Left Navigation

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

February 6, 2001

Senators present: Chair Corbin, Chair-Elect Carter, Secretary Brown, Interim Provost Moreland, Senators Ash, Banks, Bottcher, Braunbeck, Brothers, Cassidy, Elmaghraby, El-Masry, Funderlic, Grainger, Grimes, Havner, Headen, Hooper, Kimler, Kirby, Levine, Lytle, Marshall, McAllister, Misra, Robinson, Sawyers, Setzer, Suh, Toplikar, Tyler, Wilkerson, Wilson

Senators absent: Senators Hodge, Tucker, Vickery

Excused: Parliamentarian Gilbert, Senators Malinowski, Smoak

Visitors: Daniel Bunce, Bulletin Editor, News Services; Clare Kristofco, Executive Assistant to the Chancellor; Frank Abrams, Senior Vice Provost; Marye Anne Fox, Chancellor

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

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

Chair Corbin announced that the Emerging Issues Forum will be held February 12-13, 2001 at the McKimmon Center.

3.    Remarks from the Chancellor
Chancellor Fox reported on the progress of some of the searches that are going forward.

The committee has been appointed for the Provost search. Dean Jon Bartley from the College of Management is the chair of that committee. They have met and have adopted a very aggressive schedule for identifying and hiring a great Provost. They have reserved time at the end of March to review candidates. One reason they were able to be so aggressive in the schedule is that since a Provost was recruited just two years ago, not much has changed in terms of the job responsibilities or in terms of the kinds of campus endorsements that are needed. There will be campus forums so that faculty can provide input to the committee both before and after campus visits. This will be a confidential search until a short list has been developed, at which time people will come on campus and at that stage their identities will be known. Chancellor Fox encouraged the faculty to think deeply about the position and to confer with friends and colleagues at other institutions to identify people who might find this an attractive position. She thinks anyone on an administrative track who finds it an attractive position would come to the Research Triangle-- not only to the best three universities, but to the best one of the three at a stage where the bond issue was just passed. There is great potential for growth. Short term there has been a budgetary problem, but long term the growth in North Carolina looks tremendous. It will be a wonderful opportunity for the right person.

"Many have identified the criteria for the Provost: strong academic excellence in his or her own right. Therefore the ability to merit a tenured position, presumably a full professor position in a department at NC State. Someone who is a good manager, willing to share responsibilities and work on teams. It is important to recognize that although the Provost is the Chief Academic Officer, there are four academic officers who sit around the Executive Officer table every week, i.e., the Chancellor, the Provost, the Vice Chancellor for Research and Graduate Studies, and the Vice Chancellor for Extension and Engagement, who will be recruited in the next several weeks as well. As the chief academic officer, this person has a responsibility for the academic programs. The deans will all report to him or her, which means that the entire responsibility for academic compact planning will reside in that office. A strong manager is needed. Someone who is willing to work with budgets, who is willing to share responsibilities with those who report to him and also among our colleagues, who understands the needs of all the colleges, and who recognizes the unique needs that different colleges have in a university as diverse and extensive as this one. We have to figure out a way in which the colleges can be active with industry and with private sources, particularly as we go forward with the capital campaign in the next several years.

It will be vitally important that this person have very good communication skills, both with respect to the interactions with the Legislature and with General Administration during his or her tenure. Also there is a significant need to work cooperatively with sponsors and with the other executive officers."

Chancellor Fox stated that Jerry Barker, the search consultant responsible for finding our last Provost, has been retained. "He knows about the institution very well. He has been involved in almost all the other searches that have taken placed on this campus. He also did the provost searches in Chapel Hill and Duke. He is currently involved in a provost search at Virginia Tech. He knows about candidate interest for positions that are at lesser but similar institutions. With Jerry’s help, the committee will be able to come up very rapidly with a list of people who can be considered.

Chancellor Fox reported that the second search which is proceeding is for the Vice Chancellor for Extension and Engagement. "We are pleased with the list of candidates that have come forward. The committee has reviewed them and is in the process of setting up interviews." She stated that the committee will present three to five names to her unranked. Both committees are charged with identifying appropriate candidates, and their strengths and weaknesses. As with the Provost, the Vice Chancellor for Extension and Engagement will do campus interviews. Chancellor Fox encouraged the faculty to participate actively and provide candid feedback about what they see in the candidates that are bought in.

