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
November 18, 2008

Present:  Chair Martin, Secretary Kellner; Chair Elect Overton, Provost Nielsen, Parliamentarian Corbin; Senators Akroyd, Ambaras, Anson, Auerbach, Bernhard, Domingue, Franke, Genereux, Havner, Hemenway, Hergeth, Honeycutt, Hudson, Khater, Kocurek, Levy, Lindbo, Lindsay, Murty, Ristaino, Roberts, Ting, Williams

Excused:  Senators Fahmy, Poling, Scotford

Absent:  Senators Boone, Edmisten, Fleisher, Headen, Kotek, Muddiman, Poindexter, 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, Director, University Planning and Analysis; Lewis Carson, Associate Director, UPA; Steve Keto, Finance and Business; Kevin Howell, External Affairs; Pam Arroway, Assistant Department Head, Statistics; Don Land, Assistant Professor, Aerospace Studies; Lee Fowler, Athletic Director; Marc Okner, Director, Employee Relations; James Oblinger, Chancellor; John Ambrose, Interim Dean, Undergraduate Academic Affairs

1.  Call to Order
Chair James D. Martin called the seventh 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 announced that the Executive Committee have had dinner with each of the Vice Chancellor for Research and Graduate Study candidates and have been pleased with the selection of candidates. 

Chair Martin announced that Claude McKinney passed away on Tuesday, November 11, 2008.  McKinney served as Dean of the College of Design for many years and he also served as Special Assistant to the Chancellor for fifteen years. 

The Senate paused for a moment of silence to recognize the contributions of Mr. McKinney to NC State University.

Chair Martin stated that the Senate passed a resolution requesting budget cut reports at the last meeting.  There was concern in the Executive Committee about whether the Senate needs to have resolutions for this type of action and there was also concern that that we would not be able to get the information in the time period stated.  It was recommended that we strike the time from the end of the resolution. 

Chair Martin stated: it is important to recognize that a resolution is a mechanism for doing business in governance.  There was some concern in the Executive Committee whether we need something that’s intermediate between just having a conversation and a resolution.  I think it makes the most sense for us to recognize that resolutions are a means of doing business and we should really see it in that contexts so if anyone feels like in order to do a resolution there must be something really ominous, I think its wise for us to sort of move away from that feeling and recognize this is just a functional tool. 

Chair Martin called everyone’s attention to the mission of the Faculty Senate in article one of the General Faculty Bylaws, which recognizes that the Faculty Senate assumes an active role in university governance through its responses to committee reports and its policy resolutions, which are presented to the university administration for acceptance and implementation.  The idea again being that the intent of the resolution is the function of doing business, so he encouraged everyone not to see any resolution as necessarily being some hammer.  Chair Martin encouraged the Senate to potentially think about even more resolutions because it documents what the Senate is doing and provides a mechanism for interaction and discussion that we don’t necessarily otherwise have. 

Chair Martin asked if the Senate wants to accept the resolution as functionally passed or do they want to revise or reconsider it.

Senator Honeycutt moved to amend some of the wording in the resolve to state, “that the Provost share with this body the information…”.  Senator Williams pointed out that copies of the reports are not the same as information. He noted that copies of the reports is the information that the Provost gets and that information the Provost shares may not be all the information that is provided by the college.

The resolved was then amended to state, “the Provost shares with this body the reports from the respective colleges.”

A motion passed to accept the resolution as amended.

Chair Martin commented about the incident that happened in the Free Expression Tunnel.  He stated that he has received numerous emails but has not responded to them.  He noted that as Chair of the Faculty and as the Senate, we would largely take a supporting role at this time, rather than trying to be one more group trying to address the immediate situation.  I believe that the Senate is most likely to have more of a long-term role/responsibility as any policy revisions come forward. 

Chair Martin stated that the Student Senate has been calling for some modifications for the harassment policy.  Once we decide where policies need to be looked at and revised, I think that is where the Senate will come in and play a more significant role.  The Chancellor has set up a task force and we will try to keep up on what is going on and if there needs to be appropriate things coming to this body, I will make sure that happens.

Chair Martin stated that he would like to offer that the Senate as a body endorses the statement that the student leaders put out. 

Senator Levy wanted to know if it would be appropriate to ask the faculty to take a small amount of time out of their lectures to discuss the matter.

Chair Martin stated that Marcia Gumpertz in her letter to the faculty encouraged just that.  The question is what action does the Senate need to take.  He thinks the task force is going to probably come up with some recommendations.  The conversation is moving in the direction of using this as an opportunity for education.

Senator Kocurek moved that the Faculty Senate commend the students or the student leaders’ united message and endorses their statement.  The motion was seconded and passed unanimously.

Chair Martin announced that the Executive Committee meeting would be on Thursday, at 4 p.m.

