Left Navigation

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

Minutes of the Faculty Senate

October 30, 2001

Present: Chair Carter, Secretary Banks, Chair Emeritus Corbin, Provost Cooper, Parliamentarian Gilbert; Senators Ash, Bernhard, Blanchard, Braunbeck, Cassidy, Daley, Elmaghraby, El-Masry, Garval, Grainger, Grimes, Havner, Headen, Istook, Kimler, Kirby, Levine, Lytle, Marshall, Misra, Rolle, Sawyers, Smoak, Tucker, Tyler, Weiner, Wilkerson

Absent: Senators Brothers, Funderlic, Grimes, Vickery

Excused: Senators Allen, Hooper, Hughes-Oliver, Sawyers, Hodge

Visitors: John Caldwell, Center for South Asia; Robert Sowell, Dean of the Graduate School; Cara Froedge, Technician; James Anderson, Vice Provost, Undergraduate Affairs; Marilee Bresciani, Assessment Director, Undergraduate Affairs; Rosalind Thomas, Staff Senate Chair; Frank Abrams Senior Vice Provost, Academic Affairs; Judy Peel, Provost’s Office; Jon P. Rust, Textile Engineering; Jo Allen, Assistant Vice Provost, Undergraduate Affairs; Bruce Mallette, Vice Provost; Dylan Wilson, Technician; Brad Dixon, President ProTem, Student Senate; Tom Younce, Director/Chief of Public Safety; David Rainer, Associate Vice Chancellor for Environmental Health & Public Safety

1. Call to Order
The fourth meeting of the forty-eighth session of the North Carolina State University Faculty Senate was called to order at 3:00 p.m. by Chair Philip B. Carter.

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

Chair Carter stated that the Faculty Senate sent a letter of condolence and expressions of concern for the victims of the September 11 terrorist attack, to General Henry Hugh Shelton who was at that time serving as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

He read a response dated September 30, 2001, from General Shelton.

Comments from John Caldwell, Center of Southeast Asia
John Caldwell from the Center of Southeast Asia stated that he discovered at the Brown Bag Lunch on Wednesday that many of the faculty do not know about the existence of the Center for South Asia Studies which is one of the major research centers officially recognized by the University of North Carolina System. The Center is a consortia with not only NC State, but with UNC Chapel Hill, Duke, and NC Central. Many faculty on campus were not aware of its existence. In light of the September 11 terrorist attacks, the Center thought it was very important to raise their profile especially in light of the fact that they do a number of outreach programs both on campus and beyond, to educate people about issues in South Asia. He noted that South Asia consists of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Afghanistan, and Iran. In light of the events in South Asia, the war in Afghanistan and issues of Islamic fundamentalism, the Center has been doing a lot of media outreach, a lot of business outreach and a lot of things on and off campus in an attempt to raise awareness of students, faculty and the entire university community about the issues involved.

Caldwell handed out a list of services that they provide, and would like for anyone who might be interested in setting up a panel discussion to contact him.

3.    Approval of the Minutes, Meeting No. 3, October 2, 2001
The minutes were approved as amended.

4.    Remarks from the Provost
Provost Cooper announced that they are in the process of receiving nominations for various teaching awards such as the Alumni Distinguished Undergraduate Professor and the Board of Governors Teaching Award. He noted that Associate Vice Provost Judy Peel is receiving these nominations. There is also a process for departments competing for the teaching and learning award. This is a very significant award because it provides $15,000 in recurring budget for the department that wins. There is also a lot of documentation required.

Provost Cooper stated that there are two other categories of items that are coming to the Faculty Senate subcommittees. One of which deals with progress to the degree. That is being worked up by Thomas Conway and James Anderson. It is significant because it will involve a very significant responsibility on the part of the students to make decisions earlier and more effectively. There is a complementary responsibility on the part of the faculty to increase the intensity of the advising process. This is coming along and is under discussion. The students will have an opportunity to review that document.

Provost Cooper stated that also coming to the Academic Policy Committee is the university wide teaching evaluations. "We do not have enough money to launch it completely. It continues in a pilot mode, and hopefully we will bring it back and get a more ringing endorsement from the Senate as we proceed."

