red Get Fed Program.”
Remarks by Chair Martin
UNC Tomorrow-How should the University system best interface with/meet the needs of the State? And how do we meet the challenges of doing that?
--By presenting the faculty perspective prepared by the Executive Committee over the summer.
--By noting the information in UNC Tomorrow Blog
--By considering the range of needs of Higher Education, from the general call for high quality education to calls for more specific job training.
Institute for Emerging Issue’s Business Committee on Higher Education noted the need for higher education to:
- Ensure that graduates generally possess hard skills that are relevant to the global economy and to dynamic business needs. These hard skills include adequate levels of expertise in science, mathematics and technology.
- BUT also soft skills, which are a critical component of lifelong learning: Character, Communication Skills, Intellectual Agility, and Inter- and Intrapersonal Skills.
These are fundamental principles that are of importance to all manifestations of higher education…from the student getting an associates degree to the highest levels of graduate education. But how do we put this into practice, generally and specifically, for the UNC system?
All my reading and thinking about the future of higher education keeps coming back to the need for differentiated missions to accomplish differentiated solutions. And I believe an understanding and ‘master plan’ that understands our differentiated missions may be one of the most important ideas that could come from the UNC tomorrow initiative.
University System reminds me a bit of the electronic structure of an atom…so a brief lesson in Quantum Mechanics.
Electrons do not exist in a continuum of energy or position in an atom. Rather they exist in discrete energy levels, in different spatial regions. You can’t locate the exact position or momentum of the electron due to the uncertainty principle, but can define a region of greatest probability where you will find it.
- Describe electrons by what we call a wave function…y
- Each electron in a multi-electron atom is described by a wave function, differentiated by its unique set of quantum numbers.
- By analogy I will suggest each University in the system may be described by a unique set of quantum numbers.
- The Schrödinger equation is then used to describe that electron, in the context of the atom…the atom being the State’s University system.
H y = E y
- H is the Hamiltonian operator that allows us to evaluate the wave function and determine the energy of the electron.
- Determining the energy, or impact of a University’s wave function on the State is what UNC tomorrow is trying to do.
- H is an operator that includes terms for both Kinetic and Potential Energy…i.e. what universities do and have the potential to do.
- The wave function y of the UNC system can help describe the different electrons (Universities) that make up the system.
For teaching Quantum mechanics, simplify to “particle in a box.” This provides a simple set of boundary conditions…the electron exists if it is in the box, and doesn’t if it is not. For our analogy, the State of North Carolina is our box…(population, dollars available for funding…)
For a 1-D box of length a the wave function to describe this system is
y(x) = Ö(2/a) sin(npx/a)
Important part of equation for our discussion is the quantum number n
Demo with rope.
n = 1 Research Extensive
n = 2 4 year + masters/professional
n = 3 4 year
n = … community college
Wave function of the University system demonstrates that:
- Different quantum numbers results in different number of nodes.
- Different amplitude of wave…may relate to extent of depth of knowledge discovery and creation, vs. dissemination across distance of “box.”
- Each set of quantum numbers give wave functions that integrate to 1 electron…one University.
The challenge for the UNC tomorrow initiative is to understand the unique set of quantum numbers defining the wave function for each campus. Though wave functions may overlap each is distinct. This initiative is really trying to solve the Schrödinger Equation to determine the University’s wave function, and then determine the specific set of quantum numbers that uniquely define each campus.
3. Approval of the Minutes, Meeting No. 3, September 24, 2007
The motion passed to approve the minutes as amended.
4. Remarks by Chancellor Oblinger
I would like to share two things with you. It’s wonderful that you have Ruben Carbonelle here to give you some insight into the UNC Tomorrow effort that is under way. I will call your attention to the fact that Mike Waldon is also a member of the scholar’s council so NC State is pleased and proud to have two faculty participating on the council.