Chair Martin asked the committee members and liaisons to plan on giving a brief report at the next meeting.

3. Approval of the Minutes, Meeting No. 6, November 4, 2008
A motion passed to approve the minutes.

4. Remarks from Chancellor Oblinger
It hasn’t been that long ago that I stood in front of you and said that we have been asked to look at a two percent holdback.  Within a week the President said, “I want you to be planning for a four percent holdback.”  Now we are at five percent.  They are still discussing a five percent one-time, non-recurring reduction to our current fiscal year budget.  As of last Friday, it appears that it might go as high as a seven or eight percent one-time reduction.  The picture is not clearing economically in North Carolina, in the United States or around the world.  I think I have mentioned to several of you that we have a very good relationship with the Lieutenant Governor who will soon be our Governor, Beverly Purdue, and she is committed to education, but she is charged with the responsibility to have a balanced budget by June 30. 

Our current governor, Michael Easley, is in the throws of trying to help the governor-elect by doing exactly what we have started to talk about in terms of one-time reductions so that we are at zero, even in a very rough budget year.  At the Board of Governors meeting, Erskine summarized that this is lowest.  We have submitted next year’s plans for the budget, or at least our hopes and our aspirations for the budget.  The anticipation is that in mid to late-January the new governor might say that this one time reduction has become a permanent reduction.  That is the reason for the conversations that Charlie and Larry are having with the deans and the unit heads all across the campus.  You will also be involved in that dialog once those plans come forward and are discussed.  If the reduction becomes permanent, then I would anticipate, based on my own personal professional experience, that the things that are talked about in the next week or two for one-time reduction would perhaps change if they became permanent reductions.  The campus community has to be flexible on this, but know that you are going to be involved in those discussions.

If you forecast into the next budget year and what will go to the legislature as they convene, that percent increase for the University of North Carolina system is the lowest it’s been in twenty years.  It is one half of last year’s request.  It focuses on campus safety, financial aid and faculty support for salary increases at three percent. 

There was an item in the budget listed at ten out of ten in a priority order.  Erskine believes in priorities on the campuses and at the system level, but there was a move on the part of the Board of Governors to change the President’s priorities.  His priorities, one through nine, were campus priorities in concert with UNC Tomorrow priorities, irrespective of which campus was involved in a particular functional area.

Number ten was a rather small item, $3 million for efficiency and effectiveness in the first year, and in the second year, $5 million—not a lot of money in the overall scheme of things, but it was geared toward efficiency and effectiveness in the finance and business operations of the system.  Also, since eight institutions went through negative financial audits in the past year, the Board felt very strongly about moving this priority from number ten to number four, even though Erskine said, “I want the campus at the highest priorities.” So, it became fourth to follow safety, financial aid and faculty salaries.  The fourth priority is a relatively small item for efficiency and effectiveness.  The board felt very strongly in that if we don’t get our financial house in order, then how can the General Assembly or the citizens of North Carolina have any respect for the money that would be given to higher education?  So, on that basis, they changed the President’s priority.  This is a huge test that lies ahead of us as it relates to discussion of how we go about a really significant alteration of our path because of the budget situations.

Free Expression Tunnel
Thank you for your support of the students. There is one thing that is very clear to me, and that is that we are all in this together and, therefore, we, as a community, need to take a very firm stand.  I think we are talking about both an incident and a climate.  I differentiate between the two, and so I will take you just a few years back.  When I became the Chancellor, I talked about four things that I thought were very important to the future of North Carolina State University in any way you wanted to look at her: scholarship across the disciplines; a climate of innovation; efficiency and effectiveness was listed last before the PACE study, before Erskine Bowles arrived; and third, I mentioned specifically a place known for diversity and a place known for inclusiveness.  That is as strong if not the strongest item of importance for this campus now as it ever has been in our history, and we have quite a bit of history.  Some of you in the room I know because I was with a couple of you when we underwent the CT Vivian awareness workshop.  Some of you have also had the opportunity to undergo that workshop and participate in that program when his son took over that program.  And, you may or may not be aware that all new employees at NC State University go through some form of diversity training in their first week on this campus.  This is not something that goes away once you have gone to class.  This is something that we need to deal with on a daily basis as a community and I stand before you and ask you to do that.  We have a pretty good record, considering where we have been, and I would not want us to lose sight of the fact that Michelle Obama was welcomed to Reynolds Coliseum during the campaign, her husband, the president elect, was welcomed here because it was the only place in North Carolina that could accommodate 350 press people on the night that he won the North Carolina primary.  I also would note with pride that a gentleman by the name of Robert Gibbs, a 1992 graduate of NC State University, will be President Obama’s press secretary.  There is a lot to be proud of and the incident in the tunnel is not one of those things.  It did occur in the Free Expression Tunnel.  I was notified thirty minutes after our campus police were notified and within thirty minutes after that I think there was a very forceful statement in preparation and the tunnel was painted.  The federal authorities have been here.  They thoroughly investigated the situation and determined that no crime had been committed and had further conversations with more students.  That is as much as I am at liberty to tell you about right now and probably for a good amount of time, in that FERPA and our police investigation records protect identities and files.  On that basis, that is why you see me saying that I am not releasing the names and I’m not releasing photographs that we have as evidence, but in all cases, including the District Attorney, we have been told we do not have a crime that can be pursued.  I will tell you that there is an ongoing review as it relates to this case in our student affairs unit and as it relates to the student code of conduct.  Just in case you have missed this, the incident was discovered at 9:20 a.m. and was dealt with promptly.  At 1:30 p.m. there was, I believe, a very strong statement that several of you in this room have thanked me for.  I am getting a lot of advice.  I am governed by law on this, ladies and gentlemen, and that is what we are going to do as an institution.