Chancellor Fox reported that they are proceeding with two dean searches. The committee for the Dean of the College of Humanities and Social Sciences is conducting on-campus interviews. Again on paper these people are very strong and consistent with what she mentioned earlier. She stated that the College of Natural Resources is a little slower. "We have less lead time in knowing about the Dean for Natural Resources. For both of the dean positions we are speaking with the candidates and asking whether their decision is conditional on having a Provost available for making that commitment. So far, the answer has been no." She noted that if it becomes a perception of that as a significant factor, they will slow down the hiring.

Chancellor Fox stated that a wonderful program is planned for the Emerging Issues Forum. It is focusing on education and some innovative ways for education. Dean Moore is having a workshop on several of the aspects of research investigations being undertaken in the College of Education. Dean Malecha from the College of Design is having a special workshop on school design and how the outreach program can impact communities in North Carolina. As in the past, the Kenan Institute has been generous in providing support for faculty, staff and students.

"We had the experience this week of visiting with the University of Tennessee Battelle Board who acts as the principal among equals in managing the Oak Ridge National Laboratory. We think that the Oak Ridge Laboratory has a lot of potential for North Carolina State in particular with respect to science and technology initiatives that build on the strengths of Oak Ridge, such as neutron science and the growing emphasis on biology and biological computation. We have worked very hard in trying to forge the initial contacts between our faculty and those at Oak Ridge. We are thinking about setting up a center for advanced studies at Oak Ridge which would do what the Center for Advanced Studies does at Princeton."

Chancellor Fox read the following key phrases from an email that she received from Governor Easley concerning the budget.

In my memorandum of January 23 I advised you of a budget deficit in excess of $500 M confronting the state for the fiscal year. I ‘m requesting your cooperation in implementing spending restrictions that will help balance this deficit.

Chancellor Fox said that means virtually all state agencies have had to take a cut at this late stage in the fiscal year. "Academic institutions were protected a little more than other state agencies and in fact, we argued very hard that we needed that protection because of the commitments to personnel that have already been made for this second semester. The 1.5% recision that we are dealing with now, is far lower than the recisions that other state agencies are facing. We have been working very hard to minimize the recision, but there is no way to pretend that it will not be painful to have a recision of 1.5% at this stage in the fiscal year."

However it is becoming clear that further measures must be taken, some of which may require the issuance of an emergency declaration in order to meet the balanced budget requirements prescribed in Article III, Section 53 of the North Carolina Constitution.

Chancellor Fox stated that we do not know what that means yet. "We will continue to make exactly the same arguments about why the universities have a special call on resources of the state. This is one of these times when the activities that you were so helpful with in support of the bond issue last November have political consequence. Namely passing of that bond issue by 73% really did send a very clear signal to our legislators, who are generally quite supportive of higher education. We will try to use that leverage as much as possible to minimize this. I also want to be frank and candid with you about what the budgetary situation is right now. I am quite sure you will be hearing more from your deans and department chairs about how exactly we can accomplish the recision and still survive with our academic mission intact.

The final issue I want to mention is the graduate student support plan. Interim Provost Moreland and I went to each of the colleges talking about compact planning. In almost all of them it emerged as a top issue that we needed additional support for graduate students if we were going to improve the scholarly standing of this university and provide a firm foundation for the scholarship of our faculty. As a result we looked very hard at any kind of discretionary money, assuming that the budget is not significantly cut, we have been able to find $1.5M to add on to the graduate student support plan. We are also hoping that even if the budget situation is not good in the legislature this year, that perhaps we can get additional flexibility for handling financial matters for the university while the resources themselves are not available. So building on that kind of political base, if we could get flexibility and if we minimize the recision, we will be in good shape to both grow our graduate programs and maintain excellence in the undergraduate programs."

Comments from Interim Provost Moreland
Interim Provost Moreland stated that at the beginning of the fall semester he appointed a task force to review where the university stands with regard to the graduate student support plan. Essentially their report that was given at the last meeting got to the point of how to find additional funds in order to support increased enrollment at the graduate level. When they looked at the plan, there was one part where they wanted a change: The one half million dollars for in-state tuition support for TA’s. They wanted to move the support plan to matching for out-of-state tuition. They suggested using the one half million to pay off the debt that we had. That would free $1.5M to apply to increases from that point. Chancellor Fox supported the idea that the dollars would be taken out of some of the institution’s support funds, which are really put there for additional expenses in regard to administration. The money did not come from academic programs. It came from institutional support funds.