I spent Thursday, Friday, and Saturday with the Kenan Institute for Engineering Technology and Science. This is a Board that felt so strongly about some of the things that you have heard the faculty chair describe -- as a Research University at an engaged university that prides itself on outreach across the entire state -- to decide on their own to draft a letter that would be submitted shortly to the UNC Tomorrow Committee about the roles and scopes of the various universities in the system. Whether they want to talk about it in quantum mechanics or whether they want to talk about it in terms of mission this study is very much about missions in the seventeen entities that are part of the UNC system. Part of my presentation is going to be the DVD that is used and has been used at all ten of the sessions to date and will be used for the last time tomorrow at 4 o’clock. I want you to see what the audience that attends is faced with in terms of background. I would like for you as faculty of this great university to also make some observations on your own as it relates to what you see in the statistics that are cited there and the challenges and opportunities that we have as a university in this state, in this region, in this country and the world.
I am going to start with the Madison experience of sitting with three other Chancellors to judge five regional winners at a national conference on engagement and they weren’t all land grant institutions, some were small private institutions. One of the presentations came from Virginia Tech, and Charles Steger, the President of Virginia Tech, lead that discussion.
On my way to Madison I took the occasion, as I know several of you may have done, to read the Virginia Tech report in unabridged form. It is on the Governor of Virginia website. I have read two or three executive summaries from different sources of this report and they do not substitute for reading this report in its entirety.
I spoke with the Chair of the Faculty prior to the meeting today and what you are having now passed around is where the General Administration Task Force on Safety stands at the present time. They are not far away from finalizing a report that will permeate the system and come to each entity. Each entity will be charged to reflect upon what we ought to be doing as it relates to safety. We have been very well represented by David Rainer, Associate Vice Chancellor for Environmental Health and Public Safety. Couple that with the Attorney General’s study that is under way relative to campus safety. In the spirit of what the Provost put on the table in the form of issues being brought to the Senate, I bring the topic of campus safety. We will need to be heavily engaged as it relates to this topic. I will look to the faculty present in this body to give us guidance and reflection. I would encourage you, if you want a totally transparent assessment of what was done properly and what was not done properly, and if you want to read about the psychological background of an individual, if you want to read about FERPA and HIPPA in the inter- relationships between those two federal laws this should be required reading in that regard. It will have a direct impact on faculty particularly when you get into FERPA, things that you may know about some of your students. What kind of support do we give to you? What kind of support do we give to them? What type of contact and communication do we have with their parents and other appropriate parties? They are all very valid, very important, questions for us as faculty, us as administrators, us as staff, and us as students involved in those discussions.
The university has lost a great friend in Bob MeGehee who passed away this morning in London. Progress Energy for decades has been a tremendous partner for NC State University beyond one or two colleges with significant funding and significant support. He will be sorely missed. Our thoughts go out to the family and to the company.
UNC Tomorrow—A mission Study
Chancellor Oblinger showed the prelude that opens up all of the listening sessions. He noted that it is very important the things that have been mentioned about NC State’s role in the previous ten sessions. We know that our outreach function is well recognized, as is the role of Industrial Extension and how it has helped people and more recently the small business and technology development centers and the role that they play.
Three NC State students who get credit at all of the sessions developed the prelude.
- The goal of the University of North Carolina Initiative is to produce a more proactive university that is focused on meeting the challenges of the state over the next twenty years. What challenges facing our state do you want the university to respond to? With research and your input we will create a plan that is sustainable and responsive as we prepare for our North Carolina Tomorrow.
- The growth experience in North Carolina has not been even and is presenting new challenges for our state.
- The job and labor force of tomorrow will look quite different than they do today. Our response to current employment dreams is key to preparing for future growth.
- Even as the labor force changes, the types of skills needed to move ahead in our local economy are evolving, while traditional skills are becoming even more important for enterprise.
- Development of new skills is necessary today for our competition in this new global economy. As we invest more time coming to know our place in the world, the rapid pace of change will seem less daunting.
