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
February 24, 2009

Present:  Chair Martin, Secretary Kellner; Chair Elect Overton, Senators Ambaras, Anson, Auerbach, Bernhard, Boone, Carver, Daemon, Domingue, Fahmy, Fleisher, Franke, Genereux, Havner, Hemenway, Hergeth, Kiwanuka-Tondo, Kotek, Lindbo, Lindsay, Ristaino, Roberts, Williams

Excused:  Provost Nielsen, Parliamentarian Corbin, Senators Akroyd, Daemon, Honeycutt, Levy, Scotford, Ting

Absent:  Senators Edmisten, Headen, Kocurek, Muddiman, Murty, Poindexter, Poling, Tu

Visitors:  Charles Leffler, Vice Chancellor for Finance and Business; Steve Keto, Associate Vice Chancellor of Resource Management; Dimitris Agyropoulos, Professor; Marcia Gumpertz, AVP Faculty and Staff Diversity; Katie Perry, Senior Vice Provost; P. J. Teal, Secretary of the University; Lee Fowler, Athletic Director; Barbara Carroll, AVC Human Resources; Suzanne Weiner, Library Administration;

ENG 215 Class:  Kathryn Walls, Michelle Kranig, Krysta Hardway, Sky Rimmele, Jessica Schwartz, Caleb Burrus, Tottannah Moore, Caitlin Greene, Morgan Soward, Tara Connolly, George Bass, Philip Meilleur, Crystal Clark, Mary Kornegay, Britt Wilcox, Ryan Magnusson

1.  Call to Order
Chair James D. Martin called the twelfth 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 visitors.

3. Tribute to Dr. Leroy Martin
Senator John Franke read a tribute to Dr. Leroy Martin who passed away on February 12, 2009.  The Faculty Senate observed a moment of silence in Dr. Martin’s honor.

Announcements
The Chancellor’s State of NC State address will be on March 10 at 11 a.m. in Stewart Theater. 

The next Millennium Seminar will be March 19th at 6 p.m.  Dennis Gartman, the publisher of the Gartman Letter will be the speaker.

Marc Bousquet, Associate Professor, Santa Clara University will be giving a lecture on March 20th at 7 p.m. for the NC Chapter of the American Association of University Professors.  The keynote address is entitled, “Higher Education and the Low Wage Nation”.

The Law Enforcement of North Carolina raises funds for the Special Olympics and Steven Carlton, Crime Prevention Officer and Chair-Elect of the Staff Senate would like to have faculty, staff, and student involvement in the Polar Plunge that will take place Saturday, February 28 at 11 a.m., at the fishing pier on Centennial Campus.

Chair Martin solicited faculty participation on the review team to look at the academic tenure policy and the non-tenure track policy. 

4.  Approval of the Minutes, Meeting No. 11, February 10, 2009
A motion passed to approve the minutes.

5. Remarks from Charles Leffler, Vice Chancellor for Finance and Business
Vice Chancellor Leffler handed out a budget update.

Vice Chancellor Leffler stated that it is important to remember that the biggest piece of the state budget comes from income taxes and the second biggest piece from sales tax and those are the two pieces that are certainly getting impacted the most and that has a rippled down effect to NC State in and of the budget.

We are at 154,000 jobs less in North Carolina overall and when you look at all the revenue impact, they are expecting about a two billion dollars shortfall in this fiscal year.  That is going to ripple down through all state agencies, just as it has with NC State.  Until April, when tax payments are made for this fiscal year, we don’t really get the last shoe to drop within the budget picture for North Carolina, and that is important to remember.  Unemployment is projected to continue to climb through this calendar year of 2009, and likely into 2010, and of course retail sales will follow that. 

