Left Navigation

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

Talley Student Center
 3:00 p.m.

Remarks By Professor Jim Martin, Chair of the Faculty
Good Afternoon

Welcome to the Fall General Faculty Meeting.

One of the big topics the Faculty Senate is working on this year is trying to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of both faculty governance and communication across the university.  We recognize that communication is something that we all struggle with and I think that is the normal situation whenever you have an institution.  How do you communicate with people between units?  We have many units and levels here at NC State where communication needs to happen.  A concern in the Senate because of our responsibility with policy is making sure that there is early involvement and discussion when we are talking about things that might impact policy.  We would like to make sure that there is good and early involvement with faculty in decision making processes because it is hard to say at the end “you know, we should have thought about this at some later stage,” so if we can get ideas out on the table before policy revisions take place it quite often is most effective. The Governance Committee is looking into that in a formal way and we will be looking into it in a variety of other ways as well.

Given that it is important to try to utilize the whole faculty expertise in the UNC Tomorrow process Erskine Bowles recognizes that it is more efficient to get a consultant committee of faculty than it was to hire a consultant.  We argue that it is probably effective at all campus levels whether it’s a line of buildings or marketing campaigns.  We have faculty who are experts in those areas and we should more effectively use them.  So if we improve the effectiveness of faculty governance communication we may be able to more effectively utilize our faculty expertise and resources. 

We are also working to try to develop and increase coordination between the Faculty Senate and University Standing committees because that relationship has been nonexistent in many cases and not terribly effective in others.  We are trying to take some strides to organize that because it doesn’t make sense to have a Faculty Senate governance structure and a University Standing Committee governance structure.  

The first formal act we did this year was to approve the post tenure review policy, which is something we worked on quite extensively last year.  Post tenure review is something that has had its challenges, so we put together a task force that included faculty senators, department heads, and senior administrators because these are the parties who are most impacted by post tenure review.  We held a couple of hearings to try to understand what worked and what didn’t work before we worried about trying to revise any program or policy.  The two things we heard more commonly was that the process needed to be a lot more streamlined because it was quite burdensome both administratively and peer-wise for the 98 to 99 percent of the faculty for whom there were no issues. 

The second thing that we heard very commonly was that we needed to make sure that a peer post tenure review process is not just some disciplinary way for faculty peers to do the jobs that department heads are suppose to do. 

The policy should become available after the November Board of Trustees meeting, which is the last level of approval.  What is going to have to happen next is each college is going to have to form their own post tenure review policy in keeping with the new university post tenure review policy, which is in keeping with the new Board of Governors post tenure review policy.

The other major issue that we are looking at with some concern is to try to understand university growth issues.  At the last Senate meeting we invited three very good presentations from Karen Helm, Lisa Johnson representing Kevin MacNaughton, and Louis Hunt to try to understand items like enrollment issues, planning issues, and facility issues.  How do the physical requirements that we have here on campus impact the kind of growth that will be possible?  We are also very concerned about the impact that growth will have on faculty and students.  I don’t think many of us are concerned that growth necessarily in and of itself is good or bad, but it is how we grow and do we have appropriate resources to grow.  In being a good land grant institution we know that when we plant crops we need to make sure that there is good soil, good drainage, and good fertilizer because if you don’t have those things, nothing will grow.

The same is true with the university.  We need to make sure that we have all the system requirements both personnel and physical plans in place, so we are working trying to understand how we as faculty can get involved particularly making sure that quality stays what it needs to be. Of course we all know that budget constraints are coming down upon us and may add a whole new challenge that will impact university growth issues, so we need to try to understand and deal with that responsibly. 

Growth issues are part of what we are going to discuss today. These levels of growth issues are very critical particularly to Faculty Senate and to faculty issues because in many respects I think faculty are the cores that has the longest longevity at the university.  We are the ones that have the direct interface for the most part with students and the greater clientele, so the help of the faculty in many respects is like the help of the university.

There are two sets of information that raise the greatest concern to me when thinking about faculty recruitment and retention. The University Planning and Analysis website has the number of faculty in various categories, and one that caused me great concern was that the number of tenured faculty only goes back five years because prior to 2003 there was a redefinition of code, so that slope is not going in the direction that I as a faculty member want to see.  We are losing 13.7 tenured faculty members per year, so if we are growing in the number of students and if we are going to keep our quality where it needs to be I would think that this ratio should be going up.

We need your creative ideas because these are some major challenges that we have to face.  These data are neither good nor bad, they are challenges that we have to face and we have to figure out how to do it effectively so that we can maintain a very strong university. 

Approval of the Minutes of the March 20, 2008 General Faculty Meeting
The motion passed to adopt the minutes. 