There was a unity rally of five hundred people in the brickyard: students, faculty and staff, the day after.  Jim Martin sent out a note as Chair of the Faculty urging faculty to stand shoulder to shoulder with students in regard to this incident.  On Sunday and in between, I can’t tell you how many meetings I have been to with how many different groups, but I can tell you the discussions are ongoing and that is just the way they should be.  That is a good thing, but we have provided counseling for those that felt they needed it on a special case by case basis.  I have talked about FERPA.  I have talked about the Public Records Law.  You have seen a second statement from me bringing things further up to date and in a sharper focus, I hope, on Tuesday evening, November 11.  And, I met with Reverend Barber and a group of individuals who represent the North Carolina NAACP for ninety minutes on Wednesday, November 12.  There were several student members present at that meeting who are student members of the NAACP.  I responded to several goals that they presented to me, not within the forty-eight hours that I was asked to, but there is a response.  I hope you have seen that because nested in that response is something that the Chair of the Faculty has already referred to and that is a task force that I am appointing to those who all agree to participate.  It is a large taskforce; seven students, six faculty, and eight staff:  four ex officio members, ten women, fifteen men, twelve African Americans, thirteen whites and three co chairs; Tom Stafford, Jose Picart and Jay Dawkins, our fine student body President.  The group has been charged to look at many things by January 16 and have a final report to me by February 2. 

The Campus Climate—we have conducted a number of workshops and dialogs and those will continue and they will increase in number.

Student Conduct Practices—we are looking at the student code of conduct in terms of whether or not we do have sufficient language to pursue any crime that might have been committed.  What I’m telling you is that we have been told by several different layers of authority and appropriate numbers of lawyers that there is not a crime that is prosecutable.  I have also asked them to look at the free expression tunnel and brickyard practices in term of what we permit and what we don’t permit.  Probably as much as I should say about the tunnel incident.  As the chair has indicated, this is, first and foremost, an educational institution and I would like to think that we can learn as a result of this experience.

Now, I would like to move on to the topic of centralization.  For the office of Legislative Affairs, there is coordination between NC State and the System with Kevin Howell working with Andy Willis and his counterparts on the various campuses where they have legislative liaisons.  I think that is a good thing because we represent the GA position, the Board of Governors position, and provided we do that Erskine says, we can absolutely represent our own position. 

I’ve said a little bit about finance and business.  I haven’t mentioned an Ernst and Young report as it relates to the State Auditor finding irregularities on several campuses in the system.  Erskine contracted with Ernst and Young to come in and do a ground up and sky down analysis of several of the campuses.  You should be proud that NC State passed that with flying colors, as did Carolina.  Most of the other institutions had some room for improvement. 

Degree Approvals—also enjoying a new level of scrutiny in General Administration by the Board of Governors.  I am one of the ones that said, “I’m concerned as we go into this.”  This was before UNC Tomorrow Study.  I was concerned about duplication in the system.  There are a lot of institutions that want to be like us or like Carolina and I’m not sure the state can afford two research extensive universities even as different as they are.  So, unnecessary duplication is on the agenda for this review that has now come out of the UNC Tomorrow process. 

Safety—Since Virginia Tech has taken on huge significance on college campuses.  Don’t ever forget you are in the twenty-second largest city in North Carolina if you define it as NC State University.

Faculty Data –General Administration is very interested in having a portal to the expertise that you represent as faculty.  They know that some institutions have that in their own right but the citizenry doesn’t necessarily know that we are going to NC State to find that or we are going to UNC Charlotte to find that expertise space.  That is what I’m hearing about at the Chancellor’s level out of the faculty database.