- With one of the most notably complete landscapes in the country, North Carolina has the opportunity to become aware of its impact on energy sources and the environment. From the mountains to the coast, we must care for our resources.
- The changes in North Carolina’s labor force, population, and the environment all play important roles in what the healthcare of tomorrow may look like.
- The profile of the traditional student may be quickly changing, but the need for a sound education remains the same. Children require our attention today and tomorrow.
5. UNC Tomorrow - Ruben Carbonelle
This video was made up of information gathered by the Scholars Council. Folks from various universities throughout the state -- experts in health, workforce, etc. -- were good enough to work on that. I personally took on the challenge of taking up the area of research, technology innovation, universal and global competitiveness. All of these reports can be downloaded from the website of the UNC Tomorrow Commission.
When I was first asked to serve on this council, the attempt of the initiative was so much in outreach that there was very little about of the basic things that we do. Because I am much more into the research side of technology and innovation, I decided to insert that component into it.
The goals of the UNC Tomorrow Commission are to produce a more proactively responsive university focused on meeting the challenges of the state over the next twenty years. The word responsive -- obviously with all these needs -- is a good thing, but it is also potential danger because we can’t respond to things that we are not ready to respond to. The Commission is going to be asking three basic questions. What challenges are facing our state that North Carolinians want UNC to respond to? How can UNC best respond to these challenges? How can UNC sustain the response over the long run?
The issues that are very consistent with the responses that we are hearing from folks at the listening forums are community and economic transformation or development. How do we do that better? We don’t hear about technology transfer or innovation and entrepreneurship? Education, speaking very broadly, to the public means K-12 and it means undergraduate. Not graduate. Health, obviously lots of concerns about health, education and well being, physical health, mental health, emotional health, issues of nurses, and a lot of concern about environment and natural resources.
It has been a great education to be able to attend some of these listening forums especially in the eastern part of the state seeing these communities that have been devastated by a lost in jobs and now facing the potential devastation of their ecology. They may see a future perhaps in tourism but even that doesn’t look very promising. Even cultural and societal enrichment through the arts and the humanities is being driven by economic development. How can we make communities richer, attract more innovative folks to communities? Finally civic engagement. Those are the issues that are being talked about at all these listening forums.
The way that the UNC Tomorrow Initiative is going to work will be to identify ways to meet those needs through what is traditionally our mission, i.e., curriculum development, scholarship and research efforts, and public service engagement. NC State is probably very well poised to address aspects of this, but it all has to deal with how it comes out. There are a couple of things to me that are a little scary. The documents that initiated the UNC Tomorrow process say that we must be more demand driven, and to be demand driven is okay up to a point, but at some point the university has a role not only to respond to the demands, but also to lead. That part of it is a missing link in this entire process. People are asking us to participate in community development, to participate in economic development, to participate in health care, etc., so those are demands. But the way we do this, we have to be able to control things in the end.
Finally the UNC Tomorrow process according to President Bowles will identify systemic changes in our own processes, such as long range planning consideration so that we can in future years identify needs proactively and responsively. This is very much the way businesses do things.
The process began in February 2007 and from February to July two things were done; 1) they established the commission itself 2) they hired Norma Houston and Tony Caravano to help organize this thing and organized a Scholars Council in the middle of the summer. Right now we are in the assessment period, which will run from August 2007 to January 2008. This is when we meet with leaders across the state to hear what they need from UNC over the next twenty years.
Tomorrow is the very last listening forum at the McKimmon Center at 4 p.m. and the reports from the Scholars Council eventually all the summaries of what people said at the various listening forums will be on the web for everyone to view.