The State Health Plan is already $300M in the hole, and that is an issue that has to be resolved this year.  In response to that two billion dollar shortfall, the governor has allocated [the shortfall] across the agencies.  The university has been allocated at this moment 6% and there is going to be additional allocations to us.  We may see that in the next thirty days.   We have prepared a 7% strategy at NC State for this fiscal year, so we can take an additional 1% reduction and not change the allocations that we have made to the campus.  There is some balancing and jigging that is going to continue to go on in responding to that two billion dollar shortfall. 

In terms of where does the state spend its money -- to put those cuts that I mentioned into context -- public education is the biggest piece. The UNC system is only 13% of the budget, so that just gives you a context.  [We’re] behind Health and Human Services when you combine us with Public Instruction. 

In terms of looking ahead to the next fiscal year starting July 1 and what the state is wrestling with, right now depending on whose projections you look at, they are anticipating that the state could be anywhere between two and three billion dollars shy as they go into that budget planning year and that is because of the additional anticipated loss revenues, the additional anticipated cost of the health insurance programs, and a whole host of things.  You can see the kinds of numbers that are driven by the simple math of the budget in terms of the state health plan being between $300M and 1.2 billion in the hole.  Right now our best information is that is going to be made up in a combination of increases in dependent care premiums, co-pays, and in the state simply putting in more dollars from the rainy day fund.  They are going to look to spreading those increases over the two years of the biennium, but likely there will be an increase in those premiums in both years.  I think we will see that issue merging early in the budget discussions session. 

If we were to get enrollment increase money that is a 200M ticket for the state based on current enrollment plans.  [ If the legislature wants to fund the full anticipated enrollmentincrease cost for education (K-12, CC and UNC system) they need to find 200 million in recurring new dollars.  Also, for the state employee salary increases it is $125M.]

Every percent of Medicaid $30M, every percent of salary for the state employees $125M, every percent of the cost of living increase for the retirement program is $33M, so there is a bunch of things like this that are pressing the state’s budget and are going to make it challenging for them. 

In terms of NC State, this year we have multiple impacts to our budget both in reduction and reversion.  We had the PACE reduction, which was less than a quarter percent going into the year; that was a reduction the legislature, tacked on in the first year of the biennium.  They gave us a hit both years, because they felt that we had demonstrated that we were moving toward cost savings through the various PACE (President’s Advisory Committee on Effectiveness and Efficiency) initiatives.  The flexibility reduction was an additional reduction that the state applied over and above the PACE and it was almost one half percent and that was one that we allocated to the campus using UBAC and those principles relate to how we exempt teaching faculty from part of that reduction when we calculate the reduction now so that the academic units then tend to get a lower percentage of the reduction than the non academic units.

We did the one-time reversions that are driven by the current economic crisis and that came in two packages of four and a three percent strategy to get to our 7% strategy here on the campus.  Those were made out of a mixture of some central funds, some applied in the UBAC principle’s way and then a little bit of across the board.

This year when you look at all of those budget reductions and reversions combined you can see that we have had almost $38M worth of funding lost across all of our budget codes, and we get that in the academic affairs [budget] which has everything to do with the academic programs on campus, as well as Agricultural Research and Cooperative Extension, both of which happen mostly through the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences.

We have put in place this year a request from the Governor [with] additional spending guidelines which are also posted on the budget website.  We have not put in place a hiring freeze, but we have put in a number of restrictions and a number of additional approval levels to make sure that we are looking appropriately at making additional hires or expenditures that might or might not be necessary and might not be defensible in the current economic climate.  We have limited hires; we have limited some purchasing and reduced some travel.  The Deans or Vice Chancellors can make exceptions as they need to accordingly. 

As we look ahead a lot of things are going to drive the budget in how we manage the cuts that we are required to take.  We will have cuts in the coming year.  I do believe that preparing for a 7% cut is very appropriate.  The President has said that he wants to draw the line at 5% and I think that is great, if you can, but I’m not as optimistic and that is why we will be on a 7% strategy so that we are not having to come back and rethink it all and retool at the last minute going into the new fiscal year.  If it turns out to be 6.5% then we have a half percent flexibility that we can allocate back and restore. 

