Left Navigation

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

FACULTY SENATE MEETING
October 21, 2008

Present:  Chair Martin, Secretary Kellner; Chair Elect Overton, Provost Nielsen, Senators Anson, Auerbach, Bernhard, Carver, Domingue, Edmisten, Fahmy, Fleisher, Franke, Genereux, Havner, Headen, Hemenway,  Honeycutt, Hudson, Khater, Levy, Lindsay, Murty, Poindexter, Ristaino, Roberts, Williams

Excused:  Parliamentarian Corbin, Senators Lindbo

Absent:  Senators Ambaras, Boone, Hergeth, Kocurek, Kotek, Muddiman, Poling, Ting, Tu

Visitors:  Betsy Brown, Provost Office; P. J. Teal, Secretary of the University; Marcia Gumpertz, AVP, Faculty & Staff Diversity; Katie Perry, Senior Vice Provost; Karen Helm, University Planning & Analysis; John Ambrose, DUAP; Louis Hunt EMA; Chris Brown, Assistant Vice Chancellor for Research Dev.; Steve Keto, Associate Vice Chancellor, Resource Management; Charles Leffler, Vice Chancellor, Finance and Business; Kevin MacNaughton, Associate Vice Chancellor for Facilities; Suzanne Weiner, Library Administration

1.  Call to Order
Chair James D. Martin called the fifth meeting of the fifty-fifth session of the North Carolina State University Faculty Senate to order at 3:00 p.m.

2. Welcome and Announcements
Chair Martin welcomed Senators and Guests.

3. Reflections on Provost Emeritus Nash Winstead

Comments from Murray Downs, Associate Provost Emeritus
Associate Provost Emeritus Downs stated that when Nash Winstead became Provost in 1974, that he and Dr. Larry Clark each served as half time Assistant Provosts. Dr. Winstead fully supported the role that he had in the Provost Office, coordinating the undergraduate program, in consultation with the Associate Deans of the colleges and the Faculty Senate and on the other hand acting as intermediary between the Faculty Senate and the Provost Office.  They worked together sixteen years and there were good times and bad times.

Downs stated that he was a part of all of them and benefited from the respect he received all across the campus because he represented then Provost Winstead.  Downs also noted that he suffered from the criticism of the Provost, especially when he knew what (Winstead) was being criticized for was beyond his control. 

Provost Winstead cared for people as people.  He cared for staff, and there are some still around today who can testify in that regard.  He cared for the students. He cared for the faculty as faculty and even some of his chief critics, he regarded as great faculty members.  If their criticism got to him he never showed any indication of it.   Upon retirement, Nash Winstead wrote a great volume on mixed emotions.  There are many nuggets of personal experience, views, and opinions telling it like it is. 

Downs stated that the nicest legacy he had during those years with Nash was the note he wrote on the bottom of the cover letter of a copy of his book stating “we were a great team” and that is how Downs remembers him.

Comments from Dr. Larry Clark
Dr. Clark stated that he was at Florida State in the spring of 1974 when he received a call from Nash Winstead to consider a position at NC State.  When Nash Winstead became Provost, July 1, 1974, Drs. Clark and Downs served as Assistant Vice Provosts and they all worked together until Winstead retired in 1993. 

Clark stated that those were times when there were some external forces on campus (in relationship to affirmative action both for women and the race issue), and it was his responsibility to work in those areas.  They worked very hard to put a program together and when Provost Winstead left they were very proud of the accomplishments that they had made.  Some of the programs they created are still here today.  The females presented Nash Winstead with a plaque for working to try to increase the female appearance on campus. They created an academic skills program in the athletics department.  There were those students who did not want to choose a major so they created the program called undecided which is referred to today as the First Year College. 

Also, under Nash Winstead, Clark got the opportunity to travel to Africa where some things were created in the international arena. 

Announcements
Chair Martin announced that there will be a memorial service for Provost Emeritus Nash Winstead at the Raleigh Moravian Church and a visitation will immediately follow. 

Chair Martin announced that a WIKI site has been created that contains information from the General Faculty meeting.  The site is open for anyone who would like to add comments.  He noted that the more people that participate in the discussion the better it will be and anyone with a unity ID can participate in the discussion.

The Executive Committee was given a heads up to the initial possible revisions to the academic tenure policy and the policy for the special faculty ranks appointment.  These are in part in response to concerns that were raised from the contract taskforce that was talked about last week.  There will be some upcoming meetings to discuss how to proceed on that matter. 