The listening forum tomorrow is October 10 and there is a meeting of the Tomorrow Commission on November 7 and by that time all of the scholars are supposed to summarize the recommendations and on the seventh itself the UNC Tomorrow Commission is going to come out with the first of the recommendations. On December 8 the Board of Governors will meet and they will take up those recommendations on that date. After the Board of Governors make their recommendation, the campuses and the UNC System will develop responses to this recommendation. Basically they will be looking at each of the university’s missions within the UNC system and also help develop this process for sustainability on how we are going to continue this focus in future years.
From June 2008 to January 2012 we will be integrating these measures into programs and curricula and also begin the assessment process toward these goals.
If you attend the Listening Forum tomorrow you will hear Jim Phillips, Chairman of the Board of Governors, say we order our priorities to reflect your priorities (speaking of the public). You will hear that we need to make the university more demand driven. You will hear the Board of Governors is able to modify the missions of the universities, approve the budgets of the universities, and approve curriculum to meet your needs.
You will hear President Bowles say that we are determined to be demand driven, and we are not just going to listen, but we are going to act.
It has been a great education to attend the listening forums. There are different flavors, the folks from Eastern North Carolina have their own set of problems but there are things that come across. I did not know that to most folks that NC State is not us, but the Extension Program. I also got a much better appreciation about Community Colleges. They are serving a need extremely well all over the state that we could never do. There was a lot of concern about how to grow minority businesses. There was a lot of discussion about immigrants. This is a huge issue.
In the environment there was a lot of concern about North Carolina becoming a leading sustainability state, having university faculty get involved in developing sustainable communities.
K-12 education--besides health, this is the other hot button—need to do a better job of training k-12 and k-16. Students now wanting to prepare for college want a seamless transition between k-12 and college. In other words they are saying that university faculty should be involved in helping teachers to train students in the K-12 world and that university faculty should be given the time to do this. We should educate Hispanics automatically to the UNC system. Need more teachers in sustained disciplines. Need pairing of stem experts in UNC with public schools to improve math and science education. Start teaching grammar school kids about needs of the state in teaching, nursing, etc. They see university faculty actually playing a role on that. Health is pretty obvious—big needs for nurses, more clinical space, more training, preventive medicine, etc. This gives you a little bit more flavor for the themes.
From my own perspective it is not an unreasonable thing to do what we are doing with the UNC Tomorrow Initiative. It is the kind of thing that has obviously been driven by President Bowles is having discussions of this type with folks. There are very large needs out there and within the combined efforts of having teaching research and public service we should be able to find the right balance so that we don’t lose what we have in pre-eminence and research and excellent teaching or maybe try to do what we can to involve more faculty in the public service with the right programs.
The Kenan Institute Board is putting a letter in place to give to President Bowles tomorrow that talks about Research Extensive Universities. The reason that the UNC System is well known in this state and throughout the world right now is because of the Research Extensive Universities. We should not lose focus on that since they are what got us here and are the ones that can keep us ahead. At the same time they recognize the importance of the other universities in the system as to what they can do for the state regionally, but the gist of the letter is to remind President Bowles of that and to make sure that is kept up as the main focus of the drive as we look at missions and as we look at funding opportunities in the future.
The summaries are almost all the same, except for some regional flavors here and there. The aspects of K-12, health, etc., are there and the view of the university as a leader in economic development or its opportunity for economic development is certainly there.
Senator Murty: Can you elaborate on what you mean by demand driven?
When these folks talk to us at the listening forums they are telling us that there is a need out there, which is the demand. Therefore the Chair of the Board of Governors is saying that they will begin to look at programs proposed by the university to meet these demands, and they will make allocations to the university for programs that will meet the demands the Board of Governors feels or has been told by the UNC Tomorrow Commission are real, important needs. My guess is that if some program comes up with a way of generating more nurses or a special program for preventive health care, that will be seen as a program to fund in the future if its not being funded now.
Senator Hanley-Bowdoin: Is there any group in these discussions to advocate for fundamental research, because you can’t always predict where that is going to take you.