Provost Cooper stated that there are several items coming to the Personnel Policy Committee. One item is on the agenda today--the Health, Maternity and Parental Leave for Faculty With Academic Year Appointments Policy. A review of faculty titles is also upcoming with the clarification of professors of distinction and various chairs.

Provost Cooper reported that they are awaiting instructions on the 4% budget cut that is beyond the cuts that have already been taken. The cuts are already being implemented, in that the state is providing 96% of the operating budget on a month to month basis. Provost Cooper stated that they are waiting for further details. He said, "Once the details are received we can fully understand what limits us and how we will respond to that question."

Provost Cooper stated, "In parallel to the 4% budget cut, we learned that we did get the money that was carry-over. That is a significant help if indeed we use the carry-over toward the 4% challenge that we have. Our approach will be to look into that direction. Once we have an understanding of the full implications of the 4% cut, we will turn to compact planning because there is enough money in the enrollment funding to deal with things like this cut, along with already mentioned carry-over funding. The compact planning exercise will not be as robust or complete as we had hoped, but there will be some money to deal with the highest priorities on campus. I expect that we will begin the process of meeting with deans, making decisions on how much money is available and what is going to be sent out to the colleges within the month of November."

Senator Marshall stated that a couple of weeks ago, her department began discussions about the statements of mutual expectations that they formulated for junior faculty. There was a lot of concern that arose in conjunction with those statements, namely over the policy that they need to be memorialized and dated. She informally talked with the Personnel Policy Committee to get a sense of how the statements of mutual expectations are being handled across campus. It appears that there is no clear sense of how stringently this new policy will be enforced. One thing that is a concern in the college is the relationship between the statements of mutual expectations, the annual faculty activity review process, and the reappointment, promotion and tenure process.

Provost Cooper responded that he has not had to deal with that exclusively. He said one would hope that there is some uniformity of applying the approach and whether the chair (heads) involved and the deans sign off on this. He does not know whether or not it is being employed in all colleges, but he plans to find out.

Provost Cooper stated, "I think in principle your statement of mutual expectation is a valuable tool in terms of getting faculty oriented as to what they expect of themselves, what the department expects of the faculty, etc., so that there are benchmarks and no surprises as a person proceeds toward a tenure decision or as a matter of fact, even in a post tenure situation. I do not know to the extent that the statement of mutual expectations is relevant in the annual review if it is so valuable. Statements of mutual expectations can be done once and updated from time to time, but the annual review is basically what happened in the past year. Looking back toward that statement of mutual expectation, one can see good progress is being made. You have to look at the process--whether it is a reasonable amount of time that is invested on everyone’s part and whether the investment of time is providing useful information. As I understand it we do not have many years of experience. We are going to have to get a little bit of a return data on this. We have to look for some situations where people have a "best practice" to describe, as well as where the policy does not seem to be working very well to learn from our experience. I will informally investigate to figure out whether more is required or whether discussions at the dean’s level or with department heads are the right way to proceed."

Senator Daley wanted to know if the faculty will be involved with the compact plan this time.

Provost Cooper stated that one hopes that the faculty are involved at the level that the chairs are formulating their plans to interact with the deans, and the deans interact with him and he interacts with the Chancellor. This year’s allocation, as he understands the way the process should work, involves the priorities that were put in place by past actions. The next stage-- for what the compact plan says for next year, is the one where you can get interactions at the departmental college level. He stated that, "Now there is in the bank, so to speak, compact planning documents which have priorities, which have all kinds of items that we have to see what we can fund. It is not going to be all of it but hopefully a reasonable fraction."

5.    Remarks from David Rainer, Associate Vice Chancellor for Environmental Health and Public Safety
"Basically I would like to talk about two issues very briefly. One is campus safety and security and the other one is to introduce Tom Younce and have him talk a little bit about the change in the name of Public Safety to Campus Police.