Chair Martin announced that there would be two Budget 101 meetings in the newly renovated Erdahl Cloyd Theater:  Wednesday, 2-3:30 p.m and Thursday, 10:30-12 noon. 

Chair Martin commented on the abortion display on the brickyard.  He has heard many comments and concerns about it and he has talked with a variety of people.  From the comments he received from students, faculty, and staff he concluded that the display has crossed the line.  Chair Martin denounced the demonstration and recommended that we think as a campus on how to deal with permitting for the brickyard.

Senator Levy stated that he doesn’t particularly agree with what the posters are saying but he would be the last one to limit free speech.

Chair Martin feels freedom of speech is very important but that we have to watch the boundary between free speech and threatening hate speech.

Comments from the Chair
Chair Martin performed a demonstration on growth.  He stated that growth is neither good nor bad whether we are talking about growing as a university, changing volume in a class or whether we are talking about growing crops.  “You have to provide the right environment for things to grow.” Chair Martin feels that is the balance we have to understand as we consider a lot of the growth issues.

4. Approval of the Minutes, Meeting No. 4, October 7, 2008
A motion passed to approve the minutes.

5. Remarks from Provost Nielsen
Provost Nielsen reported that the budget discussion has been ongoing for the past couple of weeks.  He thanked the Faculty and Staff Senates for hosting the upcoming budget forums.

Provost Nielsen stated that the thoughts and worries that everyone is having about how to accommodate the student body of potentially 40,000 students nine years from now have also been happening at all levels of NC State and all levels of the UNC System.  There is great concern, but not a lot of light in terms of thinking about this topic.  He handed out an analysis that shows the system growing by 80,000 students over the next 10 years.  He stated that there was a mismatch between our physical facilities and our human resources to accomplish this (and especially the demand) if we thought about it the same way we are doing things now. So there had to be other options to deal with this reality.

Provost Nielsen noted that the handout was a slide that General Administration had distributed that talks about some options to consider.  There are a number of items that are important from the standpoint of looking forward with different emphasis than we have had before. There is no question that as we look forward to how to accommodate 80,000 more students in our system it is going to have to involve more work with community colleges. 

Provost Nielsen stated: another is to establish branch campuses.  I have been put in charge of a committee to think about how we do things in a five county region that surrounds Rocky Mount in terms of identifying a concept for a branch campus with several UNC schools that are there and try to offer more educational opportunities in a place where there may be excess capacity; online hybrid students, educating more students online in high school.  As you may know, we are providing the technical resources for the virtual high school for the State of North Carolina that would come online in a much bigger way in the next couple of years. 

Develop Fully Funded Summer Session
Provost Nielsen stated that summer session does not operate on the same basis that the regular school year does, where a combination of tuition and appropriated dollars support our programs.  Summer school is tuition only; there are no complimentary appropriated resources.  And the question is, how much more could we do during summer sessions if we had a fully funded summer session that can take advantage of the resources that are clearly under-utilized during summer session.

Develop Other Options
Provost Nielsen stated that General Administration doesn’t have this figured out either. 

He noted that on the flip side of the handout is a summary that was put together after the University Council Retreat this January where they discussed enrollment and space planning.  We looked at our physical facilities, including building on Centennial Campus.  There are a lot of plans for a lot of facilities.  Eventually we will run out of space on Centennial Campus.

Provost Nielsen pointed out some of the things that they have been talking about.  Fundamentally what I wanted to share with you today is the acknowledgment that this is a serious issue that we have to address.  It is a serious issue that the State of North Carolina has to address.  These 80,000 additional students that will be showing up are part of our responsibility. The Legislature knows that and the UNC System knows that, so together we need to be looking at ways that we can do it and the things that we can do.  This is very much on the minds of the system leadership of the university, and I wish I could say we had it figured out.  What I can say is together we need to work to figure it out and in some combination of pressure, volume, temperature, and number of resources we can figure it out.

Questions

Senator Levy:  We have to look at what we have and what we have really works well.  I have spoken to folks who do distance education and it doesn’t appear to me that it is really cost effective. 

Provost Nielsen stated that there might be other ways to tweak the system.  He has always thought that one of the real promises of distance education is that we create and teach a course and our peers create and teach a different course but what probably needs to be in that is to develop a new approach to tuition and probably a new approach to transfer credits so that some of the rules that we have in place now that we have lived with forever may need to be tweaked a little bit to allow a course to come in from some place else. 