Chancellor Oblinger introduced the Executive Officers of the University.

Larry Nielsen, Provost and Executive Vice Chancellor; Marc Hoit, Vice Chancellor for Information Technology; Nevin Kessler, Vice Chancellor for Advancement; Mary Beth Kurz, Vice Chancellor for Legal Affairs; Charlie Leffler, Vice Chancellor for Finance and Business; Thomas Stafford, Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs; PJ Teal, Assistant to the Chancellor and Secretary of the University

John Ambrose, Interim Dean for Undergraduate Academic Program; Jeff Braden, Interim Dean for the College of Humanities and Social Sciences; Dwayne Larick, Interim Dean of the Graduate School; Louis Martin-Vega, Dean of the College of Engineering; Dan Soloman, Dean of the College of Physical and Mathematical Sciences; Ira Weiss; Dean of the College of Management; Johnny Wynne, Dean of the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences

Report on the Achieve Campaign
Vice Chancellor Nevin Kessler reported that the goal for the Achieve Campaign was a seven-year effort with a one billion dollar goal and that goal was achieved nineteen months early.  If we were to plan a perfect campaign in the future it would have a much larger percentage of campaign dollars coming in as endowments.  This campaign was very focused on current needs of the university and very significant facility projects. 

Vice Chancellor Kessler commented that what is remarkable about NC State is the quality of its relationship with organizations, corporation’s foundations, and other types of organizations.  It is the foundation of all of our fund raising here at this university.  Our upside opportunity as we think about fundraising in the future is fundraising from individuals, because that is where the greatest amount of wealth in the United States can be found and as we plan our next campaign we want to be very focused on major fundraising with individuals.

Vice Chancellor Kessler reported that several colleges did better than others, but what is really terrific is that each college exceeded its goal, which is rare.  He is thrilled that every college reached the finish line. 

There were four entities that participated in the campaign:  Athletics, Alumni Association, Libraries, and Arts of North Carolina.  Athletics raised the most among entities with $225M.  The Alumni Association raised almost $25M, the libraries $13M, and the Arts $8.4M. 

Vice Chancellor Kessler said he was also asked to take a look at how the dollars came into the university.  We received $143M that did not fall into one of the ten colleges nor the entities.  These dollars were divided among a number of different areas with the largest being Faculty Research and Non-Governmental Grants and these are dollars that didn’t fall in any particular column, but was a research grant that was shared by a number of the communities with NC State under the university wide number because it has undergraduate and graduate fellowships with faculty support and program development included.  Remarkably in a campaign like this there was no goal for unrestricted dollars for the university to be used at the discretion of the Chancellor and subsequently, no dollars were raised for that.

Kessler reported that the vast majority of non-athletic scholarships went to undergraduate students ($88M) with a much smaller number for graduates.  They raised 46 new professorships and most of them were funded during the campaign--Engineering 17, PAMS 8, CALS 7, Veterinary Medicine 6, Management 5, and Natural Resources 3. 

Vice Chancellor Kessler stated that they built a lot of new facilities and some of the largest in terms of size included the Friday Institute for Educational Innovation, Mathematics and Statistics Building, which will be dedicated this spring, the Dorothy and Roy Park Alumni Center, which is a 3.5 million dollar project, Demonstration Feed Mill at Lake Wheeler, Wendell Murphy Football Center, and Richard Vaughn Towers.

Some examples of renovations that occurred are the Frank Thompson Building, 4H Environmental Education Conference Center, D. H. Hill Library, Ruby McSwain Education Center, J.C. Raulston Arboretum, Carter Finley Stadium, and Dail Park Baseball Stadium.

Vice Chancellor Kessler reported that they were able to cap approximately one half billion dollars for the campaign in terms of research funding, which were those non governmental grants and the faculty were largely responsible for this revenue, but of course as those dollars come in they go back out. 

Vice Chancellor Kessler stated that approximately $110M in pledged payments has not yet been made and most of that is through endowment.  There was 9% of this campaign that was received from deferred giving, so an actuarial table has been put in place to understand when we might be receiving that revenue, which is about $117M. 

Question and Answer Session

Is there an agreed upon standard for what is or is not counted in a campaign?
Kessler stated that NC State developed a standard that is close to industry standards.  We will certainly go back, as any good steward does, to make sure that we have counted all those things exactly the way we wanted to and we may at that point make some revisions.  Our commitment was to try to be consistent about what we counted and how we reflected that.

Given UNC Chapel Hill’s plan to engage in a four billion dollars campaign, what implication does that have with us?
Kessler stated that there was a very preliminary presentation made to the Advancement Committee of the Board of Trustees.  There is a significant new level of commitment that will be required in terms of new positions, new funding, and new buildings, and a number of things that will have to be addressed before UNC Chapel Hill can begin to consider a campaign of that size.

