October 15, 2002
Present: Chair Carter, Chair-Elect Daley, Secretary Banks, Provost Cooper, Ash, Bernhard, G. Carter, DeLuca, Fahmy, Fikry, Garval, Havner, Headen, Jasper, Matthews, Rice, Sawyers, Stoddard, Tyler, Weiner
Absent: Senators Allen, Atkin, Beasley, Brothers, Griffin, Hammerberg, Hodge, Honeycutt, Istook, McRae, Smoak, Tetro,
Excused: Parliamentarian Gilbert; Senators Krotee, Lytle, Misra
Visitors: Frank Abrams, Sr. Vice Provost; Mary E. Kurz, Vice Chancellor & General Counsel; Clare Kristofco, Executive Assistant to the Chancellor; Erich Fabricius, Student Senate President ProTempore; Daniel Bunce, Bulletin Editor, News Services; John Gilligan, Vice Chancellor for Research & Graduate Studies
1. Call to Order
The fourth meeting of the forty-ninth 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 introduced Drs. Glenda Carter and William DeLuca as the two new Senators from the College of Education and Dr. Warren Jasper as the new Senator from the College of Textiles.
Chair Carter announced that Professor Vivian Stannett of the Department of Chemical Engineering passed away on October 1, 2002. A memorial service will be held for him at the McKimmon Center on Monday, October 21 at 4:45 p.m.
Chair Carter announced that Sports Illustrated has ranked NC State 57th when it comes to America’s Best Sport Colleges.
3. Approval of the Minutes, Meeting No. 3, October 1, 2002
The minutes were approved as amended.
4. Remarks from the Provost
Provost Cooper announced that the "Campus Dialog on Race" will be held in the Stewart Theater Monday, October 21, 2002 from 3 - 5 p.m. Dr. Rupert Nacoste will be the facilitator of a panel of faculty, students, and administrators in discussing diversity issues.
Provost Cooper reported that there is a ranking of Research Universities that is published by a Center at the University of Florida formally called the Lombardy Report. "They rank schools differently than some of the more subjective components that appear in Newsweek and US News. They look at selective schools and ask questions where simple numerical answers can be applied: What are the total research dollars? What are the total federal dollars? What are the number of PhD’s that are produced, the number of Post docs? There are nine categories. Institutions are judged by the number of the nine measures in which they rank in the top 25, and the number in which they rank in the twenty-fifth to fiftieth category. Last year we had two of the requirements to be in the top twenty-five and seven in the twenty-five to fifty. Last year we ranked thirty-first among the public universities. This year we have four measures that have climbed into the top twenty-five in the country among publics, four in the second twenty-five. That puts us in the top twenty-four to twenty-five. It is very good news in terms of very objective reporting of the measures of quality of a given university.
We have two task forces that are operating this fall. One I hope will finish relatively soon on non-tenure track faculty. That task force is led by Judy Peel. They are considering issues such as titles of non-tenure track faculty, working conditions, salaries, and lack of contract. This task force results from a study at the Office of the President. One outcome of that report was to ask each campus to do its own analysis of the use and the employment conditions that we have for non-tenure track faculty. It is a good subject to have Judy Peel report the results of the task force eventually to the Faculty Senate. Judy Peel’s task force should finish by the end of the Fall semester.
Another task force that is under way focuses on retention, and is led by Gail O’Brien with major emphasis on undergraduate issues. They are going to consider a number of issues relating to the success of our undergraduates, the beginning impact of progress toward degree, and provide an oversight on our efforts in the retention of our undergraduates including our student athletes.
We are proceeding toward and have almost obtained the final approval for a subject called "Management Flexibility". That is made available to us by the state legislation which is expressed by an opportunity from the Office of the President to have actions take place with the Chancellor and our own Board of Trustees as opposed to having to be ultimately approved by the Board of Governors at the Office of the President. The most significant item for this group is the awarding of tenure. In the past, particularly when we were hiring someone from the outside with tenure we have always had to wait until we got final approval from the Board of Governors. Now we have one less step in the process. It also affects things like the setting of faculty salaries and approval of salary increases that will now reside with the Chancellor and with the Board of Trustees rather than the Office of the President. To complete the process, we have to do a little more reporting in terms of comparing our salaries to our peer group and doing an analysis almost at the departmental level will be required.