Senator Khater stated that previously what the argument has been is that we have to grow because that is the funding model and that the only way we can get more money is to grow.  What strikes him as problematic about that argument is that we are growing, but the funding doesn’t necessarily always follow.  More importantly it seems that Chapel Hill is not being asked to grow as much as NC State and yet Chapel Hill’s budget is not going to be cut severely because they are considered to be a flagship university.   This basically brings up a notion about public education – (are we) the open university model in which we are suppose to teach for everybody, or are we talking about the quality of education as the balance between these two elements?  How much balance do we provide versus how much quality?  NC State is considered to be a flagship university in its own right.  It seems therefore that if UNC Chapel Hill is following the model that, because they are flagship they can grow minimally but still maintain funding that allows them to function as a flagship.  I don’t see why we have come to the logic that the only way we can continue to get funding is to grow to 40,000 students, or we need to grow because ECU and UNC Charlotte are growing.  That logic doesn’t really speak to me as a very convincing logic.  What you said is very convincing in the sense that we have a responsibility, but everything that has been presented to us previously seems to go with this funding model and I find that to be very troubling.

Provost Nielsen stated that he thinks the reason why we have adopted this 40,000 student growth model has to do more with the nature of the institution than it does with the imperative to get more money to grow.  If we are in a situation where each additional student that we take actually costs us more than the enrollment growth formula provides us, then getting healthier by taking more students defies logic.  What I think is true about NC State, is that Engineering and Textiles, Natural Resources, Veterinary Medicine -- a lot of those disciplines are unique in the UNC system to NC State.  Therefore as the desire for more people to get educated in those fields come along, we are the only option and so as that demand grows we have a choice.  It is to grow to meet that demand or agree that resources should be put somewhere else in the university system to open up another College of Textiles or another College of Engineering, which I don’t think is a good thing for the state of North Carolina nor NC State.  Fundamentally, what drives us to grow is the need to grow in ways that make sense for our mission. 

Provost Nielsen noted that Chapel Hill operates on the same enrollment growth formula that we do so in that regard things are the same.

Senator Fleisher stated that when he went to college, he doesn’t just remember the courses that he took.  College for him was a social experience and so he wonders what kind of social experience is it when someone is sitting at a computer terminal taking a course? 

Provost Nielsen responded, students of the future, which we have to change our view of what the student is because students will assemble degrees as opposed to being alumni of a particular institution.  Getting credits from a number of institutions will be the norm in the future. 

Senator Hudson stated financially it is pretty obvious what we need to do is to have more graduate students in science and engineering and not have our GEP students, but then we said the other day that we needed the FTE’s.  Quality of education is one thing and money is something different, but financially are we better off moving toward more graduate students in those cells where we get money?

Provost Nielsen stated, that it is a complex question.  What Janet is saying is that there are twelve cells in this twelve cell matrix and in the undergraduate English majors cell you don’t generate very many dollars per credit hour and down here in doctoral engineering students, you generate a whole lot, but you have to look at the cost of providing education.  These are things related to admission and I do not believe that we should be looking at every thing we do and saying if that cell doesn’t pay it shouldn’t be dealt with. We want to do the right thing.  We have to be analytic about knowing what we are doing when we make the decision to do it.

Senator Carver stated that she agrees about the distance education.  She has a distance learning class that works well, but she thinks to put all of the eggs in that basket is a big mistake, because we are trying to graduate people who will go out in the work place and be very successful.  She thinks one of the ways to help them do that is to tap into this whole group of alumni that are in the workforce and let them help teach the students and let these people show them what it will be like on the job.  She would like to see that done early on in the student’s career to make sure that this is really what they are interested in doing.  She noted that there are a lot of CALS alumni that would love to be a part of teaching students here.

Provost Nielsen stated that he hopes to continue to discuss what we can and might do, evaluating what those things are and trying some things out, investing in the programs that look like they are doing a good job.

6. Reports

Evaluation of Teaching Committee, Cynthia Hemenway
Senator Hemenway, liaison to the Evaluation of Teaching Committee, reported that the first focus of the committee is how to improve response rates for online evaluations.   At their second meeting, at the request of Katie Perry, they were to look at modifications to the way that we submit applications for teaching awards.  There has not been a huge response so the committee has done some clear and simple modifications to the application process to make sure the applications are very clear and similar across the three types of awards.  The applications will be effective for the 2009-2010 year. 