Kessler went on to say that we (NCSU) likewise would have to make some decisions about the kind of infrastructure NC State is going to put into place.  He thinks we are quite capable of raising significantly more than what was raised in the current campaign.  

UNC Tomorrow Part II: Faculty and Staff Recruitment and Retention

Report from the Recruitment and Retention Working Group

José Picart, Vice Provost for Diversity and Inclusion
Vice Provost Picart stated that in June NC State received campus guidelines for Stage II of the UNC Response Planning Process.  In Phase II of the UNC Response Planning Process campuses were being asked to continue their efforts to respond to the UNC Tomorrow Commission Report identifying the needs of North Carolina to which UNC can and should respond.  In the document that we received campuses were asked to answer questions in four specific areas.

Provost Nielsen requested that Vice Provosts Picart and Brown coordinate the response to question number four, Faculty Staff Recruitment and Retention and they approached it in three phases.

Remarks -- Betsy Brown, Vice Provost for Faculty Affairs
Vice Provost Brown stated this is really the answer to the question, why grow to 40,000 students?  There is a lot of pressure to provide access to higher education in North Carolina.  She noted that North Carolina numbers have been edited several times and there are a lot of unknowns, which is the trend that we are dealing with and that is why the total graduates were divided up according to the UNC going rate and those numbers were basically divided among the campuses.  That is where our 40,000 students came from. 

Brown reported that the 2015 projections give you some [sense of the] relationship between our growth and those at other campuses.  East Carolina could end up being the largest campus depending on the trends and growth. They are very likely to overtake UNC Chapel Hill and become the second largest institution in the UNC System.

Vice Provost Brown stated that the numbers we really want to use are the 2017 numbers, which are the end dates for the current projections, which is 40,000, so we would grow from about 27,000 students in 1997 to 40,000 students in 2017. The projection is that the 40,000 students will be divided; undergraduates would grow by 16% and graduate professional students would grow by 35%, so the implications are that the growth is greater in graduate than undergraduate. 

The number that is now projected for full time non-tenure tracked faculty, tenured, and tenure track faculty is 2500 compared to 1900 last year and the growth of tenured, tenure track faculty among that group would be a little over 1900.  The rule of thumb that has been used is three staff members per faculty member, so that would mean a growth of 7500 staff members.

Student headcount would go from 32,800 to 40,000, which is a growth of about 22%

Faculty headcount would go up 29%

Staff headcount would go up 21%

If we look at how that plays out in terms of relationships, this is not exactly student-faculty ratio, but it is the student headcount compared to tenure, tenure track, and full time non-tenure track faculty. 

Faculty in 2007 by age group
Vice Provost Brown reported that tenured and tenure track faculty peaks at about 59 years old and as you can see there are a lot of people who will be eligible to retire within the next ten years.  If they leave we have one scenario, and if not we have another scenario.  This is very much a function of individual decision. 

Vice Provost Brown stated that we have retirements to think about in addition to the enrollment growth.  We are not confident that we can predict what these numbers are going to look like over the years but we do have some scenarios about combination.

Brown reported that EPA professional staff is much younger than the faculty.  Tenure track faculty over 60 represented in 1998 was about 12.5% of that group of faculty and now it is a little over 20% and given the changes in proportion in the enrollment growth, the age of the faculty using current exit rates, and projecting the new faculty that we are going to have in the future at the present rate, we make new hires due to vacancies the vast majority of which are retirement at 58 per year and new hires due to enrollment growth at 40 per year, which is roughly 100 new hires a year.

The projection right now is that at a faster rate of exit we would be replacing 76 faculty vacancies and the new hire enrollment would be the same, so by ten years out rather than hiring 98 faculty we would be hiring 116 and that is because of the enrollment projection.  This includes tenure track, tenured, and non-tenure track full time.

Vice Provost Brown ended her comments with the following questions:

What are we going to have to do to recruit the faculty that we need? 

What are we going to have to do to retain the faculty we need? 

What is the demographic and diversity mix of the faculty going to be and what are we going to have to do to achieve a mix that we think is appropriate? 

Round Table Discussion

Group Discussion
Chair Martin requested that the audience sit at tables where the topic was being discussed that they were most interested in and each group would choose a scribe to record the discussions on the computer.

Chair Martin later transferred the recorded discussions and questions to the Wolf WIKI for further discussion from the faculty. Below are some of the discussions that took place.