We will continue to look at UNC Tomorrow in studying our priorities.  We will continue to look at how we do things strategically -- and not simply apply across the board -- and we will continue to use the University Budget Advisory Committee as a sounding board for a lot of the things that we do.  Your current Chair and Chair Elect both serve on that group. 

We have submitted a 3,5, 7 percent plan to the Governor via General Administration.  This was a plan that was put together the end of 2008 and was submitted just after the new year and it represented not what we will ultimately do, but it represented the kinds of impact we would have if we took 3,5 and 7 percent reductions on a recurring basis here on campus.  What those mean in terms of value is $15M/$25M/$36M as it relates to total impact across the three budget cuts.

At 7% we project that we would lose 180 class sections (12,000 seats).  We would expect that because so much of our budget is salaries that we are going to have to see some loss of jobs and right now that number mathematically is about 400 (60% [of which are] filled) and we would want to do everything that we could to reduce that number of impact on individuals.  That is going to be a high priority as we move forward.   It is projected that because of loss of sections we might slow down in time and that could have on our six year graduation rate as much as a 5% impact -- maybe not, depending on how we do it.  A lot of this is a [matter of] execution and these were simply things put together to illustrate the nature of the magnitude.  We were trying to illustrate that this does have an impact on NC State.  Don’t interpret any of this as decisions made, because none of these decisions have actually been made, they have only been hypothesized.  One example was to reduce library cost; we would close the Natural Resource Library.  Those were some of the major illustrations of dozens of things that would be impacted. 

Our 7% going forward would protect financial aid.  We anticipate that we would do 5% of that in a targeted way, meaning applying our budget principles and other things that says ‘here is a specific allocation, here is a specific unit’ and reserve 2% of that for strategic reductions, meaning that we will look at how we do things institutionally that will have a distributed budget impact, but it’s going to be driven by an institutional change that we might make, whether it’s organizational or whether it’s procedural or a process.  We have sent out to the Vice Chancellors and Deans a 5% allocation strategy because it is important that we begin moving forward on that 7% target.  I have included in the handout a copy of the letter that went to those deans from the Provost and myself and there is a third page attached to it that illustrates the actual allocation of that 5%.  You will note that there is a half percent that has been taken out of central resources, there is 2.5% that is protecting the teaching salary line, and there is also in the calculation a factoring that weighted the colleges on the basis of how much of the general education requirement do they teach, so that those colleges that are teaching bigger components at the general education requirement are disincentivised to not teach those classes.  We want to make sure that those kinds of classes get taught, because it’s going to have a time-to-degree impact on them, so that is a factor in there as well.  What you will see as results of that is that there is a wide array of percentages being applied into the academic and non-academic units.  In addition to not only dealing with the appropriated budget reduction, we are also dealing with some loss in endowments.  Through the six months ending December 31 we were 18.5% down on our endowments, and that is running a little better than national averages, which are mostly in the twenty to twenty-two range, but it is still for us a major loss.

Vice Chancellor Leffler stated that all of the information is up on the budget central website. Our goal is to share as much information as we can and make it as understandable as we can and we welcome any suggestions on how to do more of that.

What are the revenue opportunities we have?  How are we going to increase revenues?  If we lose state funds do we have other opportunities to replace those on a revenue side as opposed to taking a cut?

Vice Chancellor Leffler explained that the largest piece of our revenue comes from state appropriations and that is where we are getting the cut, which we anticipate, could be in that 7% range.  So we are losing a big slice of our biggest pot and now when you look around the ring, what are the other opportunities?   Tuition and fees have already been set and when you look at the other piece of the pie they are all very specific in terms of what those revenues coming can be used for, [so] our opportunities to increase the revenue are severely limited. 

Senator Havner questioned the difference in the numbers on the handout. 

