FACULTY SENATE MEETING
April 5, 2011
Present: Chair Overton, Chair-elect Kellner, Secretary Hergeth, Parliamentarian Weiner, Provost Arden: Senators Argyropoulos, Aspnes, Auerbach, Bernhard, Bourham, Edmisten, Funkhouser, Hammerberg, Havner, Headen, Kidd, Krim, Kotek, Levy, Mitchell, Moore, Paur, Robinson, Rucker, Sztajn, Townsend, Tonelli, Tu, Williams
Excused: Senators Carver, Kiwanuka-Tondo, Miller-Cochran, Sawyers
Absent: Senators Croom, Hatcher, Khosla, Washington
Guests: Betsy Brown, Provost Office, Bill Winner, Co-Sustainability Officer; Jack Colby, Co-Sustainability Officer; Tracy Dixon, Sustainability Office; Marc Hoit, Vice Chancellor, OIT; Marc Okner, Employee Relations/Human Resources
1. Call to Order
Chair Overton called 12th meeting of the 57th session to order at 3 p.m.
2. Welcome and Announcement
Chair Overton announced that the elections to the Faculty Assembly and Athletics Council will take place at the next meeting, and there will also be an election to nominate twelve individuals to run for next year’s Executive Committee.
Chair Overton announced that Roby Sawyers had been elected to serve at Secretary of the Faculty for the next two years.
3. Approval of the Minutes, Meeting No. 11, March 22, 2011
The minutes were approved as corrected.
4. Report from the Faculty Assembly
Chair-elect Kellner reported that the Faculty Assembly met Friday, March 25th in Chapel Hill.
The general theme of the meeting was distance education. The general tenor was comparing the experiences across the system.
During the meeting they received a biographical disposition from Lyon Gray, who is the Senior Adviser to President Ross. They were also notified that the Vice President for Academic Affairs had been chosen.
Business and Operations—Ginger Burks, Financial Officer talked about the budget and how the people downtown in the Legislature are playing defense on many different issues including F&A and regarding endowment.
There was a discussion about eliminating the EPA/SPA distinctions and questions were being asked about protection for SPA.
Chair-elect Kellner reported that schools like NC A&T and North Carolina Central were saying that they were being mandated to get into the distance education business. At the other end, UNC Chapel Hill was saying that the impression was it was basically being discouraged. A Professor from Chapel Hill said it was interesting to hear that 11% the student allowance at NC State are produced by Distance Education, but the idea about institutionalizing it across the system is being pushed by federal regulations, which are being enforced like that and among them are some things that are a little alarming. For example, the Federal regulations require that we prove that students to whom we are giving grades and credits are in fact, the students that we seem to be given grades and credits, in other words they have to identify themselves with some proof, which isn’t always as simple as it seems, but an even stronger and stranger and most fringing rule is proctoring of exams in distance education. The Director of online services for UNC online gave a lengthy discussion of this proctoring system by which they proposed to set up proctoring centers of volunteer proctors around the world.
Chair- elect Kellner stated there is a law coming out of the Department of Education that any class taken by someone across our borders and out of state, must program by program be licensed in that state. Not only is there all the paper work but there are finances, which is what the DOE seems to be requiring and the cost would be $732,000 and up.
Chair-elect Kellner stated that tuition models and course are what everyone was interested in and we have the problem here. Tom Miller explained that there is a task force set up to solve the problem of the premium that people have to pay to take distance education which is a legitimate complaint. He said that the growth received so far in distance education is that it would be logically suspected to surge even more when this problem is solved which he believes it will be.
5. Remarks –Provost Arden
Provost Arden took questions on the Strategic Plan and Strategic Realignment.
Margery—What has happened with the strategic plan since our last visit?
Provost Arden stated that they had a call-in session with the Board of Trustees last week and took their comments. A lot of comments revolved around the mission statement. Yesterday they sent the latest version of the mission statement to the Board of Trustees. The current recommended mission statement has to be approved eventually by the Board of Governors.
Provost Arden stated that the most comments they have received both internal and externally was:The inclusion of land grant or the re-inclusion of land grant
- The broadening of our strength as opposed to saying strength in science and technology to broaden that into strength in science and technology with a commitment to excellence in a comprehensive discipline.
Provost Arden stated that he is very comfortable with this mission statement.
Provost Arden said they hope to have the Strategic Plan to the Board of Trustees for approval at their April meeting.
The next phase will be to develop a continuing document down the line which will be an implementation document. We made the decision early on to take all of the task force reports and develop them into a very brief separate document because 1) we don want to clutter up the main document and 2) that second document has to be a document that we can update on a continual basis. So, we will be forming a team to work on that implementation plan and that will be focused on making sure that each of the goals that we identify in the Strategic Plan will have the metrics that we can agree on, so that we look at what comparable measures are among our peer institutions. What our purpose goal should be at set periods will be in the next nine years and what our expectations will be.
Chair-elect Kellner—In reference to the implementation of the business center models—To what extent will you be following local planning? What sort of advantage have you given toward the space issue?
Provost Arden responded that Vice Chancellor Leffler has communicated to the dean and the Chief Financial Officers at the college level that if you have college level plans that you should flush out those plans and think about proceeding along those plans and not to put those plans on hold until we get the whole picture.