Intellectual Property—I had a very interesting meeting with Erskine, Holden Thorpe and a gentleman by the name of John Kelly.  John Kelly is IBM’s Vice-President for Research.  IBM has some forty thousand patents that they work with.  They divest themselves of two thousand a year because they have four thousand coming on.  We lead the system with 658 patents in eighteen months. Erskine is concerned about the time that it takes to get from the laboratory into public utilization and economic development and job creation, etc.  IBM feels that it has solved intellectual property bright negotiations to where it isn’t ‘win at all cost’ and perhaps not use the patent or leverage the technology.  So, we have entered into a very preliminary agreement to talk with IBM, our institution and Carolina about how we might sort through intellectual property to the system’s ultimate advantage, but we clearly are the two entities doing most of this.  Those things right now, most of them are just now getting started.  At least from my perspective, as long as we have the Faculty Assembly aware of these things and our respective Faculty Senate aware of these things as those discussions progress, I would anticipate that you would be either through the Senate or through your representation on the Assembly have an opportunity for input.  Not a single one of these things is over and done with in a short period of time.  Those will be ongoing conversations.

I was very proud to stand in General Administration with Erskine and Stanley Battle, who is the relatively new Chancellor at NC A&T State University, when the Kellogg Foundation gave our two institutions $3.2 million for the work that is being done at the Center for Environmental Farming System, which NC State’s College of Agriculture and Life Sciences started.  It represents the first and only time the Kellogg Foundation and anybody else has given an endowed chair at the two institutions in the same system for collaboration and work.  I just wanted to make sure you knew how proud we all ought to be of that particular accomplishment.

Senator Ambaras wanted to know why persons of other colors weren’t included in the taskforce. 

Chancellor Oblinger read the names of the persons on the taskforce and stated that the members, particularly on the EPA and Staff side, include people who have total responsibility.  Faculty were selected based upon experience in the 3 areas of focus. 

Senator Ambaras raised a question about the unnecessary duplications.  He wondered if an excessively stringent interpretation of duplications might prevent us from pursuing certain programs that would enable us to become a more comprehensive university.

Chancellor Oblinger stated that driving NC State’s position of mission and everything that we have done in response to UNC Tomorrow have all been toward that more comprehensive university.  When I think of unnecessary duplications, there are programs that have under-enrollment and everything else associated with them.  We have been the ones that got caught with a degree in history, right as we started in UNC Tomorrow we stopped that and I think that is about ready to move forward.  I do not anticipate any problem because they know exactly why we would want certain programs.

Senator Auerbach stated that he is curious why an act committed in public is entitled to anonymities. 

Chancellor Oblinger responded that FERPA does not allow us (NC State) to release student identities.

Senator Honeycutt wanted to know would the normal student judicial process be in play in the tunnel event.

Chancellor Oblinger responded that it is under consideration right now.  What they usually do is take the recommendations of attorneys.  There is an exhaustive case study review under way in a couple of offices and it will be based on that that recommendations are made to student conduct.

Senator Kocurek stated that he is curious about the Chancellor’s perspective of duplications.  Has there been this issue in the past where it’s been looked at and some decision has been made?  This leads to a second question: Your perspective on the Pack.  We have two Research I institutions and, therefore, two doctorial institutions that are separate from all the others; is that an avenue that the group might be pursuing to separate the campuses out that way?

Chancellor Oblinger stated that there are the coordinating classifications and we stand by those that used to be Research ones and now Research Extensive.  We are certainly research extensive.

5. Faculty Activity Reporting
Lewis Carson gave a brief overview on faculty activity reporting.

Carson stated that the faculty activity reporting webpage has a lot of details on it.  This is going to be a centralized process.  The process will enable our university to report on faculty activity as requested through the Delaware measure of out-of-class activity.  We have been asked to send in our data to Delaware next year that covers the current year for tenured and tenured track faculty.  The data that we send into Delaware will not have any individual faculty information in it, it will be a collection of counts, one count for each measure and there are forty-two measures.  We have approximately seventy-five departments at NC State, so the data that we would have to send in to Delaware is fairly simple but the effort to get there is large.  It is a centralized effort, but it is not going to be a centralized database. 

Carson said his office is seeking help from the library, specifically the scholarly publication repository that is going to leverage the library’s resources.  The library goes out now and harvests publications and puts them in their database and with the faculty’s help we will get more publications as the library gets more of the journals to harvest from.  They should be able to capture these electronically. 

Carson stated another part would be through the People Soft Human Resources System.  The faculty events module has faculty events and presentations and awards in it, and then my office is working with the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences IT Director to build a simple web screen to collect information for measure that don’t exist anywhere else.  So none of the database will exist in UPA, it will all be in central offices somewhere else.  There is a lot of data that goes into this faculty activity-reporting request that already exists.  The SPARCS radar database, Registration and Records, and other centralized databases already exist and we are committed to collecting data from central sources everywhere possible.