One of the things I want to emphasize and reiterate is the fact that we all have a role in campus safety and security. Everyone thinks that it is Dave Rainer’s and Tom Younce’s job. I always like to talk to groups across campus and garner their support, and let them know that they are our eyes and ears on campus. We are counting on you and the faculty as being our eyes and ears on campus. Everyone is concerned about campus safety. Right now we have scrutiny from the outside. We have a lot of concerns from parents, from the community, and from regulatory agencies. As a matter of fact, in the mail yesterday I received an item from the governor’s office about safeguards for radioactive materials. I received another advisory about safety, security, and bio-terrorism. We all know that we have a very open campus. It is a public place and we have a lot of visitors. We are counting on you as being our first line of defense. It is up to you to challenge people who might come into your laboratories, who might come into your buildings. A lot of people who do belong, do not wear their identifications. I would like to suggest that everyone think about and start wearing their identifications. It is very difficult for us to know who belongs and who is a visitor to our spaces. I had an auditor to come to our building two days ago. He had no identification. The fact is that we have a lot of people coming into our spaces and we do not challenge them. We do not take the time to ask, "May I help you?" Just a simple question like, "May I help you", can serve as a deterrent. It stops people in their tracks. It lets them know that they have been identified.

We are going to be addressing issues related to campus security and hazardous materials security, with the Radiation Safety Committee, the Biosafety Committee and the Hazardous Materials Committee. In those particular committees, we are going to address specific issues as we review protocols for use of hazardous materials, biological agents, radioactive materials, and the use of animals in research. We have added a line item with respect to security. Please let your colleagues know that we do consider them the first line of defense, and that we are going to be looking at security issues in general.

I think the other thing that people are not aware of is, by statute, our campus Public Safety Organization is called Campus Police and the statute does give the Campus Police police authority. One of the things that our Campus Police can do is trespass people from campus. This is a tool that I think a lot of people are not aware of. We can actually prohibit people from coming onto our campus if we identify them as having performed an illegal act. We do have legal tools to keep people off of the campus. The bottom line is, if you do not tell us (Public Safety) we do not know. One of the things that came out of our discussions earlier this week with faculty is that students who may feel threatened or perceive that they are being threatened or, in fact, have been threatened, do not communicate that to anyone. If they do not communicate that fact to Public Safety, we do not know whether there are trends. We do not know whether there are issues. The bottom line is that we do have tools that we can use to enhance the safety of the campus. We need everyone’s assistance to do that."

Senator Elmaghraby stated that he prays that he never sees the day in which identification tags have to be worn. He has lived under such conditions and feels that it is not a pleasant way to live.

Associate Vice Chancellor Rainer stated that he disagrees. He stated that one cannot go to a government agency or building and not have an identification. You cannot go to any government campus and not wear an identification. He noted that it gives you a way to identify people easily. He thinks it is something that should be considered and feels that it is something that requires discussion. He stated that there are some places on campus that are very open and should not be.

Associate Vice Chancellor Rainer stated that there is now a card access standard that has been developed for use campus-wide. Certain organizations on campus are going to be installing card access systems. Your badge is going to be a proximity card reader. You will not be able to access the security system unless you have your badge.

Senator Lytle commented that he is strongly opposed to the concept of citizens having to wear identity cards. He does see valid reasons to have identity cards for access to specific facilities.

Associate Vice Chancellor Rainer stated that a recent evaluation was conducted by a third party organization about the Public Safety organization on campus. The third party audit resulted from the issues of concern that occurred last year with Public Safety.

Comments from Tom Younce, Director/Chief of Public Safety
Chief Younce stated that the people that came in to do an evaluation of Public Safety was an organization called the Police Executive Research Forum. It was formed back in the 1970's by a group of aggressive Police Chiefs, who as part of their membership, required their members to have a college education. He noted that surprisingly back in the late 1960's and early 1970's there were Police Chiefs that did not have college educations. That is the kind of organization that came in to review the department. "We had a team of approximately six or eight people from around the country who both had police management experience and also college experience. They did interviews with our staff in the department. They did interviews with individual employees. They conducted a survey of more than 600 faculty, staff, and students both on and off campus. They did a detailed review of our policies and procedures. They took a look at statistics and compared us with nationally recognized standards. They came up with a number of standards of which the name was one. They recommended a change in our name. We are looking to change our name to Campus Police rather than Public Safety. I would appreciate your input and/or any concerns or questions that you might have about changing the name to Campus Police Officers." (report attached)

Rosalind Thomas, Chair of the Staff Senate, stated that the students see Campus Police in one light and see Public Safety officers as really being helpful at certain times. She wants to know how the students can be educated to realize that they are one and the same.