By December 13 individual departments and deans should have gone through a cycle and presented me with a first draft of what the compact for 2003 -2004 will look like. We will refine that draft as we go through the spring semester.
I would also like to announce that after thirty years of excellent service, George Dixon, Vice Provost for Enrollment Management and Director of Admissions is going to retire on January 1, 2003. We wish George well. He will be going to somewhat of a second career . We will be appointing an interim Vice Provost for Enrollment Management. Enrollment Management as you know has a Registrar, Financial Aid and Admissions as well as solving the problem of a Director of Admissions.
This is a very active week with respect to budget. Shortly we will send out memoranda to departments outlining the budget cuts that are required. They vary depending on the density of 1310 faculty in individual departments but the cuts are approximately 2.8% at the departmental, and the college levels. The administrative cuts are in the range of four to five percent. The cuts will return more than $10M as part of the campus’ required budget reduction.
On the other side of the equation we are beginning with the infusion of two compartments of new money. The campus initiated tuition increase, most of which is prescribed for need-based financial aid ($3.5M), with $1.0M to the graduate student support plan, and approximately $2.5M in faculty salaries. We have very explicit instructions from the Office of the President that these monies will be used, as we used them last year, to solve problems of market and equity. The word has gone out to the deans and then presumably to department heads to be making special cases for the application of these salary dollars. We will be turning that around hopefully in time for those results to be expressed in the November paychecks. The total campus initiated tuition increase is approximately $7.0M with $2.5M going into salaries.
The other component that we have is enrollment funding. We know by analysis of our enrollments that this year we will have a fairly large infusion of resources, approximately $15M. The challenge for us in managing this is to make it last more than one year, particularly since we have in recent years used that resource to fund a good fraction of what we do in compact planning. I am working with the deans in a plan that will employ several components of distributions out to the colleges. There will be a category dealing with this year’s compact plan and that will mostly be permanent money. So we have about one quarter of the resources available for this year’s compact plan to express itself. The second component is putting resources out to the colleges for infrastructure. They will probably be employed with the highest priorities of individual colleges for things like operating expenses, possibly TA’s. That will also be recurring dollars.
While enrollment funding is recurring dollars, I am going to insist that the deans provide a list of one time needs that can be met this academic year so that we can apply that component to compact planning next year.
We had neglected, in the process of using enrollment funding to fund things like compact planning, to acknowledge that enrollment funding is generated by individual colleges. To a great extent they are carrying a significant burden of these additional students, and yet there has been very little budgetary attention paid to those units. To those units which, since 1966, have had a growth in enrollment, I will distribute that last component proportionately to that enrollment growth.
Chair Carter commented that he is hoping that a response from Gretchen Bataille to the Chair of the Faculty Assembly is in regards to clarification on how tuition increase money can be used for salaries. In Gretchen’s response she regrets that the state could not provide any money for salary increases for any employees except teachers. She said similarly the Board of Governors approved campus-initiated tuition increases for several campuses that included salary increases for faculty. There has been a lot going on via the emails above what different campuses within the system are doing vis-a-vis using some of this money for faculty salary increases, and it is not clear to him how they are going to allocate this. Chair Carter stated that he understands that President Broad has been advocating against doing it. He understands some of the campuses are doing it. He stated, "Stuart, relative to your remarks I think we are able to use some of that money to address inequities. Is that correct?"