I have come to the realization after these visits that this notion that you have and I’ve got in my brain about the importance of fundamental research -- and I understand that it’s a valid and true thing that you are saying -- but it is so far removed from the average person that we are not getting a “demand” for that. So my hope is that there are enough folks like you and others at the university system that will actually say that. It is going to come mostly from UNC and us. It didn’t come from Greensboro or A&T. They talked about quality and they talked about not having duplications, but they don’t have ingrained in their bodies the research mission like we have. They relate much better to Engineering, but I’m an engineer and I recognize that engineers don’t do anything unless somewhere there was some kind of fundamental understanding of that. I don’t think that way, but a lot of people think that way.
There is nothing stopping you as individuals from actually writing to the Commission. There is a place on the website to put comments and suggestions.
Past Chair Allen stated that she has been put on a committee of Faculty Assembly called the Engaged University Task Force and they are also planning to review the demand driven part.
Senator Ristaino: I was listening to former President (Vicente) Fox from Mexico speak with Larry King on CNN and the issue of immigration is what struck me in the presentation you just showed. There is a 600% increase in immigrant population in North Carolina and the fact is that we are not allowing these students, if they are not legal immigrants, to attend universities. It seems that is a problem we have to get a handle on. We have been going globally to China and India and I wonder are there any efforts for this university to partner with Mexico. Perhaps some of these students that are coming here can get a university education here and go back to Mexico and work in a university. You send them back to their country and then they educate future students there. It seems to me that there are partnerships that we can do with Mexico that might help with this immigration issue, plus allow the folks that are here working in our factories and fields an opportunity to educate the kids.
These are things that President Bowles will be looking for and that is a good idea.
President Bowles is on record as wanting to support non-documented students or children of families in the UNC system but obviously that is a big political hot potato. Some of the public from Greensboro -- a lot of African Americans -- were saying “look we have created a big problem with slavery,” now we have another situation that is coming down the same pipe. People are here working like crazy without a chance to get educated, even though you can’t blame their children for the parents being undocumented. If you look at the birth rate for white and African-American individuals, it is not enough to sustain the population of the US at this current level. The Hispanics and the immigrants are the ones who are giving us any economic growth at all which was also pointed out yesterday. So you want to look at the future of the United States.
Why was technology transfer not addressed in this process?
Technology Transfer is only one of many ways that companies can benefit from universities but it is not by far the most effective way. Research universities like ours are very good at technology transfers. People use university facilities, university laboratories, but not in the way that we generate IP and they buy or license the IP. It’s a different thing so I started this thinking that technology transfer was going to be big and it is big maybe for 1/10 of all the universities but not so big for the rest.
Secretary Kellner: To what extent do you think that our representatives from the system, the President and Norma Houston, for example, can alleviate what we most fear, which is a Board of Governors or Legislature deciding the priorities for the universities and putting the money where they think it belongs.
If you look, ninety five percent of the folks in the UNC Tomorrow Commission do not have what I would say an academic background like us. So they are coming at this from a very applied business oriented philosophy. I think the Board of Governors also is pretty heavy on business. I don’t think Erskine Bowles understands what it takes to get tenure in a Research One university.
Chancellor Oblinger: The university system got a 10.5% budget increase last legislative session, due in large part to the leadership of Erskine Bowles and the direction of the Board of Governors. NC State never had a better year. I would like you to remember that as we go into this process. I don’t see that changing.