Carson stated that there is the five-cent overview, the web pages.  He pointed out that the web page has links for FAQ on what we are doing.  I have a full list of the measures that don’t exist in any databases now and three of the measures I can collect by using a list of courses, so I am working with the colleges to get lists of courses so I can go out and count enrollees.  There is a link to the Delaware original report requests and a link to the library.

Question:  Is this a one-year, one time effort or a permanent ongoing effort?

No personally identifiable information is sent to Delaware, but is personally identifiable information retained in the system?

Carson responded that the answer is, of course it will be retained.

I looked at some of those links and I couldn’t figure out how someone knows how many proposals I reviewed or how many papers I have submitted that are in review; but it said in some of the links that that information exists in some databases.

Carson stated that the information does not yet exist but he is going to ask the faculty member to give him that number.

When you get this data does the individual get to see the other data that was collected on them to make sure that it is accurate?

Carson responded yes.  One of the goals of this effort is to work with the colleges and the Provost Office to have a more centralized activity report where all of the electronically available information can be pulled electronically and returned to the faculty member, department, or the dean’s office for the different uses.  Typically, departments or colleges are going to have some custom data requirements that are outside the core.  I’m committed to work with all of those groups to build a core of faculty activity reports from electronically available means. 

Karen Helm stated that GA has been collecting a report for many years on instruction teaching workload.  They have been collecting, in response to a request from the Legislature, for ten, fifteen or more years.  The limitation of that report when it focuses only on teaching, the limitation is obvious; it doesn’t include research, it doesn’t include extension and engagement, it doesn’t include a lot of what you all are doing.  So GA was persuaded that the teaching load report doesn’t include everything a faculty member does so they looked around to see how they could supplement that report to provide a full picture and that’s why they asked all of the system institutions to participate in Delaware MOCA (Measure of Out of Class Activity). 

Helms stated that she thinks this is a report that should be very important to NC State, maybe more important to NC State than any other institution in the system, because it will allow us to articulate to the legislature what we do outside of the classroom and to make a much stronger case about why that is valuable.

Carson stated that a taskforce is working on this from every college dean’s office. Anyone with questions and comments should contact him.

Outside of the university who will see desegregated versions of the information?

Carson stated that it would depend on the data; the library data is public, of course, and the data that is collected in other places will be privileged information.

The Delaware Report is the national norm and the methodology they use is to take all of the institutions, take a discipline and if they are less than five they throw it out and if they are more than five they average it, and typically throw out the outliers which is what they do for their instructional cost study that we send data to now.  As far as what GA will do with the data, it won’t have any control over that.  GA will have a copy of the aggregated reported.

Carson stated that one of the ways his office can help is, not by making the data publicly available on the web, but by having it.  It is going to be covered by freedom of information if someone asks for it, but by the nature that they ask for it, he can at least open a dialog with them as they are asking for it, which is what they do with some of their data now.

 6.  Program/Activity Evaluation Criteria for Strategic Management of Budget Crisis
Chair Martin stated that the very same thing that we think about in time of crisis is probably the same things we need to think about even in good times -- how and where do we strategically invest.  The more we can think about it from a long term perspective the more wisely we are going to take cuts and the better we are going to lay a foundation for the future.

Budgetary decisions very much impact academics.  I don’t think we can effectively sit down and decide that these are budget matters and these are academic matters, because they really are all related. At the same time we don’t want to get into the trap where, from the Senate’s perspective, we are trying to micromanage budgets.  So we need to think about budgeting in the bigger academic scholarly perspective.  In fact, it fits very much in the bylaws of the Faculty Senate, which states that we should have shared responsibilities or delegated authority in matters that affect the university’s academic operations of teaching, research, and extension outreach.   So it is our job to think about budget matters in this kind of larger sense.  Both the Chancellor and Provost have asked us to be engaged in this work as well.

We have been trying to collect information on specific examples of how budget cuts are used in impacting the mission and we have been working at that to various degrees over the last little while.  Steve Keto provided us information about where all the budget goes and one of the questions that came out of that was that 61% was salaries and benefits and one of the questions that came out of that is, can we divide that out?  Where are the salaries?  Where are the benefits?  Assuming that 25% is benefits, roughly 60% is EPA salaries.  We have here in the Senate Office the tabulations of EPA salaries so what I did to help break that apart was I looked at administration, athletics, faculty, defined as tenure and tenure track, special faculty and then the other category. 

Chair Martin stated that beyond collecting data we know that cuts are inevitable, things are going to be happening, and we simply can’t keep doing more with less, so we need to find ways to evaluate what it is that we should be doing and what we should not be doing.  This is something the Provost has asked us to consider in a variety of ways.  We need to find strategic ways to deal with these kinds of things.  So as we think about strategic planning I think we need to keep our mission statement in mind.