Vice Chancellor Leffler stated that the budget numbers at NC State change daily throughout the year and when we started taking some of the cuts in the early year we had not yet applied legislative increase funds, so the numbers are not right, they are off some.

Senator Boone asked are there any other assumptions about our [enrollment] growth rate that impact our physical position; for example less growth, slower growth, different growth.

Vice Chancellor Leffler stated that clearly enrollment growth is the driver [of revenue].  That has generated a lot of discussion about at what point are we able to take students.  What the state does in terms of enrollment growth money is one thing and the legislature has traditionally given [money] with one hand and taken [it] away with the other.  We have gotten new money most of our budget years, but we have also had reversions and reductions.  The last ten years we have had a total of $51M of permanent budget reductions and another $100M of one-time reductions. In many of those same years we have gotten new money, either because of enrollment increase money or because we have gotten some recurring money on a one time basis, but like the engineering bumps that we got in the last two years when we got a total of $7M dollars over the biennium to boost up the engineering programs, it is very much a give it and take it away issue. 

Questions
Chair Martin:  Is there any way we can see a graph or numbers of these trends because we don’t see the other side of where those monies went? 

Vice Chancellor Leffler stated that he would be able to get the ten-year new money reversions and cuts to Chair Martin in a week or so.

Senator Anson:  Does the enrollment money pay for 100% of the instructional and infrastructure and other costs for each enrollee, or is that just a percentage of those total cost?  Is it a losing proposition to increase enrollment and expect that money to make up for it?

Vice Chancellor Leffler responded that it doesn’t cover all the cost.  It is a methodology based on looking at the cost, discipline by discipline at the various levels of education, and what the faculty load is anticipated to be, and what that translates into faculty [numbers].  Then there are factors added to that, but the reality is it doesn’t cover real cost for a student in that regard.   The fact that we get those funds has been, over the life of that formula being in place, very beneficial.  While the State [University System] of North Carolina literally leads the nation in the funding that it gets from the state, in terms of the percentage of our budget.  There are very few institutions that can talk about [having] 40% of their budget coming from state appropriations.  Some are getting now into single digits around the country and that is why their tuitions are three, four, or five times what ours is as a public institution.

Senator Kiwanuka-Tondo:  What is the percentage of out-of-state and international [students]?

Vice Chancellor Leffler stated that this year we increased the undergraduate amount the same for both in state and out-of-state.  This year we were going to propose the same dollar increase for both in-state and out-of-state undergraduates.  Percentage-wise, that is a smaller percentage for the out of state.  Then when the President recommended that our request be knocked down by a third from the 3.6 to 2.4 that only applied to the in-state undergraduate, which was the thing that the Board of Governors was most concerned about, so we ended up with a different dollar value for each of them as well, but in the last three years we have traditionally done pretty much the same dollar value on both cases.  That is where we stack up in terms of in state versus out-of-state tuition.  What is that point at which it might become less likely that students would come here?   We were well below the state limit for out-of-state students here at NC State and so we are not looking to minimize that because that is part of our diversity and quality of student issues as well.

Senator Ristaino stated, when looking at the pie chart with the revenue side, she sees a part of the pie that could potentially increase would be contracts and grants; the faculty are writing to increase that section because most of that comes from grants written [by faculty].  The thing that has always concerned me over the years is the overhead that comes in on those grants.  We get very little of it back at the departmental level.  A lot of it stays at the university level. Where is the overhead and how can faculty get it to pay for the renovations that are needed in departments?

Vice Chancellor Leffler stated that if you have something that is not functioning, that has nothing to do with F&A, so we need to fix it.   So if you have [a problem] and it has been reported to facilities, then they should be working toward a repair.

Chair Martin noted that old Gardner has been leaking, has had windows that leak, has air conditioners that don’t function, etc., and -- in my own lab in chemistry --, the temperature varies plus or minus five degrees.  These have been reported and have been worked on, so what Jean raises is a real climate issue. 

