Left Navigation

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

April 18, 2000

Senators present: Chair Corbin, Secretary Carter, Provost Hall, Chair Emeritus Wahl; Senators Ash, Banks, Bottcher, Brown, Brownie, Elmaghraby, Fitzgerald, Funderlic, Gilbert, Grainger, Griffin, Grimes, Hamouda, Havner, Hodge, Kimler, Lytle, Malinowski, Misra, Peel, Sawyers, Smoak, Toplikar, Wilkerson, Wilson

Senators absent: Senators El-Masry, Fisher, Kelley, Markham, Robinson, Suh, Werner, Willits

Excused: Senators Gilbert; Parliamentarian Link

Visitors: Daniel Bunce, Assistant Editor, The Bulletin; Gary Rolin, Student Senator; Erich Fabricics, Student Senator; Dennis Daley, Professor; Robert Sowell, Graduate School; Marye Anne Fox, Chancellor; Clare Kristofco, Executive Assistant to the Chancellor; Chuck Amato, Football Coach; Arthur Cooper, Chair, Council on Athletics; Mary Beth Kurz, University General Counsel

1.    Call to Order
The fifteenth meeting of the forty-sixth session of the North Carolina State University Faculty Senate was called to order by Chair Frederick Corbin at 3:00 p.m.

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

Chair Corbin announced that Senator Tracy Robinson was selected by the College of Education and Psychology to receive the Board of Governors Award.

Chair Corbin noted that the two faculty representatives elected by the Faculty Senate to serve on the Council on Athletics were elected to two-year terms when they should have been elected to three-year terms. A motion was made and seconded to modify the terms to three years. The motion passed without dissent.

Senator Bottcher announced that a new advisory committee known as the Equal Employment Advisory Committee has been organized. The committee is chaired by Sheri Plenert, Assistant Equal Opportunity Officer. The duties of the committee involve looking at all aspects of university operations with respect to equal employment opportunities. The Personnel Policy Committee plans to present a report in the fall concerning the activities of that committee.

Chair Emeritus Wahl announced that there a new committee reporting to the Director of the Honors Program has been organized. The objective of the committee is to coordinate efforts in getting students to apply for National and International recognition.

Chair Emeritus Wahl announced that there is a call for female faculty members to join the Bridges Program which will be starting in early fall.

3.    Approval of the Minutes
The minutes of the fourteenth meeting of the forty-sixth session of the North Carolina State University Faculty Senate were approved without dissent.

4.    Remarks from Chancellor Fox
"I’m delighted as usual to visit with you. I wanted to visit with you to follow-up a conversation we started with your Executive Committee at a breakfast this week. It deals with the need to have balance between research, teaching, and service. As many of you know the Kellogg Commission has been talking about what they refer to as engagement, sort of breathing new life into extension and how extension has been played out in the land grant institutions for more than one hundred years now. The idea of engagement differs from extension in that extension seems to be uni-directional. When we have some resources, we extend to those who are waiting to receive; whereas, the concept of engagement implies reciprocity to allow for the partners with whom we interact to both give back and to provide intellectual input on how a university is running. Recognizing that this is both a national trend and also fully consistent with our idea of partnerships being developed on Centennial Campus, a number of us with the support of the Park Foundation went to a retreat in St Petersburg in January to discuss whether this concept of engagement being discussed on the National level really should have an impact on our own campus, and in fact, whether there was any restructuring that would be necessary or desirable to make engagement a more significant part of the portfolio of those faculty who wanted to participate in those activities more actively. Also, we read very clearly in tenure and promotion files the clear suspicion that many extension faculty felt that they really had second class status and were not evaluated on the same means that our more research oriented faculty are evaluated. Because of that, there seems to be a question about whether there could be a different structure which could support extension programs more effectively. Further, there is a recognition among many faculty that at different stages in ones career, the balance among Research and Teaching and Extension may vary. In fact, this should be encouraged to vary at various stages. If that was to take place and we were to have an encouragement of that taking place, we would recognize that there needed to be a reward structure that would allow for that improvement to transpire. Is it possible for us to improve the coordination of services that are delivered to our external constituencies? Is it possible to produce synergy among Research, Teaching and Extension? Is it possible to have budgetary stability that would undergird the infrastructure for extension activities in a new way? Is it possible to improve the kind of communication that we have internally, and with our external clientele by having a slightly different structure which would then, we hope, improve the morale of the Extension faculty? Their effectiveness would therefore enhance the university’s representation both from our partners who expect that kind of engagement as well as for Research and Extension sponsors so that we could more efficiently deliver these kinds of services.