Senator Khater stated that departments and various units within the university have already been tasked with what they need to do to change expenditures, to have vision for how to move forward, so this conversation is taking place for each one of us within our respective units.  My question is -- what are we doing here that is a) different from what the various units in the university are already doing? b) what role do we play not only in terms of what should we be covering, but basically what is our input going to do to change any of this budgeting priority?

Chair Martin stated that he doesn’t think we completely know the answer to that.  What we need to be thinking about, in part, is, if this is our mission statement to some degree, the Senate is a collection of not just departments, but a cross-section of the university, so part of what we need to be doing is helping each other stay aware of what is happening across the university.  Part of the responsibility also has to be the criteria development in informing some level of checks and balance.  That is why you have before you the budget principles that were put forth by Budget Advisory Committee.  I think this could also be a starting point for us to think about whether we want to generically endorse this and say this is what we should use for recommending making budget cuts or not -- but the other thing that I think we need to have is a discussion on some level of checks and balances, so you will, for example, on the budget principle 2a, find that the principle was to avoid arbitrary budget reductions strategies (e.g., hiring freezes, across the board cuts).  One of the things I have gotten back from department heads as well as from departments is that across the board cuts have been given at the college level, and I know at the Provost level work was done quite extensively to make sure that they weren’t completely across the board, and that there were programs based on how much teaching was done and so on and so forth.  I don’t have hard details about it, but I do have reports coming back from department heads, from at least two colleges, and in fact, from a variety of places, who said cuts are coming across the board.  That, in a sense is a violation of budget principles.  Beyond that, look at what departments have to deal with.  Departments aren’t necessarily going to be looking at the level of the university’s mission statement -- how do we as an individual [unit] fit into it -- but potentially as the university mission we have to decide, are there some kinds of programs that fit and are there some kinds of programs that don’t fit.  I think that is where we can be involved in the discussion. 

Chancellor Oblinger stated that there aren’t that many bodies that are across the entire campus to bat things about, particularly faculty-wise, constituted the way the Senate is.  We have research operations, we have the academic deans and academic programs focused in a particular way, but it all comes together at the faculty level in the Faculty Senate.

Chair Martin stated to a degree it is a glorified GEP because where else are we going to make sure that all of these things go together and how do they talk to each other?

Senator Ambaras—last spring you solicited faculty comments on the Chancellor’s report on UNC Tomorrow.  You wrote up a response.  I’m just wondering what the role of the Senate should be in terms of talking about a relationship between university admission and UNC Tomorrow, because as you know there is concern among some of the faculty that the UNC Tomorrow project as it currently stands doesn’t necessarily speak to the strengths of all the units on this campus that could be involved. So if that is taken as a premise -- that UNC Tomorrow is the guideline -- then, what is the role of the Senate in terms of interrogating that?

Chair Martin responded, that is the exact question that needs to be asked, discussed, and debated.  The list of criteria that are on there is simply the list that came out of a brainstorming of what might potentially be criteria at a University Budget Advisory Committee Meeting.  We can’t blindly say UNC Tomorrow is the way everything should be -- right now it is for all campuses and not just NC State, so we need to evaluate criteria as to how does this fit with UNC Tomorrow.  How does all of that fit with other aspects of our mission?  Likewise when we talk about the budget principles and we say that we need to protect undergraduate and graduate academic programs.  That is a broad statement.  If we are really going to get with the nitty-gritty in dealing with strategic planning, are all academic programs equal?  None of us are going to say that ours isn’t equal to others, but, realistically, that is a question we are going to have to ask.  How do we decide what are the highest priorities to meet this mission or not?  So I think we need some level of deeper thinking than just a statement that says undergraduate academic programs and graduate academic programs are the highest priorities to be protected. I think we do need a deeper level of thought than is currently in the budget principles and that is the task for us to begin working on.  We need to ask, what are the questions we need to ask and how do we set the priorities?

Senator Hudson wanted to know if Student Affairs has a distance education office and if so how is it different than DELTA.

Senator Domingue stated that Student Affairs responsibility is not about academic distance education.  It is distance education for, maybe, the parent programming, career planning, and programming online.

Chair Martin stated that to a degree what Senator Hudson is pointing out is that one of the criteria needs to be looking at units where things can be consolidated and coordinated to work together, because maybe some of this from Student Affairs and DELTA can work together -- there is a common issue.  Maybe they need to be separate and maybe they don’t, but there needs to be some level of criteria, some level of priority, some method to help us evaluate what should merge and what shouldn’t merge. 