7. Old Business
Trends and Trajectories for Campus Growth—Continuation of 10/07/08 Discussion
The senators addressed items from the presentations last week.

Senator Khater was concerned after reviewing the master plan for planning buildings on campus that the great majority of the buildings were on Centennial Campus.  He noted one of the colleges with high growth, such as CHASS, would not have access to these new buildings so he wanted to know how are these new buildings on Centennial Campus going to affect the mushrooming of the number of students that are taking CHASS majors?

Chair Martin stated that the smartest thing to do in the Senate is to try to put together some of those big questions that need to be asked. What are the big issues?  We need to articulate the issues and then figure out how to address them.

Senator Hudson asked if there has been an end to the discussion, and has there been a recommendation about summer school?

Provost Nielsen responded that they have concluded the decentralization of summer school and the authority for measuring some schools in the colleges started this summer.  Colleges will have the option to decide what they want to teach, how much, what courses, etc.  For the next two years 80% of the revenue generated in the summer school process will be delivered back to the college and 5% will be put in a reserve.  After two years 85% of the revenue generated by a college will go back to the college to support their programs and the Provost will keep 15% for central items.  Under this 80% of delivery of revenue, almost all the UNC universities will get a lot more money than they have been getting.

Senator Khater wanted to know if summer would really become one of the main ways that they generate revenue as a department or is this simply just icing on the cake?

Provost Nielsen suggested to him that they look at all the money that they receive and all the costs as one big pot unless there are some rules against it.  He said in this case there is no intention to wean off of operating dollars because the college (CHASS) doesn’t have any operating dollars.

Secretary Kellner stated that multiple branch campuses are mentioned on the Provost’s list.  It seems to him that in a unitary single-system university scheme like North Carolina’s that it (branch campuses) is a little bit difficult, but if we are going to stay unique, and stay NC State, and not open ourselves to unlimited growth in Raleigh in the future, that is the model we have to be looking toward.

Provost Nielsen stated that UNC Wilmington has been eager to have an engineering program and NC State has had a two plus two program for some years.  They are now working on doing the same thing that was done with Asheville where we had a two-plus two engineering program that became a four-year degree program offered by NC State on the Asheville campus, which is now a full degree program with both logos on the diploma. 

Secretary Kellner stated that the NC State degree would seem to have something of a premium over the Asheville degree, so the question then is, do we have to answer to the state demand?  Is there an unlimited supply of NC State degrees?

Chair Martin stated that he agrees with that question, but isn’t that a bigger question -- what kind of a university are we, should we be?  Is that question answered?  These are some of the big questions that might be most useful for us in this kind of a setting to try to articulate and then we can figure out some way to break out and try to collect some of these details.

Senator Auerbach stated, one obvious way of expanding CHASS’s need for space could be handled with all the currently available space which is only on Centennial, which he thinks is unfortunate.  “I went to an undergraduate school in New York that had a north campus and a south campus and it was two different cultures.  I happened as a math major to travel across them and it was not far, it was only five blocks but here it is much more.  I worry about any clever way of keeping communication between disciplines thriving and I don’t think the right way to react to that is to say, well these disciplines are more distant from those.” 

Chair Martin asked, what does our physical structure say about our campus culture?  That is a question that we need to answer.

Senator Auerbach stated that item 8 on the strategy list mentions (private funding).  It is bad enough that research agendas are determined by private funding.  He noted that it is worse when curricular agendas are determined by private funding.  I have a worry about that. It seems to me we are a public university, and public funds at a land grant institution should be devoted to curriculum matters.

Chair Martin added that if we only let current needs drive research and drive agendas, we are not going to be prepared for the unknown. Think about some of these.  What are the big questions that we need to deal with?  Take our worries and instead of just articulating them as worries let’s go back a couple of steps and ask what is the big overriding questions that we need to come to terms with?  Rather than focusing on our worries, let’s focus on the (financial) issue. That may help steer our path and allow us to be a little more constructive. 

Senator Poindexter wanted to know whose interest are we trying to serve.  Is it the greater society?  Is it the State of North Carolina?  Is it the administration that might want a bigger kingdom to rule over?  It seems like we need to have some fundamental understanding to begin with on what we are trying to do in terms of serving some entity before we can structure any of this.