Senator Ristaino stated that her second question is the bond issues.  The money went to build new buildings and how are those decided?  Some of it I think is political and some of it is based on need.

Vice Chancellor Leffler stated that in terms of day-to-day repairs those should still be happening if they have been reported.  It may be harder in some cases, but we have an obligation to do.  In terms of how F&A rate is calculated, it is a very large process to demonstrate how and what your cost of doing business is, and those rates are based on what we can see whether it’s heat and lights, processing the payables, etc.  When we get those F&A dollars in on a reimbursement basis, we set up a budget that Terri Lomax and I agree upon, and when you look at where the dollars are earned, there are percentages that say, this is how much those areas should get back.  In all cases we have always returned back to the academic units more than they have earned in the calculation. They are returned back through a formula that Terri Lomax’s office manages, and they go back to the deans, but what happens within the college through the units is not something that I have a part of, and I don’t think Terri has a part of.  That is a college-by-college decision.

In terms of the Bond Program, it was driven by our tenure capital plan and a survey of buildings.  Remember only half of what we wanted was funded in the bond program.  A lot of buildings that was important to us didn’t make the cut.  It was very much driven by our ten-year plan and getting as much as we could get.  We got $468M out of that which is more than we ever got.  We built both new buildings and we renovated a lot of buildings as a result of that money.

Secretary Kellner:  Take your bad case scenario of 7% cut in state appropriation and then take the fact that state appropriations are 46% of the university’s budget.  We therefore see a 7% become a 3.3 reduction in the [overall] university budget, a 2.4% reduction to the university budget with a 5% cut in state appropriations, etc.  Is that not an accurate way of talking about it?

Vice Chancellor Leffler state that it is a very good point in terms of that piece of it.  Likewise we were having an 8% loss in endowments, and we are also seeing a loss in non-federally funded research.  Everything is losing some ground.   We have a very small endowment compared to most institutions like us, and that is one of the reasons we have Nevin Kessler here so we can think differently about how we approach endowment, because we have not grown endowment at this institution the way we have to grow it and that has got to be a priority.

Senator Williams:  This morning on NPR the State Controller was talking about January’s revenue. Have you gotten any rumblings?  He said they are down even more than they thought they would be down.

Leffler stated that he has not seen the hard numbers but his understanding is that they are down more.  I see this continuing to go south the remainder of this fiscal year, going into next year, and where it’s going to be coming out in 2010 is yet to be seen.  A lot of that will have to do with the deployment of the recovery package and whether or not we actually start creating jobs, because jobs are what pays personal income tax, which is what causes the purchases to go up, causes the sales tax to go up, so until we see job growth for at least two consecutive quarters I’m not going to be convinced that we are beginning to turn this thing in any other direction from where its headed right now.

Chair Martin:  One of the things we wanted to talk about is the revenue side. Can you help us understand, because in one sense we are told North Carolina has a greater fraction of its revenue coming from the state than other universities?  I don’t think we have more total budget than other universities do.  I think it means that we just have a greater fraction of our budget coming from the state sources, so I guess part of the question of the revenue side is how do we begin to get a handle on how maybe some other university’s function when they get 20 or 10% from the state, where are their sources of revenue because might we need to start thinking in those directions?

Leffler stated you will see three basic things that are different when you look at other campuses and one is their tuition will be much higher.  You look at the sixteen peer institutions at NC State, NCSU will be the lowest or the next lowest of any of them.  I think we clearly will be pulling in the very bottom round of the tuition ladder.  Good from a standpoint of cost and affordability for the state, but it does not generate dollars.

The other is endowments.  We have one of the smallest endowments for an institution our size, about $350M.  Again, you will find endowments that would be 3 to 10 times larger.  We are never going to be the size of Harvard, but there certainly are a number of other publics that have considerable larger endowments because they have had a different strategy over the course of a few decades than we have had.