If we were to come up with a structure that would achieve these kinds of objectives, we thought that there could be really demonstrable needs and outcome measures that would result. We would expect to receive enhanced funding because we would be providing more effective service; and therefore, it would be more responsive to our partners who would fund these kinds of programs. We would expect that there would be more partnerships, something that is evolving on its on, but there would be a greater participation and collaboration and therefore a larger number of them. We would see increased participation in extension staff within the life of the university, perhaps evidenced by more active participation in the teaching mission by extension faculty either as guest lecturers of regular faculty or actively participating as teaching faculty themselves. We would expect that there would be more active involvement of our external partners at setting university priorities and interacting with our faculty. We would expect that the Legislature would be more responsive to the needs that are demonstrated here and therefore be more generous in providing the basis that allows us to respond to our stake holders. We believe we would then see with all those things in place and a much larger participation by our faculty in extension activities. We are aware that there are a number faculty who have throughout their careers maintained essentially the balance they had earlier in their careers among research, teaching and extension. and to some extent some of them would at least feel that a shift of focus toward extension would be challenging. We hope that those who had a traditional role in extension would not feel at all threatened by greater participation by faculty in these kinds of activities. We hope that faculty would not feel that they were being pushed because there, of course, would be no requirement to shift this distribution. It would be a one on one decision about how to allocate focus. There would be concerns by private businesses who might say that enhanced extension and engagement activities would be competitive with the private sector. It would be introducing a rewards system which is a change. There is a problem of some nonuniformity in our current policies. For example, our extension faculty now do not have the ability to consult within the State in a similar manner to faculty with research appointments. There might be limitations that are imposed by the current structure in terms of time commitments for other activities. There might be, in fact, among our partners a resistance to providing a financial resource base that would allow this to take place by recognizing the necessity that as these extension and engagement activities are increased, we might have to impose fees on some of those partners. Recognizing all these problems, the people who participated in this retreat were two members of our Board of Trustees, Provost Hall, Charlie Moreland, Vice Chancellor for Research; Jim Oblinger, Dean of the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences and the person to whom extension reports, and Doug Wellman, the Director for the Center of Teaching and Learning. Together we came up with a proposal that would provide a means for enhancing these kinds of partnerships. This would enhance the importance of engagement as an activity for the university and would do so by not increasing the number of upper level administrators. That is possible because, unfortunately, we are losing Debra Stewart who has taken a position at the Council of Graduate Studies in Washington. What that means is that there is a Vice Chancellor slot which we would move if this proposal was to emerge.

Chancellor Fox noted that her handout is a proposal for discussion and one that she would welcome responses from the faculty. This is not a decision that is finished by any means, but it outlines shifts that would take place. We hope to improve the structure which would allow this engagement to become a more active part of our portfolio. The most obvious change is establishing this new position, someone whose job it would be to enhance engagement as a signature activity of this campus. We would call that person a Vice Chancellor for University Extension and Engagement simply because, until this term of engagement becomes more universally understood, we wanted to keep extension as an explicit part of the assignment. Immediately the responsibilities of a Vice Chancellor would involve current university Extension i.e, everything outside of Agriculture and Life Sciences as well as Cooperative Extension. That person would be responsible for continuing education and for partnership development significantly on the Centennial Campus. We believe that by bringing together the Centennial Campus with these outside engagement activities, there would be a broader definition of what this engagement means and a better method by which both resources and collaboration and coordination could be achieved in executing these duties. That of course means that there is a shift in responsibility. In particular, the major shift is that the Vice Chancellor for Graduate Studies essentially disappears. We have looked very carefully at our peer institutions and by and large among the peer institutions that have been identified by General Administration as our peers. These represent a range of both public and private institutions that have much of the same mission as we do. There is no clear picture emerging about a winner in terms of a structural organization. Approximately one half of those peers have a combination of a Vice Chancellor for Research and Graduate Studies and one half of them have a reporting structure that has one or the other of those activities or both of them reporting to the Provost’s Office. In general, some of the stronger universities have this structure which is suggested here, Vice Chancellor for Research and Graduate Studies. If that was to be undertaken, the responsibilities that are shown here as the third section would involve research administration and Graduate School Administration including admissions to the Graduate School, and undergraduate admissions would remain as they are as the responsibilities of the Provost with the Dean of the Graduate School acting as a liaison between this Vice Chancellor and the Provost. There would be a dotted line reporting relationship because, of course, the Dean of the Graduate School would be very intimately involved in the direction of Graduate Studies as a Dean would have quite important reporting responsibilities and coordination responsibilities with the Provost. In addition, that person would be responsible for developing interdisciplinary research centers for all of the activities that are associated with sponsored programs as is true now, as well as technology transfer and intellectual property. Applying for National Grants would occur both with respect to writing and providing natural funds for research trainees and fellowships at the graduate level.