Observation: business people and very wealthy people that sit on the Board. They are listening to the population. One of the reasons I wanted you to see the way this was introduced is that it is not us that they are listening to. They don’t speak academic language. Every time Bowles gets up in front of a group of faculty he says, “I am not an academic.” There is a bit of a message in that and that is the academics need to be listening as well. Ours is an institution Mr. Bowles knows listens better than any other institution in the system. He has confided that in me and he has said that in public. One of the reasons the Board put that letter together is that the Board of Governors knows what the Kenan Institute Board says in its letter is true. You must establish that research is important, whether it’s discovery or applied, and then you implement that research, either tomorrow or twenty years out. If you are not doing research, you are not going to generate that progress long or short. What most people don’t see is that research leads to the top five areas that are being talked. That is economic development. The research leads to economic development, whether in engineering or the life sciences or things like that, and this demand driven thing, in my opinion, is because that is the language that most people speak. If you think about economic development most people see that as new high-tech jobs to offset the loss in manufacturing jobs. Every study that has been done in the last five years has said there are eight areas that need to be focused on for North Carolina’s future. They are not manufacturing jobs. They are intellectual jobs, and those numbers tell a story and the story is that universities need to be more communicative with the general public like we are. I will maintain that we did very well because of who we are, what our history has been, and what we do in this state. We have never had a better year.
My concern is that this has been a shopping list generated by a lot of our own colleagues’ institutions. You don’t hear many academics speaking of these because it looks a little strange when the Chancellor gets up and talks about how wonderful his or her institution is, but I know for a fact that a couple of these listening sessions have been absolutely orchestrated by selected Chancellors. We have never orchestrated ours, but I can tell you that commission and the Scholars Council knows exactly which ones were orchestrated because of the wish list that came out. This is about being able to say we have heard what the public said to us and now its our job as the President, as the Board of Governors, to do the best we can with it to get down to mission statements on the campuses. I would like to think that it means not everyone would like to be like us. Right now everybody wants to be like us. This institutions can’t afford, this state can’t afford, for every institution to look like us or Carolina, but if you ask the man or woman on the street which institution in the system has been most successful and don’t provide the definition of successful, they are going to name those same two institutions. It’s all about listening and then doing. So the work comes after that report. I think we are positioned very well because of what our faculty has done through the years, where our students have gone, and the things that they have done.
I would point to the last couple of sessions as providing the very focused programs and very focused instructions that we have asked for, in order to meet the needs that have been identified.
6. Revisions to Summer School Administration –Dr. Louis Hunt
Dr. Louis Hunt stated that Joanne Woodard chaired a committee last December that the Provost charged with the reorganization of summer sessions and non-degree credit programs. It started last spring and was concluded with a report that we presented to the Provost in June of this past year.
There was some concern by the Faculty Senate, and also the PACE Initiative, of how could we be more efficient, utilize current and existing administrative infrastructure to create efficiency, and save money. The task force came back with a variety of reports. We presented them to the Provost in June. Among those was some restructuring. We essentially closed the Office of Adult Credit Programs and Summer Sessions that had a reasonably large staff and moved that into Enrollment Management. We brought summer sessions into Registration and Records and Enrollment Management. The goal was to make it operate in the same manner that the fall and spring operate, so that the same goals that we have in fall and in spring apply to summer.
In June we presented a report and the Provost accepted many of the recommendations. We made these changes. One of the recommendations was the formation of an administration advisory board for summer school. Ken Esbenshade was charged with being the chair of that committee. The composition of that committee is fairly broad. The specific goals of this group were: What is the mission of summer school? Are we accomplishing those things?
We really need to put a little more definition around that mission. In my mind it’s all about student success, student satisfaction and time to degree -- those are at least driving factors around this. There are also other opportunities that we are going to be looking at. We want to increase enrollment. We might want to introduce more scheduling opportunities. We have had the same five and ten week sessions for quite a while. Other universities have gone to things like one week, three weeks, five weeks, and six weeks but there are a lot of opportunities there that we need to look at again.
There might be opportunities for special programs. We want to work more closely with the North Carolina Community College system. Possibly, as we return some of the decision-making and control back to the colleges and academic departments, there is potentially the opportunity for releasing some entrepreneurial behaviors within the colleges and academic departments. We also need to try new things, new programs, new courses, etc. That is what we have done so far. We have changed the structure, returned any money that was left over to the Provost, and now Summer 07 is behind and Summer 08 is fast approaching.