The third piece that makes a big difference in terms of the budget is research programs.  While we have a strong research program, we have always been strong research contenders in the area of private research funding.  We are not a medical school and many of those with medical schools have much higher NIH and so forth kinds of funding.  We are getting stronger but we are not there and those are big pieces of the budget. So when you look at other institutions you will see, generally, a larger total budget than we have.  Even though a small piece is coming from the state, there is a much higher endowment paying into things, there is a much higher tuition being charged.

Senator Anson stated that he is concerned that there are a number of high quality, smaller non-essential programs that don’t fit into the budget reduction principles and are easy targets for elimination or for what has been talked about, which is suspending their operations for one or two years.  His concern is that once you suspend them they never come back and you have to go out and get renewed money to refund them.  He thinks a budget principle should be that we have these kinds of programs and there is a suggestion to suspend their operations that they remain operating even on a shoestring to remain viable.  A lot of those kinds of programs, that support student services, that support faculty development, etc., are really great programs and if you lose them entirely because they don’t fit into these high maintenance categories, we are never going to get them back, or it will take a number of years to get them back.

Chair Martin stated that some of that is starting to be incorporated into the next level of budget guidelines.  Margery, Paul, and I have tried to raise that concern at the UBAC. 

Senator Anson feels that it needs to be understood by Deans because they are looking at their budgets and seeing programs that don’t draw tuition credits, that are not related to instructions, that are not part of the library system, etc., and are suggesting that they just be put out of business.  We have seen other programs go and they never come back and I think that is a huge loss to the institutions when you lose some of these really high value programs.

Chair Martin stated that the real question is how do we bring such an issue to broader attention.  If we pass some kind of a resolution, we could then have sort of this formal statement to send around. There is some of this formality that is taking place.  

Secretary Kellner stated that he understands what Senator Anson is saying.  He is suggesting that we might want to think about some procedures for “shoe-stringing”, for taking organizations that might be targeted and finding general ways of stripping them down -- reductions that would involve space perhaps and personnel -- but maintaining at least some sort of presence to keep them going there as a ghost for a while, until things can move on.  I don’t know whether this is a good idea or a bad idea, but some sort of specific notion of how that is done would be what you described.

Chair Martin stated that there are some shoes that should be strung together and some that shouldn’t be strung together.  To a degree this is a similar argument that I heard I believe at the CALS Research Meeting and that is the issue of bridge funding for even funded grant programs because let’s say your project doesn’t get funded on the first cycle it might be a very viable project and it might take one or two rounds sometimes to get something refunded, what do you do in the meantime?  Do you let something very valuable and viable die or is there a way to make some kind of a substance maintenance level as long as you are active in retooling?  I think I’m hearing a similar kind of idea, it’s just that one is looking more at sort of an academic center and one is looking more at sort of a research idea, but I think they are all talking about the same idea.

Senator Auerbach stated that the difficulty is going be that there is an extra discrimination that’s going to be involved with those worthy of being shoe stringed and those that are unworthy and with using the budget crisis as an excuse to get rid of a program, probably does deserve to do that.  That is a discrimination that is not really being made in this scheme and now it would have to be made.

Chair Martin:  What sort of discriminating scheme are we talking about?  To a degree some people will say that it’s up to the dean or department heads to make that decision because allegedly even the issue that you are raising, your dean has the authority to completely protect.  [What we are] raising [is] a question about whether protection is actually taking place.  So are we asking for some level of review and if so what would that be?

Secretary Kellner stated that a specific example would be LITRE.  LITRE was just done away with and that served faculty in terms of grants for training and technology.  Some one just made that decision.  I don’t know if it was a good decision or not, but [someone felt] a need to do that. 

Senator Auerbach stated that when decisions are made to do away with things he prefers that they be made at the lowest possible level.  