Chief Younce stated that, in talking with Student Affairs, they feel that it is important for the students to recognize Public Safety as Police Officers. He thinks one of the public relations issues with the students is that they do not understand the role. Another thing that came out of the survey is that approximately 25% of the students did not understand what the services of Public Safety were. That is an issue that needs to be addressed. In discussing it with some of the students, they have been very positive in response to that name change.

Chief Younce noted that there was a break-in at the Department of Transportation one week ago. The culprits spent a lot of time in there, and there were more than one or two culprits that went in and removed chips from the computers. Chief Younce said, the chips will not do them any good in retrieving information unless they have the tools to do that. There were a couple of hard drives that were taken and that information could be downloaded. "We have asked the State Bureau of Investigation to come in to assist with the investigation. I think the letter that was sent out is mostly as information in the case that someone does try to use personal information illegally. We do not think that the folks were using the chips and hard drives to get that information. If they were, they would have stolen all the chips." A letter was sent out as information to make sure that everyone understands what has happened.

Chief Younce encouraged the faculty, staff, and students to call Public Safety when there is someone suspicious in the building.

Senator Tucker wanted to know if anyone periodically checks the doors of buildings on campus to make sure that they are locked.

Chief Younce stated that there are contracts with different buildings to do a lock up service. Officers on patrol go through and periodically check buildings. He noted that, with only eight police officers working, they are not going to get around to checking every building. That is why it is important for people to make sure that the doors are locked as they leave.

6.    Remarks from James Anderson, Vice Provost for Undergraduate Affairs
Vice Provost Anderson remarked on Undergraduate Academic Program Review.

Vice Provost Anderson stated that they thought it was both wise and important to update the faculty on the progress that has been made over the last few years in terms of enhancing their academic program review process. "As you all know academic program review is the process that colleges and universities utilize to talk about the quality and effectiveness and the excellence of their academic programs. We have, in the last several years, been gearing up not only for the SACS visitation that will be coming in two years, but we have also been trying to align the academic program review process with institutional effectiveness, with continuous quality improvement, etc. This process has been evolving, and the key points that we want to make today is that this primarily has been a faculty driven effort. The work of various committees, and (the University Courses and Curriculum Committee, the Committee on Undergraduate Education, and the Committee on Undergraduate Program Review), working with the associate deans, etc. has provided the input for the enhancement of the review process. The role of the Provost Office has been primarily to provide support to manage this massive effort that is going to move upwards from academic departments and programs, to align it with institutional effectiveness, and to align it with the Graduate School in terms of program review so that we present a very coherent picture to SACS when it comes. We do not want to leave anyone with the notion that we are doing this for SACS accreditation. We are doing this because we really want to put the review process back in the hands of the faculty and in academic departments.

The Chancellor suggested that we, on the undergraduate side, align the program review process with the Graduate School. Of course the Graduate School’s review process is going to have significant emphasis on research. Dean Sowell and I will be talking in the upcoming months about doing that."

Comments from Jon Rust
Jon Rust, Chair of the Ad Hoc Committee on Undergraduate Program Review (CUPR) stated that the Committee on Undergraduate Program Review is an ad hoc committee, with members from the University Course and Curriculum Committee and members from the Council on Undergraduate Education. "We are together trying to take the results of some previous work done by faculty groups on campus and implement this new process of program review. This new process will be assessment-based, meaning that we will be collecting data to measure how well we accomplish our goals and our objectives, and how well our students are displaying the characteristics that we think that they should when they leave our programs. This new process is going to be considerably different from the old process of program review. The old process included preparing a report which was a bit like a checklist. Basically everyone filled it out the same. Programmatic decisions that were made quite often were made without data upon which to base those decisions but rather quite often based on perceptions. Our new assessment based program review will be asking programs to collect data, and to make decisions based upon thoughtful analysis of that data, decisions to make the programs better. We will be asking programs to take part in this process on a continuous basis. Vice Provost Anderson said that it is not for SACS accreditation, that it is for the betterment of our programs and clearly this new form of program review comes about in the concept of continuous improvement. As such, we must do it continuously and we will try to make sure that we lead programs to do it continuously.