The other part of those activities then which would be involved in the shift concerns reporting to the Provost.

The person who is Assistant to the Chancellor for Governmental Affairs who now acts essentially as liaison to the North Carolina General Assembly could assume additional responsibilities in coordinating the activities with the federal government. That person as well would be liaison to local government, including City Council and County Commissioners for issues that are dealing with political agendas.

I bring this to you for your reactions. I would like for you to circulate the handout around as you see fit and think about whether it is the right structure. Our intent is to visit with many campus groups in the next month and ultimately to pose this as a proposal to the Commission on the Future of NC State, and after responses from all of you, to formulate restructuring sometime in the summer, and if you decided to do something like this, to look for a person to accept these responsibilities with a Search Committee which would begin either late summer or in the fall."

Secretary Carter wanted to know if other universities have experienced this new position.

Chancellor Fox responded that Oregon State and Penn State almost have this exact organizational structure.

Senator Sawyers wanted to know if the county system would be broadened or would it remain under agriculture .

Chancellor Fox stated that probably the Cooperative Extension who would report through this Vice Chancellor would remain as it is. It would be important to recognize that the proposal is not that the Cooperative Extension person would take over broader responsibilities. She noted that none of the programs would be cut.

Senator Bottcher wanted to know with respect to the Assistant to the Chancellor for Governmental Affairs, if there are concerns with or by the University of North Carolina System for the responsibilities of that individual?

Chancellor Fox responded that President Broad has hired someone who is responsible for system governmental affairs. Day by day he wants to get more input from our own person. NC State would continue to have a full time person who does government relations.

Chair Emeritus Wahl wanted to know if stream lining of grants will be addressed.

Chancellor Fox responded yes.

Chair Corbin thanked Chancellor Fox for her remarks.

5.    Comments from Chuck Amato, NC State’s Football Coach
Coach Amato stated that it is a great pleasure to return to the university that gave him an opportunity to get an education. He feels that is what student athletes are all about. He said there is a statistic out there that we tell young men when recruiting them that 1% of you, four years from now will have an opportunity to play in the NFL. He noted that it is hard for some of them to comprehend that. Coach Amato stated that the one thing that can never be taken away from a youngster is an education.

Coach Amato said he reminded his players that they are in the fourth quarter of school. He is concerned for some of them from the reports that he has been receiving. He emphasized that school is the most important.

Coach Amato noted that there was a young man at Florida State University that was the player of the year five years ago. The student was highly talented when he came to Florida State. He waited three years to be tutored. He got injured in the spring game before the year that he was going to start and was never the same. He feels that youngsters do not understand that. They feel that they can never get hurt. He thinks it is their job to do everything possible to make sure that these youngsters get their priorities straight.

Coach Amato stated that there are things that we are going to have to do to be successful in getting their minds in the right direction. He said it is something that we all have to do.

He stated that he and his coaching staff are in the process of learning the personalities of seventy different young men. That is not easy. He noted that you do not build anything unless you have a foundation. When you get it going, you do not keep it unless everything comes down from the top (from the administration on). Sometimes you have to dig deep to get the foundation in. Coach Amato stated that they have got to shoot for being very positive with the players. It is like anything else in life, if you believe in yourself and you think you can, you will. If you do not, you will not.

Coach Amato stated that he is very proud to be here at North Carolina State University. It has changed a lot and he and his staff hope to be able to do something to help change it even more.

Coach Amato stated that he and the coaches are concerned about the youngsters’ education. He feels good about the people that are there making sure that educational priorities are discussed with them weekly. It holds them accountable because some of them do not realize how important a good education is, especially from a quality school like NC State University.

Coach Amato received a standing round of applause.

6.    New Business
A.   First Reading, Resolution On Information Technology User’s Advisory Committee
Senator Brown, Chair of the Resources and Environment Committee introduced the resolution, and background information for the first reading.

The resolution will be discussed and considered at the next meeting.

7.    Reports
A.    Governance Committee

Grievance Procedure
Senator Elmaghraby reported that the requested changes has been made to the grievance document. There have been several discussions concerning the document, in and out of the committee. He moved for adoption of the document. The motion was seconded and passed without dissent.

Mediation Procedure
Senator Elmaghraby reported that all of the comments received by the committee have been incorporated into the mediation procedure. Chair Corbin has received some comments that have not been reviewed by the committee; therefore, the second reading of the document has been postponed until the next meeting.

Mary Beth Kurz, University General Counsel commented that she believes the mediation document is in good form. They tried to address all the issues that were raised by the committee during the time that the document was being discussed. She was contacted by Sheri Plenert with some issues that she wanted to discuss. Mrs. Kurz thinks the majority of the issues are solvable in terms of a conversation that the mediator would have at the time of a mediation. She plans to review some of the issues with Ms. Plenert to see if some of the concerns can be resolved by looking at how this would operate in practice. She feels that the issues are relatively minor.