The plan additionally recommended that instead of applying all of that money to tuition remission, that we request a cost match from the units that would want to increase their enrollment. In other words, that we would put up $10,000 and they would match it. When that was discussed at the last meeting, some people in the research community thought that it would be difficult to get additional dollars on tuition support or grants. No one is saying that you have to do that. Also in some places you need to work with your college administration. You do not have to get it all from any one fund. You can cost share among yourselves in the colleges. For example, you can get some from grants, some from money that may not be spent on salaries, etc. I have decided with the Deans and Vice Chancellors that we will implement it at least for this year and see exactly where it takes us in terms of trying this plan and seeing if indeed it does stimulate growth in graduate enrollment. Everyone needs to work together in their colleges to come up with that share, and the university will match that. That is essentially where we are. It is probably going to take approximately $10M for just tuition remission alone to go where we want to go in graduate enrollment. Hopefully we will get additional funds to keep that going in the right direction."

Senator Kimler asked a question from a colleague who wanted to know if going from where you were in 1997 to a full enrollment involved people on stipends.

Dr. Moreland responded that they received $4.0M from the General Assembly to support the graduate tuition remission. The funds that were given supported what the requirements were with regard to enrollment. We have run out. We have used those funds and are not getting anymore. We have got to go back to the student credit hour."

Chancellor Fox stated that the key issue with respect to the legislative support is that Chapel Hill was on our side when we were trying to get the original $4.0M. "They have a much more native citizen base. Because we have more foreign students, we have a larger problem with tuition remission. Because Chapel Hill’s problem is essentially met by this special intervention, it has been more difficult to get the next increment. Therefore, we have done this through the original channel. That puts additional pressure on the academic budget, because the money that was available incrementally is maintained in the academic budget as recurring expenses. All we have done is to address by taking out of the university part the additional money that is required for the next level of investment."

Chancellor Fox noted that the commitment of another $1.5M to the graduate student support plan does put a lot of pressure on the reserve. This is a major commitment to the graduate school, particularly at this time.

A question was asked about how much of a difference there is in the amount of tuition remission money that is generated to support a portion of these out-of-state tuitions. How does that compare to what is actually brought in to the state from out-of-state students?

Chancellor Fox stated that if you look at the net budget it is essentially zero. What this twelve cell matrix does is supplement the tuition by legislative investment. So when the number of student credit hours goes up, so does the legislative investment. It is a significant net gain, because the support legislatively is more than the tuition increase.

Senator Suh asked if any university-wide guidelines have been set for coming up with recisions or if it is left to the colleges.

Chancellor Fox responded that it is left to the colleges to ensure maximum flexibility. One place where the recision can be addressed is through lapsed salaries as well.

Senator Elmaghraby commented that the faculty would like to see a Provost who also cares about the faculty. Not only that he gets along with the other Vice Chancellors, Deans and administrators, but also that he is a leader of the faculty of this university. There is a feeling on campus that the faculty are not really an equal participant in this university.

Chancellor Fox stated that part of the idea of compact planning is to get faculty input and communication established very effectively with the Provost as the normal channel for those budgetary decisions. She is a strong proponent of faculty governance. She stated that whether we will ever get to the stage where every decision about new initiatives is driven by the faculty rather than the other way does not seem that one excludes the other. "I can tell that administrators cannot do new initiatives unless the faculty are pushing. The other extreme simply does not work. That is the reason I have been so insistent about compact planning going forward. The effectiveness of that compact planning has varied from one college to another. In general, I think that we see that there has been a great deal of faculty input in defining priorities and initiatives in most of the plans that we have reviewed."

4.    Reports
A. Governance Committee (Report Attached)
Senator Elmaghraby reported that the committee met and discussed several items. Each item requires guidance from the Senate on how to proceed.

1) On the issue of representation of EPA professionals, the Governance Committee recommends leaving the current language in the Faculty Handbook as it is, but would like to require that the Office of Academic Personnel Services routinely poll the EPA Professionals at the start of each academic year on their preferences.

Vice Provost Abram commented that it is the membership in the general faculty that controls those who are eligible to serve on the Faculty Senate. However, by practice with regard to the university committee system, all EPA employees, faculty and non faculty, can serve on committees. All EPA employees are handled the same way through the Committee on Committees process that the Faculty Senate is involved in. There is no judgement whether or not an individual is a member of the general faculty in order to volunteer to serve on and be appointed to a university committee.

Senator Bottcher wanted to know if there is any sense to how many EPA professionals have been elected to be represented by the Staff Senate.

Senator Elmaghraby responded no.

Senator Havner stated that he has spoken with several people in this category that are not aware that they have the option of applying to become members of the General Constituency.

Senator Grainger stated that there is a large number of people in his department who are there year after year teaching and representing the department on university committees who are on soft money. He wants to know if they are considered EPA.

The response was yes.