Reactions to Recruitment/Retention Data from above presentations

Opportunities and Challenges: Recruitment, Retention and Retirement

What's a good mix of age demographics? Young faculty will bring energy, but may need to hire experienced faculty as well. Hiring older faculty could also be good because they don't have to stay for 50 years, and it might be better for more sr fac to run facilities, etc, that jr fac can't really be expected to do. Deans can make a difference (with funding support) in who you are hiring -- if you only get $$ to hire at ass’t level, that's what you do.

More U of Phoenix models coming? UNC online is = UPhoenix in size. Worry that hands-on sciences, etc., can't really be done well online. It's good to be in the lab. Need good staff & depends on good pay & health benefits. Good location has its limits. NC not well-served in benefits area. Even small things like having to pay for parking & gym, little things add up. Respect afforded to faculty 30 yrs ago in these things was higher. SAS etc. don't pay for parking. Dual career problems -- more coordination, but it has inherent challenges. How do you hire strategically AND accommodate partners? Partner more with other employers in Triangle.

What do you need? Math as a discipline probably won't change much...the market for statisticians is pulled by industry, students opt out of PHDs and go to business after Masters. Vet medicine is becoming corporatized, and fewer people interested in food animal medicine. Companion animal (+females interest) vet med, but otherwise is challenged to get students interested in the disciplines. Stat enrollment is up, even in pure stat, plus hot pockets like biostat. Faculty ratios need to be small to the intensive training of grad students, increasing pressure on younger faculty to train grad students. Stat recruitment of foreign national students, but also US students.

What will it mean if markets don't allow faculty to retire when they would have liked? Will they be bitter, disengaged?

Does interning students in industry mean losing them to that industry instead of academe?

Startup packages, competitive salaries, grad student support...what else would work to recruit?  Maybe train fewer, and train the best. Challenged to increase BOTH quantity and quality.

Food animal med scholars program is good, but it invests in the future [and] guarantees admission to best students.

Bring industry, govt, and academe together to help consider these issues.

Retrieved from "http://wikis.lib.ncsu.edu/index.php/Table_1"

Response to Work Group Information

What is average PhD age in Eng or Chem? Chem answer = 28

Cannot have recruitment unless [there are] retirements; university must begin thinking retirement. Retention is enemy of recruitment? or retain for short time; minority faculty in high demand -- number of fac in 60s high here

Incentives to retire not good here and get better or worse, depending on the economy situation?

Growth means net additions; with retirements, it is harder to add net

In time dept offerings or steady state? what about new delivery [methods]? new fields? new combinations?

Projections make assumptions = how we are today.  Is it only bigger in future?   No, more grad, mixture depending on fields?

23% grad students now, going to 27% - no great character change will it continue this trend?  The provost wanted higher proportion

Undergraduate enrollment controlled by provost; grad students by faculty and economy - more grad students now with fewer jobs

Need to know, what do we really do for retention - we are competing with peers - what do they do what are our opportunities here? (provost) workshops recent

  1. issue in satisfaction, over salary, facilities, parking =  [Is the] culture in department supportive?

faculty can control this to some extent; collegiality, progress, research support

What is ideal fac career? one place forever? many models: one=several visiting, one 10 year post, some admin; then here as admin/fac [left due because univ was not growing field]; here had growth retention is about quality of institution for individual case

PhD pipeline is hard; how to increase movement to address competition for new phds; should we grow our own? minorities, support, sustain chem project Z - (40 years old) does this; disadvant. students, summer HS experience; in lab with fac; produce poster; SAT training; learn to apply for scholarhips; several years out; 100% of students have gone to college; 3 mil scholarhips for local 40 students; major in chem high; propel through pipeline many doing post docs; but not being hired here; need fac mentoring; 'diamonds in the rough'; hired here none (since begun 15 yrs) provost says not good investment for us here; how many students into acad or industry or medicine? national program; large effort local efforts more variable

Private sector leads in some fields, acad in others for phd grads

Academy may become more interesting to young in economic future

Retention - when fac have kids going to college = very vulnerable point; easier if something had been offered (provost) we could provide half tuition benefit [to faculty children] for million/year; state personnel system would not support as not equitable across state other benefits available? ORP

Issue of age; when degree, when job, when children? affects women more.

University has different product than rest of state employees

Could just waive student fees for fac children? (provost) no, but could pay on behalf UNC does a few things out of endowment

Gesture is necessary, [and would be] appreciated

How many new fac single, married? cannot ask, how to get info? hire, recruit families really how to recruit/retain - about spouse jobs, about children's future

Spousal hires [are a] good benefit

Location here good; other educ/med institutions; diversity of area; setting; last 40 years, minorities have changed in educ and careers;

Need to deal with new definitions of family

High 86% of women with phd have spouse with phd; new reality

Two quality jobs at univ are strong for retention -- high need in same depts too

Do we have collaborations with other univ in triangle for spousal hires?