Provost Cooper stated that market and equity are the two criteria, with merit a given. "There was a very explicit letter from Molly Broad with instructions as well as a supplement from Gretchen Bataille with much more detail. There is the possibility of going further than the campus-initiated tuition increase. For example, if there were foundation monies available or other resources available in colleges such as vacant lines, you could convert some of that to salary increases. When we polled the deans the stock market performance has been so poor that there is very little new foundation money to apply for salary increases and there is very little interest in cannibalizing vacant lines for this purpose. It is going to be largely, I think, this $2.5M pool. There is a possibility to provide salary increases for EPA but not faculty. There is no money. The only way that can be done is again by cannibalizing positions. We do that rarely but it happens. If someone wants to retain someone in a special situation, the resources have to come within the unit and in the 1110 salary base of that particular unit. We have some flexibility but it is going to be a very lean year with respect to raises in all of our classifications of personnel."
Senator Sawyers wants to know if the additional leave (ten days) that was given by the Legislature will affect SPA employees.
The response was yes.
Chair-Elect Daley stated that almost everyone gets the ten days with the exception of the faculty. Since it was a symbolic gesture by the Legislature, it would be nice if there was an email or something from Holladay Hall pointing out that the faculty is worthy as well even though they were neglected.
Provost Cooper stated that there are other ways that campus administration has sought to be understanding of the needs and desires of faculty. Tuition increase is not available to other campuses. "I think we have to be careful how we use up our bullets with the Legislature. This one I think would not be a way. "
Senator Sawyers wants to know if the limitations on using the tuition money for market or equity rule out any salary increases based on promotion.
Provost Cooper responded that promotion money is taken off the top. The formula uses a 5% raise for assistant to associate and a 7% raise for associate to full.
Senior Vice Provost Abrams noted, that is the simple increase.
Chair Carter stated that he and Chair-Elect Daley have been invited to meet with the Chairman of the Board of Governors next Tuesday at 3:00 p.m. There are two issues they intend to press. "One is to make the point that we have to continue to reiterate our need for competitive salaries to protect the staff that we have and the faculty that we have. Secondly, to press the point that Carolina and NC State are fundamentally different from the other fourteen campuses. In conjunction with that is the need for maintaining our indirect cost. If there are other issues that need to be pressed at that meeting, please let us know."
5. Remarks from John Gilligan, Vice Chancellor for Research & Graduate Studies
"I am happy to be your new Vice Chancellor for Research and Graduate Studies, and I plan to work very hard in order to make the university successful. I am very high on what we do at NC State and what the people do. Despite the budget situations, I am very optimistic about where the university is going. It seems as if we have always had these budget trials and tribulations over the last twenty plus years that I have been here. We always get through it, and we do better in the long run.
Please feel free to visit me in Holladay Hall to talk about issues related to the Senate, Research, or Graduate Programs. My observation is that you have an excellent team in Holladay Hall right now dealing with all aspects of problems at the university. I am very pleased to be a part of that team. They are a very dedicated group of faculty and administrators working for you and for the students at this university. We are seriously discussing all of these issues that you have raised and are trying to address them the best way we possibly can. We will in the long term.
I report to the Chancellor in this position and represent both the research side of the university as well as the graduate students. The dean of the Graduate School reports to my position. That is a very powerful alliance. Not all universities are organized that way. Many are, but not all. It is a very powerful alliance because you get support of the graduate students and support of the research process working together. It worked very well for the college that I came from, and I think it is going to work very well for the university.
Indirect cost is now called F&A (Facilities and Administrative Cost). Just as I was coming into this position, the Chancellor along with George Worsley and others had worked very hard over the summer to keep the F&A with the university because that $26M was at risk. The State Legislature saw that as a big pot of money in their opinion. They felt that they could make a claim to it. Fortunately we made the arguments that the money is spent on research and NC State. That money has been retained by all universities in the UNC system. Also, the tuition support that is so very important for our graduate students was retained. That was also a target. We know how important that is for recruiting of good graduate students especially international students, in support of our research program. That was the best realization that I had coming into this position.