Senator Bottcher said regarding the confidentiality, the Personnel Policy Committee concluded that documents generated during the mediation process may be placed in the personnel file, but should not be subsequently used in personnel evaluations. That was a compromise to reduce the likelihood that the documents will be used for evaluation, yet protect any documents that are generated so that they do not become public.

Ms. Kurz said under the State law a document that is created in a course of university business, is technically a public document unless it falls under an exception. The only exception around is the personnel records exception. Therefore, these clearly relate to personnel issues being the subject of basically a grievance that someone has. Ms. Kurz stated that what they have tried to do as a policy is to say that under the law, they are not going to be public records because they are personnel records, but we are going to segregate those away from the evaluative personnel files. She noted that what people do not understand in terms of the way that the law is written in North Carolina is that personnel records can be in any location.

Senator Funderlic wanted to know who has the right to review personnel files.

Ms. Kurz responded that the individual employee in question, any supervisor in the chain of command, and legal counsel has a right if there is a matter of litigation in those documents by the office of civil rights.

Senator Funderlic wanted to know if the employee has a right to know that his or her file has been reviewed by someone in a higher position.

Ms. Kurz responded that there is not a State law requirement on that, nor is there a policy with respect to that.

Senator Lytle is concerned about the existence of such records. He is very concerned about supervisors having subsequent access to them. He stated that if the information is there, undoubtily it will be taken into consideration if in fact the supervisors would have access to it.

Senator Elmaghraby stated that the whole idea is that everything is by agreement of the parties.

Ms. Kurz asked that any other concerns be e-mailed to her so that they can be addressed in the document.

B.    Academic Policy Committee
Senator Banks, Chair of the Academic Policy Committee, reported that the committee has been meeting on the Campus Wide Evaluation of Teaching Instrument (CWETI).

With a discussion that began in the Spring semester, 1998, faculty members, composing the Committee on the Evaluation of Teaching(EOT), have been working on an instrument to provide some commonality to evaluations that are conducted in classes at NC State. The principal goal for such an instrument is to provide faculty with reference data that will better appraise them of student reactions to their teaching. The commonality of some factors in evaluations would allow faculty to statistically assess factors that influence student evaluations.

The Academic Policy Committee met with members of the EOT to discuss the instrument and the pilot process for testing the instrument. In summary AP reports that:

The CWETI is brief and clear, containing questions that are adequately addressable by students. The questions contained on the CWETI are quite similar to questions on many/most evaluation forms in current use. Further AP feels that use of the Instrument as a FORMATIVE device by faculty is extremely VALUABLE to faculty members and their departments.

Finally, the flexibility for possible additions to CWETI to include questions provided by faculty members/departments is desirable and good. Additionally Academic Policy would suggest that any questions added to obtain student information be limited to those that provide explicit data (e.g. class, major) without introducing "judgmental data" (e.g. expected grade in class).

In summary, the Academic Policy Committee supports the efforts of the EOT in developing the CWETI, and pursuing an adequate pilot process to determine the suitability of the instrument, the process, and the assessment of the data for those departments and individuals who have indicated a desire to use this instrument.

Senator Funderlic wanted to know if the input came from the faculty or administration.

Senator Banks responded that the input came from the faculty.

Senator Banks moved that the Senate indicate support of the process. The motion was seconded and passed without dissent.

C.    Personnel Policy Committee
Senator Bottcher, Chair of the Personnel Policy Committee reported on the responses to the survey that was sent out from the committee to all faculty at NC State University, regarding written summaries of annual reviews of faculty.

8.    Election
A.    Faculty Senate Nominations for Chair-Elect of the Faculty
Three faculty members were nominated to run for the position of Chair-Elect of the Faculty. They were Senator Cecil Brownie from the College of Veterinary Medicine, Dr. Dennis Daley, Past Secretary of the Faculty Senate from the College of Humanities and Social Sciences, and Senator Philip Carter, currently the Secretary of the Faculty Senate from the College of Veterinary Medicine.

The nominees were asked to give brief statements to the Faculty Senate which enabled the Senators to narrow the candidates down to two.

The Senate nominated Drs. Philip Carter and Dennis Daley as the candidates to run for the office of Chair-Elect of the Faculty.

9.    Issues of the Concern
Senator Brownie presented an issue of concern pertaining to reappointment, promotion and tenure. Chair Corbin assigned the concern to the Personnel Policy Committee.

10.    Adjournment
Chair Corbin adjourned the meeting at 5:05 p.m.

Footer Nav