What is a desireable proportion for age cohorts in a department? diversity of age important but for collegiality need others in same cohort

Summary: healthy and welcoming dept needed -- univ culture attracts and retains family -based incentives instead of individual partnerships with industry at HS, mid school distribution of age based on cultures; (af-am fac may be diff from white, etc.)


Response to Work Group Information

Helping the faculty to understand the data and what it means: Does that mean I'm going to have teach more classes? Will the classes be larger? Will I get more TAs?

Look at the different cultures of the different departments. First step is to look at the kind of department.

Opportunities and Challenges: Recruitment, Retention and Retirement

Bullet 1: . . . what workforce related issues . . . . UNC-Tomorrow discusses recruitment and retention, but does not address retirement.

Way more flexibility as we structure positions. A matter of department heads reinventing people as they move through their professional life.

Let people retire and hire them back for a variety of different roles. Structure Four day work weeks Drop down percentage of appointments Would need a set of checks and balances. Mentoring of junior faculty College specific, taking in the culture of the college

Salary compression is also an issue. Probably costs more to hire a junior faculty member w/ he start up than work to retain experienced faculty

People bringing the research grants are rewarded. Faculty in the classroom are not rewarded at the same level. Have difficulty attracting people into pure faculty positions because there aren't that many people interested because there is a perception that they are not valued.

Departments should have a group objective so that nobody's reward is independent of what the others do

Question of reinvigorating more experienced faculty.

Departments need to decide what the issues are and develop strategies. Isn't one size fits all. This activity needs to be pushed down to the colleges and departments. Then, some oversight and follow up.

Find bullet 2 offensive. Think the ratio of tenure/tenure track is more important. Growing our own is also important.

Retrieved from "http://wikis.lib.ncsu.edu/index.php/Table_4"Top of Form

Additional Input-1

From WolfWikis

Topic 1: Opportunities and challenges: recruitment, retention and retirement

Received from Prof Michael K. Stoskopf, DVM, PhD, Dipl. ACZM

Topic 1: Opportunities and challenges: recruitment, retention and retirement •Based on your experiences at the departmental level, what workforce-related issues (faculty and staff) need to be addressed now and in future planning (e.g. strategic functions, retirement, salary compression, attracting and retaining high talent, etc.)? Why are these of concern?

Salary compression is counter productive and a force to encourage exit of particularly desirable senior faculty. Of primary concern is the lack of staff support for functional faculty. Most faculty expend a considerable fraction of their effort on matters better and ably handled by good clerical and accounting staff and or teaching and research technicians. The university should be trying to optimize faculty productivity and this is accomplished with competent and adequate support staff at the faculty level.

•What is a desirable proportion of tenure/tenure track faculty age cohorts? How many in their 30s, 40s, 50, etc.? Provide rationale for your proposed distribution.

In any successful population demographic one needs an excess in the areas where attrition is expected to impact productivity. For the university this would mean there should be more junior faculty either Associate or Full professors. How high this excess needs to be is best determined by the expected attrition rate of junior faculty. Better junior faculty survival is economically a benefit to the institution so long as it is not accomplished by lowering the standard of performance required for survival. Similarly there should be some excess in Associate professors over full professors and the true ratio of this relationship needs to be based on the general philosophy of whether or not all faculty should be expected to become full professors. I do not think that is a particularly good functional model for an institution seeking to achieve excellence.

• What ratio of tenure-track and non-tenure-track faculty should NC State aim for in its long-range planning, and why? Should that ratio be different in your own department than across the entire institution?

I believe the major problem underlying this question is how non-tenure track faculty are treated. If a second class citizenship is allowed to develop in the faculty over the tenure question it will not be a stabilizing force. The clear trend seems to be away from tenured faculty and if this strategy is pursued then the university will need to be careful to develop policies and approaches to faculty that will remediate the natural tendency for poor retention when faculty feel they are being treated as contractors. This is possible, but is not being achieved by NC State.

•What strategies (resources, policies, programs, …) can be employed to help address the challenges you have identified?

The opportunity for input is appreciated, but of course these are complex issues. With regard to retention: salary compression which is an embedded impact because of unstable legislative support for salary increases across the years needs to end. Gender based inequities in pay (which continue and are quite large in some cases) need to be eliminated. Resources need to be directed to increased staff support for faculty. To accomplish this administrative positions without a teaching and/or research component need to be eliminated and we should seek to reduce administrative positions back to numbers in place perhaps 2 decades prior, thus increasing spheres of influence of individual administrators, but accommodating larger scales through effective use of support staff.