Senator Lytle noted that the EPA professional category is a very substantial group of people. All of the people in Student Affairs fall under this category. Members of the registrars office fall under this category. They are clearly professionals. They are not faculty members in that they are not associated with an academic department and teaching, but they are carrying out professional duties necessary for the operation of the university.

Senator Headen questioned allowing an annual decision to be represented or not. He feels that having a frequent choice can cause mischief.

Senator Elmaghraby stated that the committee wanted to leave the opportunity for someone to change his or her mind. Someone could come in to say that I would like to belong to the Staff Senate and is approved there and then maybe two years later say no I have changed my mind. I would really like to be represented by the Faculty Senate.

Senator Bottcher wanted to know if there will be EPA personnel on campus that the faculty would want to consider part of the faculty.

Vice Provost Abram responded that there are two basic criteria. One involves the qualifications that would qualify them for academic rank in a discipline that is not on this campus. The other is that they are directly involved in teaching, research and extension activity. He thinks that the Government Committee tries to make a judgement on whether the person applying has qualifications that would put them in a faculty category if there were a faculty place for them and whether or not what they are doing is directly involved in teaching research and extension in the same sense that faculty are directly involved.

Senator Wilson wanted to know if EPA professionals have a yearly contract that they sign.

Vice Provost Abram responded that it depends on the position.

Senator Wilson wanted to know if the EPA professional could have the option of opting out, tied to their contract.

Vice Provost Abram stated that the contract takes the form of a letter of appointment. The letter of appointment could include a sentence or paragraph in it that makes that person aware of the option. "From my understanding what is being submitted to the general faculty provides to an EPA professional the opportunity to become part of the general faculty. There are some EPA employees who do not have faculty rank. The only thing that it provides is the ability to vote in general faculty elections, so that will increase the number of people who are general faculty. They would be able to stand for election to the Faculty Senate. They already have access to the committee system."

2) On the issue of visiting faculty, the Governance Committee recommends leaving the current language in the Faculty Handbook as it is.

Senator Elmaghraby stated that if someone is visiting your home, he does not have a vote in your family affairs. "Therefore some people maintain that visitors should not be members, because they have no vote. The other extreme is a visitor is a visitor, and he has equal rights. Why wait a year to give him that right; it should be instantaneous. The language now is one year. The committee thinks that one year is the best compromise."

Senator Sawyer stated that his concern would be the number of faculty that are out there.

Senator Elmaghraby is not sure of the number, but stated that he will find out.

Senator Robinson wanted to know if Senator Elmaghraby is referring to those who have the visiting faculty status or faculty who are here on sabbatical.

Vice Provost Abram responded that when the General Faculty Bylaws were written in 1954, the concept of a visiting faculty member on this campus was that it is a rank that is given to someone who is here on sabbatical. "The reality is that over the years that modifier on academic rank has been used for purposes other than that. There are some part time faculty who have visiting academic rank. In order to be a part of the general faculty you have to be a full time faculty member, and if you are visiting you need to have been visiting here for more than one year."

3) On the issue of faculty on leave, the Governance Committee recognizes that faculty on leave with pay would be more inclined to participate in University affairs than faculty on leave without pay.

Senator Elmaghraby stated that faculty who are visiting with pay and are not on campus constitute part of the quorum required for vote. People who are outside campus but who are not paid do not count in the quorum.

Senator Lytle stated that one thing that disturbs him is that he was never aware that he was still part of the quorum and therefore counted, and he doubts that .001% of the faculty is aware of that. He thinks there should be a publicity campaign so that people will know that is part of their continuing obligation. To him it makes no sense whether the faculty member is off campus regardless of his pay status. He feels that they should not be counted in the quorum. He stated that if that bothers some people, we could say that a person off campus could apply the same way the other people apply to stay on the voting roster.

Senator Robinson wants to know whose responsibility it is to keep track of faculty members who are off campus and are supposed to be part of the quorum. She also wants to know if the current policy is even working.

Senator Havner stated that not being counted in the quorum has nothing to do with your right to vote in elections. Emeritus faculty are part of the official voting roster at the university, but they are never counted in the quorum. There are approximately 600 emeritus faculty members. They are not part of the quorum. They may vote if they wish. This is not saying that people who are on leave, whether they are on leave with pay or not with pay, can not vote.

Senator Havner stated that as a practical matter it is easier to keep it as it is.

Senator Tyler feels that it should be left as is, and the faculty should try to focus on issues that may have some impact.