Provost Arden said with respect to space some people may move but he thinks a very significant portion of the staff will be exactly where they are.
Speaking of cleaning out the curriculum and moving toward a different kind of model, is there a way the process can be made easier?
Provost Arden stated that they did not specifically address this issue in the Strategic Re-alignment Plan. “I’m hoping that when we redevelop the Division of Undergraduate Student Programs and Student Affairs, that we use that as an opportunity. With respect to course approval I think we need to figure out how to stream line it more effectively particularly when we are looking at eliminating and replacing or consolidating.”
Provost addressed a question that was submitted to him by Senator Auerbach about who is going to be sitting on the academic planning council and what role that really takes with respect to the role that the faculty play in the curriculum.
Provost Arden stated that the role of the proposed Academic Planning Advisory Council is not to get involved at all in course and curriculum. That has more to do with departments, college, faculty, UCCC. It is to help advise him when new programs are proposed as to where they are to end strategically with the university. It is also to look at comprehensive evaluation of comprehensive programs on an ongoing basis. He believes some form of planning committee or council is needed to work with him to evaluate a) proposed new programs and b) existing programs on a regular basis.
Senator Headen stated that he is concerned about using the word reporting line—what does that functionally mean?
Provost Arden stated that it means that the Chief Financial Officer of a college and the people that report to them directly report directly to the Dean and might have an indirect reporting line to someone in Business and Finance. The reality is that that working relationship has to be a really strong relationship to begin with. Charlie feels that an essential first step in developing this new model is to have those individuals report first and for most centrally, and those that have worked under that system would say that it is relatively transparent.
Senator Argyropoulos-In relation to the strategic realignment--talk to us a little more about your vision.
Provost Arden stated, if you look at the way we developed the Strategic Realignment what we tried to do was those things that was largely administrative, we implemented, those things that were going to be largely needing a discussion with the faculty we deliberately said there is going to have to be a discussion with the faculty. This has to be a collective discussion. The answer is, I don’t have a set plan with those three colleges (CALS, CNR, PAMS) whether they should merge or should not merge. I want to hear what the faculty says about it. The one thing I do think is as an institution we have been missing some amazing opportunities in the way that we do things. This has to be a faculty driven discussion. I want it to be really creative thinkers that are on this committee. The person that I have asked to lead this committee is Dr. Overton and I feel very comfortable that she would do an excellent job leading this committee.
Senator Paola—There is an issue of expertise and are there people in those offices—
Provost Arden responded that he thinks in some colleges that is so, but if you look across the colleges there is tremendous disparity in the level of expertise.
Provost Arden stated that he feels that his responsibility and the Chancellor’s responsibility is to ensure the end result is a higher level of service and satisfaction to the faculty and the department. We are very committed to that, which should not be about creating another level of bureaucracy.
6. Sustainability Strategic Plan—Jack Colby & Bill Winner
Vice Chancellor Colby stated that the sustainability has always been a part of NC State. It is embedded in NC State’s mission, and the things that have been done on campus have been on an individualistic approach to things. “We would like to move in a direction of changing the culture here on this campus so that sustainability becomes embedded in all of the decisions that are made,” Colby said. “We started out trying to understand all the driving forces that are occurring here, so we have a number of things here on campus, particularly things that we have adopted for ourselves.” He went on to say that there has been a history of successes here, that 85% of students say NC State should be a leader in sustainability.
Colby mentioned that there are a couple things in process now such as:
Energy Performance Contract –first project involved 13 buildings, $19M effort that’s generating about $1.4M/year in savings. Another example is Combined Heat and Power (CPH) – this will not only replace the old boilers that heat the campus, but it will also reduce our carbon footprint and it will save us about $3.5M /year.
Colby reported that in 2006 they did a snap shot of where we are in sustainability. They took all the major topics and looked at where we were and what we needed to do in the future, and from that then in 2008 we were able to perform a greenhouse gas inventory to the campus that looked at all of the surfaces of the greenhouse gases that we had missed and cataloged the beginning of the process of tracking those. In 2010 we finished a climate action plan and produced a strategic energy management plan to be able to reduce energy use on the campus.
Dr. Winner stated that they are going to advance the intellectual capacity of the university. We all have to become more culturally aware of how our actions consume resources. This is about a culture of sustainability that reflects a new way of getting together and talking about how we are going to implement plans. We have to get together as a group where there are students, faculty members, and staff members. “The planning process has to fit with other planning that is underway,” Winner said.
Winner stated that we have to be extremely careful about how we evaluate our sustainability capacity. He noted that there are a large number of ways to report, but we have to choose carefully where we report and what we report.
The PowerPoint presentation is available on the Faculty Senate website at: http://ncsu.edu/faculty_senate/items-interest/documents/SSP_CampusInput_Presentation_FacultySen.pdf
7. Issues of Concern
Senator Auerbach brought an issue of concern about a proposal to allow any study abroad course to automatically satisfy the global knowledge requirement of the GEP
Chair Overton assigned the issue of concern to the Academic Policy Committee.
The meeting adjourned at 4:45 p.m.