Another observation I would make is that it is fun being in Holladay Hall. A lot of the things that I do on the research side are really keeping the trains on time and on track and keeping them rolling. We want to keep the research process going, make sure proposals get out the door, contracts get awarded, and get you the money that you need to run your research programs. Our team is dedicated to making sure that happens. The other part of my role is that of Research Leadership. That is a little more complicated, because then you start talking about getting resources, setting directions for the colleges and for faculty. I have to work closely with Provost Cooper and the other Vice Chancellors, Deans, Faculty, University Research Committee, Research Operations Council, and any other structures that we set up to make sure that the university is moving forward, and to gain access to all the opportunities that we think are important. The Lombardy Report is on the web. It discusses all of those university figures of merit for research universities. You can see how we stack up against other universities in the United States. We are highly leveraged and positioned to move ahead in all the kinds of things that we do and the rankings. We have a high reputation in all the universities around the country.
We are talking about the future aggressive growth for graduate programs. That is going to drive aggressive growth for financial support for those graduate students and also for the faculty that need to supply the equipment and the space. We are talking about going from the 6,000 graduate students that we have now to 8,000 graduate students over the next eight years or so. That is a sizable growth, especially when we start talking about those extra 2000 students being top of the line students that we really need to attract. They need stipend support, tuition, good laboratories, and excellent faculty. We have set a very aggressive target for ourselves. That is really our challenge, especially in this day and age when a lot of United State students are not so interested in Science and Technology-- a major theme at this university. We have our work cut out for us.
I see this as being very frustrating, and we will have to deal with that. At the same time I think realistically we are going to have to go after dollars for research and partnerships in different ways than we have considered in the past. We are going to have to go after federal dollars for research. We are going to have to include state resources, industry resources, foundation resources and the like, and do that in unique ways so that we can cooperate with other universities and other agencies to obtain the mix of support that we need to get that aggressive growth going. I am going to work with the University Research Committee, the Research Operations Council, and any other structural and advisory groups that we have put into place in order to help us with that vision.
I think that retention and recruiting of faculty is going to be critical this year. Certainly with the budgets the way they are and perhaps other states coming out of the economic slump a little quicker than we are, it is going to be tough for us to retain faculty. We are going to have to watch out for that and make sure that we continue to recruit excellent faculty here at NC State as well. That goes for recruiting graduate students as well.
We are in the process of returning indirect cost money to the colleges. Individually you do not get that money, but your colleges and your deans will get that money and hopefully some of it will be given to department heads. Those are dollars that you have earned and can be spent again for research, for stimulating research and addressing these problems associated with graduate students, retention of faculty, and spending it on the laboratory. We are now in the process of getting back dollars from my office to the colleges that were promised previously to you to retain faculty. There are a lot of other dollars besides just the direct cut of the indirect cost dollars to come to your colleges from my office in order to support research. There is help on the way. You are going to have to be very judicious in spending this year and make sure every dollar counts. That is something to look forward to."
Senator Havner stated, "I know you were at the General Faculty Meeting and heard President Keohane give the excellent talk about cooperation among the Triangle universities. I was wondering if anything is being organized where you and the Vice Chancellors for Research at Chapel Hill and Duke may be looking at things and possibilities."
Vice Chancellor Gilligan responded that the most surprising thing that she said was that they were willing to consider joint faculty positions between Duke and NC State. "I thought that was really something. I do not think we have any of those positions now but there is no reason why we could not do joint faculty type positions between NC State and one of the UNC institutions or any other. That was very innovative on her part in describing substantial ways that we could work together in areas that obviously we would not have the resources separately to recruit a full person. That would benefit both universities. I think that was very interesting. It turns out that the Provosts from the three institutions meet together, that the Vice Chancellors for Research between the three institutions meet, the Chancellors of the three institutions meet and I imagine there are other counterparts that meet as well. All of these things are happening. I think we are linked together at the hip in a lot of issues. For instance, one issue that we are dealing with now is high performance computing. How we are going to solve that problem for NC State, given the fact that the state has essentially eliminated the funding for the North Carolina Supercomputing Center in the Park. We have relied heavily on that in the past for high performance computing for NC State, Duke to a lesser extent, and Chapel Hill to a lesser extent. We all are going to work together to solve that problem and make sure that faculty here have access to high performance computing. We are already working on a very important and sizable problem that we have to solve. I think there are going to be many examples of those things happening.