4) On the issue of faculty emeriti, the committee was apprised of the draft document pertaining to the status of faculty emeriti which is currently under study by the Lifelong Faculty Involvement Committee. The committee noted that the new statement recommends the processing of the application for the status of emeritus concurrently with the notification of retirement. The committee believes that this statement, if finally approved by the Senate, would help eliminate the gap that existed before in the faculty member’s status and participation in the university affairs.

5) On the issue of the mechanism of voting (electrically or by paper), the committee prefers to leave it to the discretion of the colleges to adopt their preferred approach.

Secretary Brown stated that in terms of electronic voting, she would say yes if it is available to everyone. She noted that there are a number of people that would not be reached if electronic voting were mandated.

Senator Bottcher stated that the colleges are very diverse at the university, and he feels that the Senate should respect that and leave it to the discretion of the colleges.

Academic Policy Committee
Senator Banks reported that at their meeting of January 30, 2001 the committee met with Bobby Puryear and John Cudd with regard to the fees associated with students in the Lifelong Education Program. They are planning to meet again to come up with some reasonable consensus on it.

The committee also discussed the Student Senate’s resolution number thirty seven. Vice Provost James Anderson presented some input from the University Academic Operations Council and the Provost Staff. They will continue the discussion at their meeting on Tuesday, February 13, 2001 at 3:00 p.m. in 210 Dabney Hall.

Senator Banks invited the Senate to a meeting on Thursday, February 22, 2001 at 3:00 p.m to discuss the NC State classroom standard project. A location has not been announced yet.

There is also a meeting on March 8 of the Teaching Learning Technology Roundtable (TLTR ) at which Tom Miller will further discuss classroom standards.

Personnel Policy Committee
Senator Bottcher reported that the committee met on Tuesday, January 30, 2001. They discussed a supplemental pay policy that has been drafted. The Chancellor requested that a summer research pay policy be developed. The committee reviewed the policy. He sent a summary to Earl Pulliam. He stated that one primary concern developed. Basically it is a policy developed for supplemental payments made to nine-month employees for work performed by sponsored projects during the summer. The committee reached the consensus that a faculty member under this policy be allowed to work any day of the month during the summer period. Part of the calculation of payment is based on the number of working days in the month.

Senator Bottcher stated that there was a question regarding payment calculation. A faculty member who works intensely over a period of time, spending more than eight hours per day over a time period, and who faithfully reports the actual days that he or she works would end up not being fairly compensated. The point was that the people should be allowed to work intensely over a short period of time and should not be penalized.

Senator Havner stated that he has filled out many of these forms and it is really very simple. If there is support for a month and the person feels that he or she has done a month’s worth of work on a project, then the person would record 100% for that month. If you do not have that much support but feel that you put forth a 50% effort, then record 50% for that month. You do not have to record the days or the hours. He noted that he has done a number of odd numbers over the years because he has never had that much support. Senator Havner said it is not a problem unless someone says you have to put down daily the hours that you work. He feels it should be kept simple and allow people to work out what they put down in their own appropriate way.

Resources and Environment Committee
Secretary Brown reported that the committee met last week and discussed the bond sequencing package. Mike Harwood will be coming to the Faculty Senate on March 6. She handed out questions that the committee came up with. She would like anyone with additional questions to be addressed to email a member of the committee.

Senator Brown reported that the Provost’s office, with help from the Association of Retired Faculty, is in the process of sponsoring a conference entitled, Continuing the Connection: Lifelong Involvement of Retired Faculty and Staff in University Life. The conference will be held at the Sheraton Conference Center March 25-27, 2001.

5.    Liaison Reports
Senator Banks reported that the Honors Program has announced the 2000-2001 academic year involvement of the NC State undergraduate summer enrichment grants. The information session for students is tonight at 7:30 at 321 Mann Hall.

Senator Havner reported as liaison from the University Library Committee. He received a copy of the letter that was sent to departmental representatives about substantial cuts in subscriptions to journals. He said this is not necessarily a cut in the budget for allocations that has come to university libraries, but cuts that have to be made because of the rapidly escalating cost of those subscriptions. The figure is very broad at the moment. The last report from Vice Provost and Director of Libraries Susan Nutter at the Library Committee meeting was between $500,000 and $1.0M in reductions.

Senator Havner urged the faculty to be involved with the issue since some journals will have to be cut.

Secretary Brown stated that an email will be sent out on the faculty listserv concerning this issue. She noted that it is an ongoing serious problem as the cost of the journals continue to increase.

6.    Issues of Concern
Senator Lytle stated that he is concerned about the preliminary projection that there is going to be a drastic reduction in the number of Lifelong Education students. He feels that is an issue that needs to be addressed.

Chair Corbin assigned the concern to the Academic Policy Committee.

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

Footer Nav