Table 6

From WolfWikis

Response to Work Group Information
Hispanics do not have a tradition of going to college

Growth will require talent on the campus at an increasing rate--how do we attract them?

Student population will be more diverse

Most of the colleges are primarily female (except Engineering)

Applications from males has dropped, females has stayed stable

Where are we going to house everyone?

2030 projected to be the seventh most populous state in the nation--a tidal wave is coming

We need to drive up the rate of those going to college

The pressure we're going to see is going to be dwarfed by increase in community colleges

We get more applications per year from NC than any other college--we're the university of choice

2+2 could be the answer--go to community colleges for first two years

CA systems do 2+2, GA and FL doing that too

We grow the institutions we have now or build new ones (e.g., Morganton)

It's a demand issue--some of the universities are at capacity

You don't just jump into DE--how do you do it?

How do we hire faculty that will be appropriate role models for this new group of students

What part of the structure will we maintain, grow, eliminate?

How do we get people who are competent in other languages?

Can we envision faculty who will be hired just to teach DE? who will never teach another face-to-face class? ECU faculty are required to teach at least one online and university provides support--that's why they are growing at the rate they are

They're moving into Dental, Medical, Engineering

Retire with full benefits at 25 years of service

It would be helpful to know more demographic information for our university

A mentoring program is helpful and helps individuals train new people in academics and technology

Demographic Changes and Diversity
What factors will be important if more women are entering the academy?

Male and female faculty who get tenure tend to at the same rate. the problem is we have a 30% drop off before women ever get to that point. there's a lot more attrition from the time they're hired. working from home might be helpful during childbearing years--which is when most people are Assistant Profs.

Same-sex relationships--changing that culture is going to take time. it's kind of like in the 60s when there were few people of color on campus.

Gender and race are more obvious.

Opening doors -- CALS program 3-day workshop on diversity issues -- people go through it during orientation--more time would be better.

50% of African American males drop out before graduating HS

Final bullet---money, money, money

Retrieved from "http://wikis.lib.ncsu.edu/index.php/Table_6"

Additional Input-2

From WolfWikis

Topic 2: Demographic changes and Diversity

Submitted by email from Travis Locklear, As the President of the American-Indian Alumni Association

I will not be able to make the meeting but would like some light spread on the issues below:

A) Native American Faculty/staff increased by 1 full-time employee from Fall 2000 to Fall 2006.

B) From 2000 to 2006 employment at NCSU increased by 1500 employees but only one Native American employee

C) Population of NC: 1.65% Native American; 22.3% Black; 75.0% White; 6% Hispanic

D) Population of NCSU employees: 0.2% Native ; 13.9% African; 75% White; 2.7% Hispanic

As you can see from the figures about NCSU Native American Indians are under represented at NCSU and this should be a big concern. These figures further effect the recruitment and retention of minority students at the undergraduate and graduate levels.

Received by email from Prof Michael K. Stoskopf, DVM, PhD, Dipl. ACZM
Topic 2: Demographic changes and Diversity •Based on your experiences at the departmental level, what “diversity of the workforce” (faculty and staff) related issues need to be addressed now and in future planning (e.g. minority representation, gender balance, age/generation, etc.)? Why are these of concern? The university should reflect the population at large within broad parameters, but the key issues are the availability of qualified minority faculty and the generally poor ability of the university to deal with professional spouses. Better approaches to incorporation of professional pairs into our faculty is a strong strategy towards balancing the gender issues.

• What challenges with respect to worldwide demographic shifts in age and ethnicity/race are unique to your department/discipline? And what challenges confront the University in general?

The challenge is to attract competent and well-educated minorities into academia where the financial rewards do not compare with the real world and unfortunately where the perception of being respected and treated properly is not being supported by how universities are handling faculty talent.

•Describe programs, initiatives etc. that you have found to be most effective for enhancing appropriate demographic/diversity balance.

Funding of internships, residencies and graduate programs for top minority individuals to work with top faculty who are successful in the academic realm.

•What resources, policies, programs, … are needed to help address the challenges you have identified?

[Need for] funding to cover stipend, tuition and fees of these individuals

Table 9

From WolfWikis

One faculty and 4 administrators present in this sub-group at 10/15 General Faculty Meeting

1. What are key areas of leadership? --question seemed somewhat nebulous (was not much discussion this aspect) --by planning for new leadership by filling new positions directed at needs to accommodate areas of growth

2. How should we plan for leadership succession? --by identifying the needs and if needs are big enough then hire and train a person for that --concern about fair hiring laws to only promote or move from within--can someone groomed inside make it in a search process --possibly go to chair/co-chairs for departments and committees to facilitate succession of trained individuals --similar issues when replacing undergraduate or graduate coordinators --consider how to train either faculty or non-tenure track personnel to do undergrad or grad advisement --define skill sets and be open to how you fill the positions in terms of type of position --distinguish career vs. curriculum types of leadership --build in incentives for faculty designated jobs in advising,etc.