Additional areas that we are looking at are faculty compensation. We have a PRR that defines faculty compensation. Is it appropriate? Does it need to be tweaked? Should it have more definition, flexibility? Those are issues that we are addressing. Our plan is to roll forward with last year’s schedule and to operate in much the same manner. We couldn’t make any dramatic changes in compensation models at this point. I see us proceeding in quite the same manner this year as last. Beyond that I think there are opportunities for more experimentation and we will see how that goes. This committee will be charged with presenting any recommendations to the Provost and other governance bodies that oversee this kind of stuff.
We are working on a survey asking the students, “What is it that you need out of summer school?” We want to be a little more strategic in the course offerings. We also want to look at our marketing to make sure that every other institution is marketing to our kids to come to their summer sessions. We just want to be sure that our students understand the value of summer, the role it can play in keeping a contract toward a four year degree.
Secretary Kellner: You have just referred to “we” in a long string of sentences. Who is “we” and how will you get the results that “we” want from this newly decentralized system?
We start out being the same “we” that offers the fall and spring courses so it is the academic departments working in conjunction with registration and records and the university cashiers office and any number of entities.
Kellner: So whatever entrepreneurialism and innovation you spoke of will come from the units.
I don’t see anything terribly entrepreneurial coming out of a centralized “we”. I think it will be out of the academic departments.
Provost Nielsen stated that this Administrative Advisory Committee might come up with ideas like Louis was mentioning. The whole idea is that by investing the academic management of summer school into the academic units we hope that you will offer courses that you think are needed, that the students think are needed, that you want to make happen, etc.
Kellner: You mentioned this committee, which is Esbenshade’s committee. Will this be an ongoing, or standing Committee?
Kellner: So it’s a new committee that will exist into the future to coordinate summer school.
It’s an administrative advisory committee.
Senator Evans: Would you envision that it’s left up to the individual colleges, that the individual colleges would be in control of what faculty members make or would it be a universal percentage like it is now. Is that something you are going to negotiate with faculty or negotiate with the Provost’s Office?
It could be either one. We are talking about having some individuals from other universities come in and we have talked with quite a few other institutions about how they run their summer sessions. We have talked to institutions that have been decentralized and recentralized. Two schools that we have liked their model so far have been Virginia Tech, which has a model similar to ours. The only difference is that they have a cap on the maximum. An alternative one is the University of West Virginia where it is all negotiated within the colleges.
Provost Nielsen stated that there is a mechanism that is going to be worked out because it costs different amounts of money to teach courses in different colleges. We can’t charge differential tuition. If it was based solely on a college bringing in enough income to pay the teachers, the College of Management could never offer any courses because they can’t get the tuition dollars. So we have to figure a mechanism that will allow us to move across one college to the next so it can’t be a financial responsibility totally centered within each college.
Senator Hudson: I understand that you all have been discussing salary ranges and possible caps and possibly floors as well. I want to encourage you to think about the floors because particularly in CHASS we would have a lot of difficulty getting our education covered in the summer if we didn’t have a floor.
Senior Vice Provost Perry: I have had to work on this through the PACE working group. I think we are talking about our program as being decentralized, but what I found when we contacted other institutions was what we are now describing as decentralized is centralized to the others so it’s more efficient. I think that we have actually moved much closer to what most everyone else has been doing.
Chair Martin: Are we making any progress on financial aid and/or legislative appropriation to help because our fall and spring are heavily subsidized legislatively but summer has passed now?
Currently summer on campus is not appropriated. There is a goal among most the institutions that appropriation would come back.
Financial aid is a difficult one. Summer school is a trailing semester to the fall and spring semesters, so whatever aid you used during that period influences what aid would be available during the summer.
7. Report on the Faculty Assembly
Past Chair Allen reported that the Faculty Assembly looked at a revision to the code (603-604). There was a resolution put forth at the Faculty Assembly, a rewriting, which was unanimously approved. The President, Brenda Killingsworth and the secretary did the rewriting and they will be sending it to the Faculty Senate of various Universities for comments.