 Senator Khater stated that the notion seems to him that we are in essence doing the job that the administrative officers must do.  The idea of looking at programs and saying what is duplicated and what is not is a review that seems to me is going on at the level of administration.  For us to say this is duplicate, I find to be problematic at a certain level.  It seems to me that we should be looking at the larger questions.  For example, there seems to be a model that is emerging about summer school that is going to be in essence providing less funding for departments, so the question is, what models are being adopted at the level.  This is a conversation that can take place because various colleges, various departments, are adopting different models.  That is the kind of conversation that we can talk about because that ultimately allows us to talk about budgeting in a way that we can perhaps influence and share information.  But for us to start saying that this is a duplicate of this and start evaluating it strikes me as something that is not really so much what we are supposed to be doing.

Chair Martin stated that the Provost is going to ask the Senate at a later time to help brainstorm about some specific things that we might know about, but that is not the point here.  Our point here is to try to get not so much talk about the specifics that might be merged, but [rather] is there a criteria that we want to put forward that would say we need to develop a metric to understand what kinds of programs should potentially work together as opposed to an independent unit?  The bigger issue is maybe we don’t feel that it is an issue to worry too much about -- duplication versus non duplication -- some duplication is important, not all is important, so how do we evaluate what duplication is important and what is not? So if we make a blanket statement that duplication is bad, we have really made a mistake, just as I am suggesting that potentially we make a mistake if we say, protecting undergraduate programs is our top priority for budgeting.  Maybe it is and maybe it is not, but that is a blanket overarching statement.  We have to get a little deeper than that if we are going to come up with good strategic planning.

Senator Hemenway stated that she is confused how the Senate is going to look at this and have a plan where we can see some outcome. 

Chair Martin stated three things to think about are priorities, criteria for evaluation, and some level of metric. 

Provost Nielsen—I don’t expect you, nor do I think we want you to, be the ones who are slugging through the data to decide that some function that we do as an activity has to be done twice as much or half as much.  I think that is administrations’ job.  I also think it is very important for us to have conversation about what the criteria are that we would use to make judgments about what to do and what not to do because that really is where you matter and the things that Jim listed are really important.  What do you think the things are that matter most?  On the list, for example, is -- serves many versus serves few.  I think we can understand what that means.  Is that one you would give a lot of weight to?  One that is not on the list -- what should be our higher priority, serving the best of our students and our least prepared students?  If you had to make a choice between those, where would you put the emphasis?  Relative to ways to do it, I think there are mechanisms to do that and I would hope that we could engage the Senate actively over the next six months as we go through the series of steps in this process.  As we go along we know that we are going to have to decide on some criteria, we are going to have to weigh those criteria in some way.  We are going to have to do some assessment.  We are going to have to have a list from you, and from lots of people, of candidate activities to be considered for change. 

Senator Anson stated that he is concerned that certain things that are in motion as a result of decisions that were made a year or two years ago will get lost if they are invisible, but not yet supported.  Look at the GEP and emphasis on interdisciplinary courses or writing, speaking, or look at service learning [and ask] have they already been earmarked for support or additional support; first of all there is no criteria to evaluate this program.  Secondly, because they are invisible in terms of their existence, for their increased support they will just be cut -- how do you include those things that you would envision for the future, that you would put into motion, yet are not yet funded?

Provost Nielsen stated that it is a really good point and as we are talking about this planning process there are two complements to it; 1) what should we reduce?  2) when should we start?   He doesn’t believe we (NC State) should stop our progress as an institution because we have this budget problem.  We have to continue to move forward on the priorities for the institution at the same time that we are figuring out things that we are not going to do or do them differently.   Which is more valuable, the new thing you want to start or the last thing you would not like to cut?  Those are captured in the compact plan and will be captured in the compact plans.

Chair Martin commented that these are exactly the kinds of things that need to get out there on the table so that we can develop. 

Senator Williams stated that we are cutting money but there are other resources that aren’t money and one of them is will, and a lot of these programs will go on in spite of money or not, because there is enough people invested in them that they will happen.  That is the other side of the coin, we have to see what kind of resources we have and what programs will those resources push ahead and help us with as we decide about cutting money, but we are not getting rid of all the other things, and we have to marshal those other things as efficiently as we can to make the money that goes away as painless as possible.  We have to get a sense of what is the will of the people that work here about those non-monetary resources they are willing to provide to make these things work.

Senator Hudson asked if the remainder of the meeting could be used to focus on whether we want to enhance our focus on under-prepared students or more prepared students.  We talk about raising admission standards and we have also talked about farming out the one and two hundred level courses to Community Colleges.  I think that those are both significant things to consider.

Chair Martin stated that there wasn’t time left to have a quality discussion.  Senator Hudson has outlined something I think the Academic Policy Committee could spend some time thinking about.  Some of the discussions could and should be happening in committees.

Senator Auerbach suggested that the senators email the Chair of the Faculty their suggested modifications. 

Chair Martin stated that he could put it on a WIKI so everyone could go in and do it real time.