We want to go from the process of having a report due every ten years to being in the process of continuously looking at what we do in programs and of improving those programs.

Our new program review process will integrate with student outcomes, i.e., determining what traits, characteristics, abilities, and attributes our students should have when they leave our programs. We should determine whether these traits, attributes, abilities are actually something that they can develop as a result of being in the program. Then measure to see to what extent they have developed in those ways. Our new program review process integrates with institutional effectiveness. We are asking people not just to make statements about what their goals and objectives are, but also to collect the data to analyze it. As such, they are making decisions based upon that data. Therefore, they have data which will support institutional effectiveness reports and plans. It will integrate the process with accreditation requirements. There are many programs on campus that have outside accreditation beyond SACS. We are working with those outside accreditation bodies in that we will have our program review process for each program due in the year after the programs have gone through outside accreditation so that they will be able to use those accreditation documents as most of their program review documents, trying to make this as little additional burden as possible. At the same time, for those programs that do not have outside accreditation beyond SACS, the nice thing about our program review process is that it will prepare them directly for SACS.

Our new process preserves departmental autonomy because the program faculty will be writing their goals. Faculty will be deciding what those are. Faculty will be deciding how best to measure how well their students are meeting those outcomes.

Elsewhere it has been legislated what program outcomes and educational objectives will be. We do not want that to happen here. We would like to make sure that we continue the faculty led process that has been going on for quite a few years now.

Program Review at NC State will be characterized by the fact that the programs themselves will set what those features of the program are and the programs will make decisions based upon data that they have collected through the assessment process. It will be assessment based and student centered. A few key questions are:

1)    What do you expect your students to know when they leave?

We are referring to student outcomes. That is, what are the skills, abilities, attributes, etc. that you would like for your students to exhibit when they leave your program.

2)    What does the curriculum and other experiences add up to?

What are the sum of the courses and how do the courses come together in defining the curriculum? A key fact is that some of the best growth opportunities within a curriculum / within a program in a university such as ours occur outside of the classroom. So how do we sum up all of the education and experiences in the classroom and outside and how does that equate to the growth or development that you would like to see in your students?

3)    What educational processes are responsible for the outcomes?

Clearly, what we are saying here is that we do some things really well in our program. Let us make sure that we recognize that and continue to build on that strength. Clearly in our programs we are going to see that there are opportunities for improvement. How are those opportunities important with regard to the students that graduate the program, and what are we going to do to try to get better along those lines?

Our program review will be characterized by the issues of placing authority in the hands of the faculty. The faculty in a program will determine what their educational objectives are and how best to measure them.

Program review will be characterized by the fact that it respects the individuality and special circumstances of different programs. Meaning that each program will have different ideas about how best it can measure the success of the development that it gives to students. Some programs clearly might point to placement rates and jobs afterward. Other programs might not think that is important and they might look to other source of measurements.

Program review here will be sensitive to external programmatic and institutional accreditation. Clearly that falls along the lines of working with outside accreditation bodies including SACS to insure that what we are doing is good for ourselves, for improvement of our programs, for the continuous improvement of our programs, but also fits in with outside accreditation so that we do not double our work load.

As a direct consequence of what we are trying to do with our program review process here, we should have confidence in our decisions because they are based on data rather than perception. We should have confidence in our successes and be able to speak knowledgeably because we have data upon which to base the realization of those successes.

I want to thank you for allowing me to tell you about it.

Comments from Marilee Bresciani, Director of Assessment, Undergraduate Affairs
Marilee Bresciani, Director of Assessment, thanked Provost Cooper for his support of the Undergraduate Academic Program Review Process.

"The fact that this is faculty led, faculty driven, and having the support of the administration is what sets NC State apart nationally from other institutional program review processes.

The last bullet point on your handout is where you will find a summary of the resources that are available to you. There are resources such as a list of facilitators. These facilitators are available to come in and help you with your assessment plan, your assessment based program review process, understanding the guidelines of this particular process, helping you to develop tools, helping you to understand how to implement those tools and use the results to make decisions for continuous improvement.