Chair Martin stated that it is tough on both sides because everyone wants to protect their program.  Everybody knows what is important about their program and they know what needs to be protected about it.  That becomes the disadvantage of the lowest point making the decision and at the same time if the lowest point is not included in that decision you equally make problems of often making decisions without the level of input that is necessary.  That really is the question before us.  Do we want to propose something?  Do we want to propose some kind of review mechanism?  Again, we need some slice out of something whether it’s to keep research centers alive and then have a pretty stringent review process. 

Senator Ristaino stated that they have individual faculty activity reports that they do on their programs.  She suggested that maybe there could be some sort of yearly impact statements so you can make some judgments on maybe what they have done.

Senior Vice Provost Perry stated that there are definitely assessments done and the dean of those who have a stake in it reads them. 

Chair Martin stated that our faculty [undergoes] post-tenure reviews every five years.  There is an every five-year review, for example, of a center but in post-tenure review, I don’t have my review committee that reviewed me.  Am I hearing a post-tenure review type of thing?  Is that what I’m hearing?

Senator Ristaino responded, yes, and then the groups would have to be accountable for what they are doing and then reporting it back to peers. 

Senator Boone stated that if there is a sense of the magnitude there might be a way of figuring out a pattern.  The other part, which is off the map, is prior to the economic downturn; we are all being encouraged to pursue new collaborations and new recombinations of different disciplines in departments collegiately and at the university.  There might be a case for new interdisciplinary dialog, new collaborations to take a couple that might be vulnerable because of small size or low levels of research funding or facility use and develop new partnerships.  I think in both cases a working knowledge of what are we talking about, we are talking about five, fifty, five hundred programs would be useful, then we could participate, I think, more fully.

Senator Anson stated that he thinks a lot of the deans’ hands are tied and so they are looking at anything that is not part of the essential principles and that is where they are going to target a lot of their cuts. If you can somehow keep a presence there, at least the program is still alive -- such that it can maybe regain some funding.   There will be some kind of activity and people who run these programs are willing to put energy in without the course releases, as long as there is something going on.  My concern is that they are going to disappear.  With LITRE gone, TLTR is a grassroots technology based organization that has very little budget, but it still runs and so how do we get the message out there, how do we get deans and others who are making decisions to think productively about keeping [programs alive].  We end up with an institution that essentially is a machine that runs students through credit hours, with the exception of the research effort, which comes from external funding.  That is all you have left and that is not an institution that’s got any quality, in my book. You have got to have other kinds of programs that are supplementing the work that we do, but those are the ones that are going to disappear.

Senator Anson stated that he doesn’t know what the solution is but he thinks a message needs to go out to deans, maybe from the Provost, that when possible protect these programs by at least keeping them alive.  Don’t pull the plug on them so that they will not be able to reinvent themselves later. I think there is a blanket sort of operation that is eliminating all course releases and all funding for all programs that are state-appropriated funds that are not part of these principles. 

Senator Ambaras stated that if X number of programs share certain basic needs in terms of having certain operations to sustain, why should those be handled separately by the various departments or colleges?   Couldn’t there be a university center that could handle that and generate some confidence for the various programs?

Chair Martin stated what he is hearing is that we need to try to put together a white paper on an idea and that requires work. I would be happy to work with some people to do that and I think we need to think about it in a broader content, not just the history program, not just the research funding program, because I think there is some commonality to all of them.  The more we can look at the commonality, the more we can maybe make an argument for this kind of a resource.

Senator Kiwanuka stated that he is interested in finding out why the endowment is weak.  Is there a way to compare our institution and find out what the other universities are doing? Where are we going wrong?  Is there something that could be done concretely?  What could be done with endowments?

Chair Martin stated that Nevin Kessler addressed that issue in the General Faculty Meeting back in the fall.  He has been working tirelessly to look at our past campaign, giving, and endowment practices, noting what has and has not worked.  We have not had an emphasis in our past campaign on building endowment.  So why don’t we have a big endowment, in part because we have never emphasized building an endowment. The groundwork is being laid to correct the situation and that started with recognition of where we are and it’s not the prettiest picture.  It’s going to take some investing and right now we don’t have that.