3.What are characteristics of the next generation of leaders? --people skills --technology skills --information management --open-minded --willingness to adapt --flexibility --defined work expectations

4.What resources, policies or programs are needed? --skill and leadership development for faculty and staff --create opportunities for on the job training--shadowing to learn the ropes --create specific assignments --develop fiscal understanding

Preparing the Next Generation of Leaders

Response to Work Group Information
--Number of T/T faculty has been static for last five years. Now we're saying it needs to go up dramatically to accommodate 40,000 students.

--How did it stay constant?

--Nontenure-track faculty numbers went up.

Preparing the Next Generation of Leaders

--Key areas of leadership: question seems to be getting at issue of numbers of these positions in the future.

--What's needed is an academic way of sharing the information we've heard today, systematically, and let the people getting that information become the next leaders. The melding of those two functions, in the context of a vision of the university, needs to happen. We need to give them resources to realize a superordinate goal. Funding side is crucial. How to generate public dollars? And private dollars?

--Major leadership academy funded by external source that would help future leaders to respond to the future vision of the university.

--In one college, vice-deans play an important role in generating outside money.

--Generation of dept. heads will need to grow into role of seeking outside funding. Younger faculty--program coordinators--need to be part of that discussion.

--What form might such preparation take? An academy for future leaders--bring them into a setting and empower them to help the University to develop its mission, and while we do that they will contribute to the new vision of the University. That includes both skill development as well as vision.

--Selecting people who go into the pipeline: now, there are various ways this happens--appointments by deans, advertisements/interviews, etc. Sometimes faculty nominate each other.

--Dept. head often selects holders of other positions such as director of graduate students. What are their duties? To whom are they responsible? Some have divided loyalties (dept. vs. graduate school). Should be a universal definition of what the duties are. Also things like teaching load, income, etc., are not standardized. Such expectations might encourage people to seek such positions more eagerly.

--These leadership positions also need greater recognition. Sometimes even titles represent positions.

--How are people selected for administrative positions? Across campus, there is a system of dept. heads hired and accountable to deans. Needs a consistent system of department chairs that are elected by faculty, instead of heads. This could encourage a stream of faculty members moving through positions of leadership, with greater shared governance. There are more opportunities to find out who is good at that--general consensus that we should move in this direction.

--This could become a process of regular rotation, like Chapel Hill, which has a 3-year chair rotation. It would provide an incentive to younger faculty to be considered for election into these roles. If you have someone new coming in every four years, you need to have everything more policy-based and carefully structured, in a collective way, to substitute for current ad hoc decisions made by heads.

--One difference is that departmental leadership will always percolate from the inside. New faculty are not hired in as chairs, but new faculty then become part of the mix and end up taking leadership positions.

--Leadership emerges when you show people the processes of planning and aligning priorities.

--Different atmosphere when you play a stronger role in your own future and departmental vision. Current model allows for faculty to disconnect.

--What about the time issue? Some organizations have a system where there is an incoming elected vice-chair who ascends into the chairmanship. Associate chairs could be elected to serve for two years with an existing chair, then take over as chair while another associate chair comes in. There are sometimes "immediate past chairs" who hold historical knowledge about the department and can serve as guides without having to put in a lot of work. But these functions could encourage greater involvement of faculty on a rotational basis.

Retrieved from "http://wikis.lib.ncsu.edu/index.php/Table_12"

Additional Input-3

From WolfWikis

Topic 3: Preparing the next generation of leaders

Received by email from Prof Michael K. Stoskopf, DVM, PhD, Dipl. ACZM

Topic 3: Preparing the next generation of leaders •What are key areas of leadership (e.g. undergraduate program coordinators, director of graduate programs, department heads, deans, etc.) are necessary for University sustainability and growth?

This is a top down administered, silo university. Faculty have little or no hope of exerting any real leadership with in the current power structure. There are insufficient opportunities for younger faculty to lead operations they would be able to lead (assuming they had sufficient staff support). When these are available usually zero staff support is provided or some pathetic attempt at shared support that means a junior faculty member is doomed to failure in leadership and/or their academic career if they take on these leadership roles.

• How does/should your department/the campus plan for leadership succession? How can key employees with critical competencies be identified and developed as future leaders?

The use of associate faculty heads is being used and likely to help in this regard. All of our faculty are really leaders. They merely need to be offered the opportunity to succeed in leader ship and some minor mentoring and they can succeed.