In addition, on that website is a list of workshops scheduled out to the year 2005. This again is to illustrate the support that has been put in place to assist faculty with this process to make it meaningful and manageable. The list of guidelines for undergraduate academic program review is on this website as well as a timetable. This timetable mentions the setup so that it meets with your accreditation requirements.

Also on this website is a common language document and a shared conceptual understanding document. The common language document is basically a document that was drafted by faculty participating in undergraduate academic program review and some assessment professionals on campus. We found that we needed this document to use in program review so that we could communicate with each other. You will find a list of online resources that illustrate some how to methods as well as some other specific assessment methods and tools that are being used by other faculty at other campuses and being used by faculty here at NC State University. You will find some contact information for those faculty so that you can see how they are using the tool, and the results that they have generated. There is also data that is readily available through University Planning and Analysis. Shortly there will be a way to query data so that you can slice it on your own. The frequently answered questions are under development. There is also some information about publishing opportunities that are available to faculty.

Finally there will be some information on the implementation and utilization of TracDat which is the relational data base that assists with the management of the assessment process. The point of it is to help make assessment based program review meaningful and manageable. The key benefits are that it allows you to roll up the outcomes, i.e., course outcomes, departmental outcomes, college outcomes, institutional outcomes, compact planning, key points with academic thrust, etc. Another key feature is called the feedback loop. That is an opportunity for you to easily produce evidence that you are in fact, gathering data that is measuring a particular outcome that is resulting in particular decisions for program improvement. It allows you year after year to readdress a particular outcome so that you do not have to go back and look through a report.

We have 120 licenses that have been purchased and they all are spoken for. You will have an opportunity to purchase, out of your funds, some additional licenses. We will provide the training. The implementation is a process and we will provide the training for that shortly.

Vice Provost Anderson stated that they have made it clear from day one that the program review process is not used by the Provost’s or Chancellor’s office to connect program review, a faculty driven open process with decisions made related to budget, etc. We have compact planning and other processes through which the deans, provost, department heads and the faculty make those kind of decisions. They are unrelated. The information is generated. It belongs to the program in the college and again our primary responsibility is to help support and manage this effort. We let programs and departments make their own decisions about whether they choose to utilize it or not. The fact that 120 came on board very quickly shows that there was a tremendous interest in it.

7.    Unfinished Business
Senator Elmaghraby, Chair of the Governance Committee moved to take from the table the motion to approve bylaws for the College of Physical and Mathematical Sciences.

The motion was seconded and passed without dissent.

Senator Elmaghraby stated that he has asked members of the faculty to abstract from the documents the section relating to elections. He recommended voting on that particularly section.

The section was voted on and passed unanimously.

8.    Reports
Academic Policy Committee (report attached)
Senator Ash, Chair of the Academic Policy Committee, reported that the committee had a visit from some individuals on campus who are responsible for trying to raise awareness about Service Learning initiative on campus. She encouraged the faculty to review the handout that gives an overview of what service learning is.

Senator Ash stated that the committee had an issue of concern regarding priority scheduling for student athletes. She stated that they were told that this resulted from a lack of a centralized system for that process. It is a new process for the athletes and that has been taken care of.

Another issue of concern had to do with a Drop for Non Attendance Policy.

Senator Ash stated that this has arisen primarily out of concern for courses that are over subscribed.

The committee has been working with the Associate Dean and University Counsel Mary Beth Kurz to come up with a policy. The policy is still in draft form.

Senator Ash stated that Associate Vice Provost Thomas Conway has been to the committee twice to discuss Progress Towards Degree regulations.

The committee expressed concerns regarding the potential increase in faculty workload and liability. An implementation team which will include the chair of the Academic Policy Committee will be formed to deal with issues as they arise.

Senator Ash also reminded the Senators that the Provost mentioned an implementation of a university-wide evaluation of teaching instrument (UEI). Judy Peel talked to the committee about the instrument and John Lapp came to the committee to discuss the development of the instrument (UEI). The discussion will continue at their next meeting.