Senator Poindexter questioned why NC State is teaching an Engineering Program in Asheville.  Are we just trying to enhance our reputation by having a presence somewhere else?

Senator Fahmy stated that the Engineering Program in Asheville is offering a four-year degree in a discipline that does not exist on this campus. 

Chair Martin stated that we have to focus our pitch, we have to figure out who our audience is, and we have to ask who is it that we are serving. 

8. New Business

Documenting Specific Examples of the Impact of Budget Reduction on the Quality of Education
Steve Keto, Associate Vice Chancellor for Resource Management reported that in the twenty-two years that he has worked here there has been nineteen years of budget cuts at NC State, which has sort of become a way of life here.

Vice Chancellor Keto presented a power point presentation on the 2008-2009 North Carolina State budget.

Where does the money come from that drives the $21.3 billion dollars state budget? 

Vice Chancellor Keto reported that individual Income Tax and Sales and Use Tax are the two pieces of the state revenue that end up in our budget one-way or the other.  Sales tax was down $70M in August and 50% of the sales tax comes in at Christmas time.  It has continued to descend.  The income tax, he doesn’t think anyone will know for sure until the end of April.  He doesn’t think it is going to be 54% of $21 billion dollars, which it needs to be to maintain the budget today. 

Keto stated the weaknesses in these two slices of the pie in particular has caused the governor to propose a 2% allotment deduction which means that we will get 2% less cash to run the university.  President Bowles has said maybe it should be 4%, so we are currently looking at 4% right now.  Where it will end is hard to tell.  It’s probably not going to be zero, it’s probably going to be more than four, so we are working on how to respond to that and come up with our share of what ever the number becomes.   

Where Does The Money Go

Keto stated, when you look at the protected slices, what’s left is us.  They do have a little bit of rainy day fund in the reserve fund, which they could apply to some of what ever the deficit becomes.  But, again, $21 billion dollars … if we are looking at something like a 10% budget cut overall, we could be looking at $2 billion dollars statewide and that would not be unexpected or a big surprise, especially when you look at going into 2009-2011 fiscal year, because this is all going to take a while to sort itself out through the state.  Who knows how fast the economy will recover and how that will impact individual incomes and sales tax?  That is what has caused the problems.  Revenues are down and there is a limit to where they are actually going to be taking the budget cuts or where they can take the cuts. 

The individual income tax and sales tax is part of the 43.6% (that NCSU receives from the state) and that is one of the biggest slices of state funding to public universities.  We are well funded as percentage basis. 

Tuition and fees at almost 15% is the other big piece that comes into the university.

How we Spend the Money

Vice Chancellor Keto stated that the largest slice is for instruction which, is logical because that is what we do for a living here.  Organized Research is the next biggest slice and then you get into community services.  These slices starting with the blue one at the tops (Instruction, Organized Research, Public Service, Academic Support, Student Services, Institutional Support, Plant Maintenance and Operations) -- that is the part that is really discretionary, as far as what we can do and what is funded by state funds.  Those are the areas we need to be looking at for making reductions. 

The majority of funding at the university is spent on salaries and benefits.  Personnel costs are the driving part of the budget so when you start looking at where do you cut, it has to be in this area.

Vice Chancellor Keto encouraged the faculty’s support and help in getting some real-life examples to share with everyone from the legislature to general administration about what makes NC State University different than others.  Why should we be treated any differently?  That is what we are trying to find out.

Chair Martin asked Keto to give an idea that he knows the legislature would be attuned to.

Keto responded that they are more attuned to what would impact their constituencies, anything that can differentiate the impact on NC State and how it rates to their constituency and themselves personally. 

Senator Auerbach requested a version of the graph (pie) broken down by college.

Keto stated that they could do a pie, but things like utilities and depreciation don’t account (by college), but they could probably do one for the remainder. 

Senator Levy stated that there has been a major discrepancy between the cost of health care and what is going into the fund.  Yet, it is also obvious that as health care for dependents is going to increase we are going to see people who are healthier leave the state-supported system.  Are people looking at that as to what cost-benefit ratios are? 

Keto stated that people are looking very closely at how the state health plan has gotten into the ditch by $190M.  That will have to be dealt with by the General Assembly as it comes into session in January and the (new) governor.  Whatever that solution is, they are going to have to put some money in it from the state and then they are probably going to look at just the opposite of what you are arguing.  They are probably going to look at bigger co-pays and bigger insurance payments.