Senator Ambaras stated that he is uncomfortable with the WOLF WIKI because it is editable by anyone in the community and this is a task of the Faculty Senate.  An alternative is to have everyone in the Faculty Senate added to a moodle course because moodles have internal wikis that only participants in the course could edit.

Senator Khater commented that as a follow up on Senator Anson’s point is something that we need to take into consideration because he was talking about programs that we have started, yet we have to worry about whether we are going to get funding or not.  The other thing that I’m concerned about is this phrasing that we have on the mission which, is basically our commitment to excellence or comprehensive range of academic disciplines.  My concern is that one of the priorities we should have in terms of budgeting is not just talk about any of the sort of creative ideas that are going to be coming up to create new programs.  To put it bluntly, before 9-11 people would not have thought that Middle Eastern Studies would have been very important.  I think after 9-11 people recognized that we should have been teaching our students a lot more about that, and so I think we have to be realistic and understand that there are limited funds.  I think we also have to prioritize the idea that we should be looking to the future and not only to simply retrenching what we already have. 

Chair Martin stated that it is important for it to be a priority.  Now we decide it is a priority, how are we going to evaluate excellence?  We need the criteria to help us do that and it can’t be just checked boxes.  We need to develop how we deal with excellence on each of these three points.

Senator Ambaras stated that he has a little bit of concern with any sort of evaluator criteria, which is purely utilitarian because we have a complex mission as a university.  We are knowledge producers and we are knowledge transmitters.  We have a commitment to the community in North Carolina.  We have a commitment as a university to a universal project of knowledge and so I would just like for us to always bear in mind that we can’t say simply – well, this is something that serves 400 students therefore it takes priority over something that might lead to a major discovery.  So how we can balance this out, how we can avoid the pitfalls of saying – well, numbers dictate this, as opposed to the universal mission.

Chair Martin stated we have to think about priorities and how we evaluate it.  What you are calling for is evaluation other than size, other than numbers.   We need evaluation criteria to help do exactly what you are saying.  I agree that we need to find a way to describe it. 

Senator Ristaino noted that in the first line of the mission statement we say that we are a doctoral research land grant university and when you look at the UNC Tomorrow report we are talking about growing a population of the university from 33,000 to 40,000.  I just came from Terri Lomax’s seminar and she is projecting growing from 7,000 graduate students to 12,000 graduate students, so we can grow most of our university by growing the graduate program.  So, as we are going through these budget cuts we need to be looking at how we can continue to grow graduate programs and focus on invigorating a research area, a graduate education area, academic and graduate education because the other UNC schools in North Carolina have big undergraduate programs and we can excel in graduate education. 

Chair Martin stated that we are not going to shut down the undergraduate programs, nor is anyone calling for that.  

Senator Ristaino stated that the Research Programs could grow by faculty writing grants to bring in the research dollars, so that we are not depending on the state budget for growth.

Chair Martin agreed.

Senator Ristaino stated that we need more doctoral research programs in the humanities.  I know a lot people in the humanities who are really interested in developing those programs and there has been this roadblock all the way up to the Board of Governors.  This might be a good time to put some of those forward as we think about growing.

Senator Ting stated, I think we need to discuss the priorities.  How many of you are provided opportunities to make suggestions to your unit about budget cuts.  I think we need to talk about the process, how transparent is the process if a new revised cut budget comes out in different units.  When it is all done, when it is presented, we need to know these rationales for cuts, and are they in line with the principles?  We have a good document here already.  I think the process and transparency are very important.

Chair Martin comment that Ting’s point is correct. 

Senator Anson stated that he is thinking about the evaluation metrics and how, to some extent, they apply in different ways to different programs, depending on how old the program is.  Imagine if Senator Khater’s program was in the beginning of its first year now, and you would only be able to use the metric number one centrality in making any kind of judgment.  We can’t possibly evaluate its quality, productivity, leadership or effectiveness, because it would be a nascent program, and so you have got programs at different stages of development, some that have been around for many, many years so that they have established themselves, others that are brand new, others that are merging, and others that are a couple years old.  So the metric needs to be sensitive to those contexts.  There are different contexts and there are different histories there and there are some that are still working toward excellence and having maybe to establish themselves or {that] haven’t had funding to do that, so that is a concern with trying to create a single matrix or set of indices that you would apply across the board to different programs at different stages of development.

Chair Martin stated that whatever happens in the metrics, we need to make sure that is part of what is in the process, and I think we need to be talking about “metrics not matrix.”  Metrics are ways to think about things, matrix assumes columns and rows and here is a number.   There is a huge difference.

Chair Martin stated that he thinks this has been a fruitful conversation.  He charged the subcommittees to spend some time thinking about the issues. 

7.  Adjournment
Chair Martin adjourned the meeting at 5 p.m.

Footer Nav