6. POL 05.20.2 Emeritus Faculty Status and Involvement
Senator Franke reported that there was a section in the Faculty Handbook that described the privileges of being an Emeritus Faculty and when the handbook was moved online this particular section was left out. The Lifelong Faculty Involvement Committee would like to correct the deficiency and get those ideas on to the policy as they were in the handbook.  They have taken the four basic ideas that were there and have rewritten them and have come up with wording that they would like to see included in the policy.

Senator Franke reviewed the changes and presented a resolution for first reading that recommended the changes be put into the policy. 

Secretary Kellner wanted to know if there any descriptions anywhere of any limitations on what assigned duties and responsibilities might be or can any department or constituency find Emeritus Faculty or anyone else who is willing to do X, Y, or Z tasks, in terms of teaching, advising, etc., as volunteers.

Senator Franke stated that many emeritus would like to have more interaction with departments.  It is a matter of unpaid work but I have no information about any restrictions written about what those responsibilities might entail.

Senator Ambaras wanted to know if this has any bearing on Senate representation.

Chair Martin stated that it has no role in the Senate.

Senator Havner noted that only the quota column is used in each of the different colleges when calculating the number of senators. Emeriti are not counted in making that calculation, only regular faculty.

Chair Martin stated that the only rights that Emeriti are provided in our faculty bylaws are at the university level.

Chair Martin stated that in defining your departmental voting faculty it always refers for tenure decisions to people who are tenured or higher, and even in non-tenure track cases, we always specify current rank and higher.

Senior Vice Provost Perry stated that you must be tenured to be in one of the two departmental voting faculties. Emeriti give up their tenure when they retire, as do regular retired faculty, so they are not tenured and they are not eligible to vote. 

Senator Havner stated that most every department on campus readily calls upon outside referees to review, but as he understands it, the individual who is being reviewed has to agree to that person.  All of this wording was worked out with Legal in 2003, and there hasn’t been a single change, except the post tenure review wording that they added, so all this is saying is that if an individual who is being reviewed wishes to have a Emeritus Professor who is a specialist in his area to take part -- not to vote, but to help evaluate his research -- then that can be done, but that individual would have to agree to that.

A motion passed (three opposed) to waive the rules to vote on the document.

After an extensive discussion on the document a motion passed to table the document.

Chair Martin stated that he would send the document to everyone and asked that any comments be directed to Senator Franke.

A motion passed to extend the meeting.

7.  Elections
Chair Martin requested that all nominations be submitted by March 17th.  The elections for senators and grievance and hearings panels will be held on March 24th.

Secretary of the Faculty
The Senate elects a Secretary of the Faculty from among the membership of the Faculty Senate The Secretary serves a two-year term, usually simultaneously with the Chair of the Faculty.

Secretary Kellner gave a brief summary of the role of the secretary.

The nominations for Secretary of the Faculty opened today and will close on March 10th.  The election will take place on March 24th. 

8. Issue of Concern
Senator Ambaras was asked by someone in CHASS to request that the Senate consider not supporting any form of incentive for teaching evaluation in regard to how to enhance students response rate through teaching evaluation.  I have been asked by [individuals in] CHASS to consider a different kind of incentive from what the resolution may have envisioned.  What has been discussed as another approach is to create a pool of students who have completed all of their evaluations and then from that pool select a certain number (1st and 2nd year students) who have a hard time getting into courses, to get the priority registration and from the same pool third and fourth year students, give them a certain amount of money to purchase text books.  This might be a way to create some incentives that are problematic in the ways that we thought. 

Senator Ristaino from the Academic Policy Committee stated that they have talked about that at length and the decision was made through consensus not to have any kind of incentives at all. 

9. Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 5:10 p.m.

Footer Nav