8. Resolution in Support of the Dale Sayers Memorial CPR Training Challenge
Dale Sayers collapsed in Carmichael Gymnasium two years ago of a heart attack and later died. The family recognized the need to have more CPR training on campus so the family is putting together a Dale Sayers Memorial Challenge and they would like endorsement by the Senate for this challenge.
Chair Martin read the proposed resolution that was suggested by the Executive Committee.
A motion was made and seconded to adopt the resolution as amended. The motion passed unanimously.
9. Issues of Concern
Secretary Kellner stated that an article in the Technician stated that the date at which a student can drop a course has been changed from the sixth week to the eighth week. In the same issue there is an editorial congratulating Dean Conway for this change. This seems to be an academic matter that has already been discussed as something that was controversial, at least highly debatable, in the Senate. At that meeting in April, according to the minutes, Dean Conway said that he would see to it that the Student Senate was responsible in the future. It seems that something has gone wrong here and I’m puzzled by it all.
Chair Martin stated that the Academic Policy Committee discussed this issue two years ago and there was a desire to make the undergraduate and graduate drop dates the same. His recollection was that the Academic Policy Committee endorsed the idea that there would be a common drop date.
Dean Conway stated that they were in the process of looking at several things. Primarily as we looked at the implementation of the new SIS system the existence of two drop deadlines in addition to causing confusion was going to be an expensive rework in that system. The other factor was that the decision-making responsibility for drops during the open drop period is on the student’s head. When we move into the late drop period it becomes the responsibility of the academic associate deans, so we talked to them at length and we talked to the graduate council about these issues. This process started a little more than two years ago. The students did make their recommendations last year, but that was not the basis for the decisions that were made.
Dean Conway stated that he told the Technician that students shouldn’t use this as an opportunity to celebrate in that sense. Our challenge is not whether they drop in six or eight weeks, it is that if we don’t move that decision-making up to the first or second week we are wasting seats.
A motion passed to extend the meeting by five minutes.
Chair Martin noted that this is an issue where continuing faculty input is necessary.
Dean Conway stated that the deadline was moved because the vote was supposed to change it for this semester. The policy still has to be rewritten and formally changed.
Senator Anson raised a concern about the “use of state property regulations” with respect to the use of the Internet in private versus university business. This arose in the connection with the regulation that appears to require faculty, when they are using email servers of the university, not to have tag lines with quotations that auto fill after their signatures in email. What is the difference between expressing opinions about various issues in emails that were sent as a part of university business versus personally sent e-mail? The more the faculty looked at these regulations, the more ambiguous they became because they are enforceable by their supervisors. We think there should be some discussions and clarifications of those regulations.
Chair Martin assigned the issue of concern to the Resources and Environment Committee.
10. Old Business
A motion passed to extend the meeting five minutes.
General Education Requirement
Chair Martin stated, since the last Senate meeting the CHASS faculty met and they have web site set up for conversation on that. In the interest of making sure that conversation both is heard but that we also don’t stall inappropriately I’m hoping that we will come to some resolution so that we can, as a body, take whatever action we are going to take in the next Senate meeting.
General Faculty Bylaws
Chair Martin stated that we are currently working with Nancy Whelchel to set up a click it vote. There has been some discussion going around regarding the nature of the bylaws and the amendments particularly with respect to the voting faculty. As I see it, bylaws are a living, breathing document and we have to go by procedures that we have. We cannot at this stage put amended language into that document but that does not mean that we can not and will not continue to work on a number of these issues at particularly the definition of faculty and voting faculty so I expect that there will be yet another revision to the bylaws at the spring faculty meeting but right now we have a proposal before us that will go out to the faculty.
A motion passed to adjourn the meeting at 5:25 p.m.