Senator Ash stated that Chapel Hill has drafted a resolution recommending a return to the old calendar. It was clear among the Academic Policy Committee members that there was a lot of support for that. Martha O’Donnell, University Registrar attended the meeting and indicated that it would be helpful for the committee on Registration, Records and Calendar to have a sense from the Faculty Senate regarding their feeling on this matter: encourage them to draft a memorandum to the Calendar Committee expressing support for a return to the previous calendar which was 71.5 days because of the one half day in the fall (for the Honors Convocation) and the one half day in the spring. Since the afternoon Honors Convocation is no longer held, the decision was made at the Academic Policy Committee meeting to recommend a 72 day per semester calendar as opposed to the 75 days per semester calendar. Senator Ash moved approval of the memo by the Senate. The motion passed the Senate without dissent.

Personnel Policy Committee
Senator Marshall, Chair of the Personnel Policy Committee, reported that the committee has reviewed a draft of the policy for health, maternity, and parental leave. They provided feedback to Joanne Woodard and Rhonda Sutton. The most significant concern that they presented was in relation to the wording of the policy in regard to faculty eligibility. Specifically the wording in the original policy excluded multi-year contract faculty such as lecturers and some visiting instructors with continuing appointments. Yesterday, however, Rhonda Sutton sent Senator Marshall a copy of the latest draft which has in fact included some wording that the committee wanted. The latest draft reads, "This policy applies to all individuals employed under the provisions of the tenure policy who have been continuously employed for more than one year and who are eligible for participation in either the North Carolina State Retirement System or the Optional Retirement Program. It does not apply to faculty with fiscal year appointments. Faculty members on fiscal year appointments are covered by the standard FML policy."

The policy is now ready to be taken to EOM. Senator Marshall would like anyone with concerns about the policy to send their concerns to the Committee.

Senator Marshall asked the Provost for some sense as to the status of the work on title review at this time.

Vice Provost Mallette stated that approximately four or five years ago the issues of titles came up and there was endorsed by this body and by the deans, a set of constructs that would revise exactly what you identified as a problem. " However, since 1998 we have had somewhat of a revolving door in the Provost’s position and it has never been brought to closure. We have advised the current Provost that we will get that back on the table. I mentioned at a dean’s meeting, that we would be pulling out the latest version from a couple of years ago and routing it through the Faculty Senate. I would not say that titles are being misused. They are being used exactly the way that the policies states. The policy needs to be flip flopped in a couple of places so that there is a ceiling on how long one can be visiting. That is all built into that policy and it is high up on a list as we get through a couple of other issues."

Senator Marshall stated that another issue still in discussion in the Personnel Policy Committee is the impact of the benefit changes on the stability of faculty. They have had Yvette McMillan to visit the committee and talk about the benefit changes, and she has agreed to give some follow-up data in December on the benefits packages that are offered at peer institutions. Perhaps from that data the committee will be able to make a statement as a committee as to their perception of the impact of the benefit changes on current faculty.

Another issue that is being reviewed is the child care issues task force. Yvette McMillan is chairing that committee and they are in the process of collecting data. The charge of her task force is to conduct an updated assessment of campus dependent care needs, to benchmark those needs against the other institutions in the community, and make recommendations that recognize the limited resources available. It appears that currently they are wanting to conduct a survey and the Personnel Policy Committee feels that they can serve as a conduit for that survey.

Resources and Environment Committee
Senator Gail Wilkerson, Chair of the Resources and Environment Committee reported that they are considering five issues. Most of them are still open.

The committee is still considering the copyright policy, deciding what they would like to recommend. They are also considering members for that committee. It would be a standing committee. The committee considered some members that Vice Chancellor Charlie Moreland suggested and thought they were appropriate. Two of them are not going to be able to serve so they are making decisions on who to recommend in their place.

9.    Issues of concern
Senator Bernhard stated that the issue of concern that was assigned to the Resources and Environment committee on parking has been resolved. Transportation, in his view, is doing a superb job at handling individual problems with regard to both parking and the Wolfline if they are made acquainted with the specific problem. Both the transportation problems that came through the Faculty Senate and through the College of Engineering faculty have been resolved.

10.    Adjournment
Chair Carter adjourned the meeting at 5:00 p.m.

Footer Nav