Senator Levy noted that his wife has insurance that is costing her one-fifth of the cost of insuring her through the state. 

Senator Headen commented that the dynamics are that some people will leave, but it will be the healthier people who will leave because the market is not very nice to unhealthy people.  That means the cost of the pool will suddenly go up and make the problem worse and then the question is, do you raise the premium again and again and again, so it is called a death spiral in the health insurance issue and he is not sure how one would address that.

Senator Ristaino asked what percentage of the 61% in salaries and benefits is in tenure-track salaries versus overall shorter-term appointments.

Keto responded around seventeen percent.

Senator Khater stated that the reality is that the non-tenure track faculty are already being treated like second-class citizens and are going to be cut.  Within his department they are dealing with the budget cuts that are going to be coming down.  They don’t have a lot of funding, so they are basically cutting sections and when you cut sections, you are cutting the NTT faculty, who have been serving the university for a long time.  Ultimately, that is going to have real impact on how we teach, which becomes a serious issue.

Chair Martin stated that he doesn’t think we have ever written the ideas for the faculty, so he thinks when they actually meet faculty and talk with them from a real perspective, that it does have an impact. 

Senator Levy stated that it is obvious that students are not going to be able to finish in the typical standard four, five, or six years that they are finishing in now; it is going to extend even longer which, is going to cost them more.  It is going to delay them getting into the workforce.  We don’t have that many large classrooms, so when you cut sections, you are basically delaying the progression of students through the curriculum.

Senator Fahmy asked, what limits the class size?

Senator Khater responded, space, but from a pedagogical view there is a limit on class size between teaching 200 students a history course and teaching 60 students or teaching 35, that it reduces the quality of education when you have a large class in which you are just delivering information.

Senator Anson stated that it depends on the delivery mode.  It doesn’t make a difference if you already have a lecture of 200 and make it 500, there is very little difference in the students learning.

Chair Martin requested that the Senators work with their colleges to get some ideas.  He suggested that the senators get three to five bulleted items from their college by the next Senate session.

Senator Fleisher commented that the cuts have not happened yet, and we are asking the people to tell us what the real life impact will be of cuts that have not occurred.

Senator Levy noted that Veterinary Medicine just lost $700,000 that they get from the offshore students.  He stated that the impact is coming up and we have no research funds and we have no equipment funds. 

Chair Martin stated that there is no “one size fits all”.  We have to start looking at these points of discussion.  We need to try to document that we have done an amazing job of doing more with less but you can only absorb up until a certain point.  I pay for my students to do research at the national lab.  These are stories that we need to tell. We need to tell the stories that each of our research grants is like running a small business.

Senator Anson wants to know if there is any hope that these stories will change the state’s appropriation.

Chair Martin responded that there is that 13% of decline, we need to make sure that NC State keeps as much of that share as possible.  All state agencies are going to be cut so why should we be treated differently from anyone else?  Our argument is that we are dealing with the future growth and if you don’t have education you can basically kiss growth goodbye.  So this is investment rather than current need.  We allegedly get more state support than most other universities, so that may shape arguments to things like the Board of Governors and the President.  There are multiple facets to how we need to approach this.

Senator Williams stated that we might want to think about what we can tell the legislature about sacrifices that we are willing to make, because who knows how bad this could get.  We have to be thinking also about -- well if we want to keep these NTTs teaching, maybe some of the tenure track faculty will take a cut in pay, if we want to keep the university going.  In 1934 there was a school of commerce here that got eliminated because in 1934 it wasn’t a four percent cut, a six percent cut, it was a huge cut and that might be something that we need to be thinking about.

Chair Martin noted that the faculty did that back in the early nineties with respect to the library and those kinds of actions are seen as very positive.

Senator Ristaino stated that you could show the growth in contracts and grants over time, because when the budget gets tighter faculty write more grants.

Provost Nielsen stated that contracts and grants have been flat for the last three years.  The real value of this is going to be whatever permanent cuts come next year.  We are not going to have any impact on the decision right now, so we have some time to work with this, to try to put it together in a form that really has a chance to have some impact.  I like the sacrifices we can take and what we have done before.  Focus on a permanent cut for the coming biennium, because that is where we have some time.

8.  Adjournment
Chair Martin adjourned the meeting at 5:05 p.m.

Footer Nav