•What are the important characteristics of the next generation of university leaders? How can your department/the University develop leaders with these characteristics?

Our leaders need to be engaged and not “specialists” in leadership. This is why our leaders should be functionally faculty to the extent practicable. Administrators need to be embarrassed if they aren’t publishing and teaching.

• What resources, policies, programs, … are needed to help address the challenges you have identified?

see above.

Reactions to Recruitment/Retention Data from above presentations

From WolfWikis

Received by email from Prof Michael K. Stoskopf, DVM, PhD, Dipl. ACZ

•What reactions do you have to the data presented regarding faculty/staff recruitment and retention issues?

Not surprised particularly, but concerned that the issues be addressed on sufficiently large enough scope to develop meaningful strategies. With regard to recruitment I have found the attitude and satisfaction of the sitting faculty to their institution and their productivity and collegiality to be the key issue, but in retention I have found the fulfillment of spousal expectations and happiness to have been the largest factor followed then by the faculty member’s own perception of support and ability to follow their own career objectives.

• What do you perceive to be the most important workforce (faculty and staff) issues facing NC State in the next five years?

There are many of course, but key ones include insufficient staff support for faculty and failure to conserve and wisely use the valuable resource of faculty talent for faculty level efforts.

• What additional information about current employment at NC State would be helpful to define key areas for concern or improvement?

Considerable data is available but all summary data seems to be skewed by inappropriate lumping of categories. For example – many administrators no longer function as faculty (a practice which should be eliminated as all administrators should be faculty and fulfill meaningful faculty roles in some way to stay connected with the key issues of the institution) and the vast majority of clerical staff are available only to administrators, but are usually counted in faculty/ staff ratios etc.

Topic 2: Demographic changes and Diversity

Demographic changes and diversity

1) Dept Level: what issues need to be addressed re gender, age, race etc. Why are these a concern?

Percent of US PhD recipients (female) is over 50%, expected to grow, depending on discipline. If there are ways that we could be better at attracting and retaining females, need to be sure we are on our best game. Need to get the women grads in these disciplines. Same for minorities.

Agreement w/ Wake Tech will help us see a change in student demographics. Need to have faculty here to support them. i.e., Hispanic population. Hispanic/Latino Task Force study (Jose Picart) shows what we need to be doing.

NC high school population is changing: decline in whites, rise in Hispanic/Latino students; we might get a small critical mass of Latinos we don’t have now. But need to change the tuition policy for undocumented hs graduates.

Women in STEM fields: if we are going to attract young women they need to have role models. As a faculty without diversity, it makes it hard to attract. In almost every field [we] see the percent go down at each rank. Need to address the cultures that attract women, e.g., industry is more attractive/flexible for women.

% of African American women going into industry is even higher. [Is it because they] can pay more and has better policy OR academics not doing a good job of finding the women grad?

e.g.,% of women scientists w/ partners who are scientists is over 80%.

Demographic opportunities to hire exist but need to attract them.

Fear that we will hire women in ‘female’ disciplines and say we are done. Or in NTT jobs.

Pipeline competition begins right after college - - need to attract women and minorities as grad students. Other colleges are ahead of NCSU in recruiting minority students. UNCW great w/ Hispanic, not w/ African American students. We don’t actively recruit from community colleges (cc). Do we have to if we have the agreement w/ Wake? We’ll be forced to do it with other schools. The cc transition makes it cheaper/easier. Question is, do they get out once they get here. Need to have that transitional help for the cc students. E.g., issue w/ rural students, financial constraints. Cc faculty: incoming students saying they did not get the foundation to go on to advanced classes. Depts. need to work w/ them to improve their preparation. This has happened in the past (e.g., PAMS), but inconsistent. If we do that and they still don’t succeed we might need to rethink policy of accepting cc transfer students.

We are committed to trying to improve k-12. Do we have some programs/policies for cc?

% of full-time vs part-time cc faculty. Full-time also have heavy load.

Need to focus on the gen ed requirements for the cc transfer students. Find a way to glean the top students from the cc system.

2) challenges w respect to changes in world wide demog shifts affect your discipline?

Lots of international diversity in staff (skilled crafts/service/maintenance). This is a resource we need to think about and use in the educational program. When we study Africa do we bring in these resources? This workforce raises immigration issues: will the pool contuinue to be available if immigration policy changes?

White population is declining – elite institutions will have to change (but will be resistant…) change is scary! A role of the university is to expose students to things that make them uncomfortable. Faculty/staff also… Need to prep students for global/internationalism. Not serving them if we don’t push to be on the edge. Exactly why we need to diversify the faculty. Push study abroad.

Chair Martin thanked everyone for attending the meeting

The meeting adjourned at 5 p.m.

Footer Nav