We had a group together to address what our overlap would be in putting together a proposal for the federal government on Homeland Security. In any ideas that come up along those lines, those are the kind of partnerships that are going to be very meaningful as we pool our resources in order to get where we need to be.
There was an article in the newspaper where the cooperation between the major research universities is noticed."
Chair Carter commented that there has been a lot of collaboration among the three universities in the Triangle.
Senator Headen stated, "Regarding the way indirect cost is distributed from the principle investigator’s perspective, what matters is not the decisions that come from the Vice Chancellor of Research but from the deans. The allocation decision rests with the dean. Am I correct?"
Vice Chancellor Gilligan stated that approximately one third of all indirect cost money goes back to the colleges directly. There is very little that is held in his office. Most of that goes back to the colleges in the forms of retention money, rent money, renovation money or matching money. It is different how each college distributes that money. Some allow it to flow back directly to the departments. Other colleges address needs at the dean level, and then they give some back directly to the PI’s. He said it is a valid question to ask your Associate Dean for Research or your Dean as to the mechanism within your own college.
Secretary Banks stated that a colleague expressed concern about the stated plan to increase our graduate students, and your statement about American students not being that excited about pursuing graduate degrees in Science and Technology. His concern was with the tuition remission issue associated with students that are out-of-state or those out of country, and how you might deal with that.
Vice Chancellor Gilligan stated that he remembers not so long ago when all the tuition remission money from the state was approximately $4.0M for NC State. "Now we are talking about the whole plan of the graduate student support plan. It is over $15M. The amount of money that we get from the state has gone up significantly. That just shows that we have been bringing in many more out-of-state, and international students in particular. Certainly with US students, if they so desire to become North Carolina residents we can flip them relatively quickly. That is not really too much of a concern. It is the international students who, of course, cannot become North Carolina residents. The amount of tuition that we have is a limit to growth. Currently it is not, but in the long term it is a limit to growth. I think more of a limit to growth this year are stipends that are available from various pools of dollars to go out and recruit new graduate students. Typically we use state dollars to do that. That is more of a limit to growth this year.
Chair Carter noted that some faculty have received queries about their current use of MCNC. He wants to know if they are in jeopardy of losing that facility.
Vice Chancellor Gilligan responded that it turns out that the stock market has not been very kind to them either. "What appeared to be very big pools of dollars have shrunk. They can not rely on that endowment for a long period of time. They certainly cannot run a business, projecting that they are going to go to zero within three years either. So they have to protect that endowment to some degree. Now that MCNC is a private organization, they have to protect those assets as well as have some return on their investment. With the cuts that were directed on the high performance computing side, they are willing to extend this a little bit. In other words give us a year or so grace period in order to get our act together to determine how we are going to solve this problem. Ultimately it is the problem of the three Triangle universities, if we so desire to either work with what is currently now NCSC and solve the problem there, or to do it on our own in some ways. That is what we are currently trying to decide. That endowment is fixed and it is going down very rapidly. It would be spent out in a few years if nothing else was done.
Chair Carter wanted to know if there are any procedural changes in Vice Chancellor Gilligan’s new administration. He noted that one concern that came to him was, "don’t bother going to John Gilligan asking for matching funds unless the granted agencies specifically request it. That is all the university will throw in."
Vice Chancellor Gilligan stated that he thinks that was pretty much the policy in the last year or two. "We have had to protect these very dear indirect cost dollars that came back. That is really my main source of matching for any of these programs. We want to make sure it goes as far as we possibly can. The policy that is being enforced is that we will match for proposals at that level but if it is just something to make it look like a better deal, our experience is that good proposals win, independent of how many extra dollars that are associated with that. We will meet the requirements and we will get you in the game, but good proposals are the things that win."
6. New Business
First Reading: Resolution on Modification to the Faculty & EPA Professional Grievance Procedures (Report Attached)
Senator Tyler stated that the Chancellor requested the committee to review proposed revisions to the Faculty and EPA Professional Grievance Procedure.
Senator Tyler discussed the changes and the four major reasons why the changes need to be made in the procedure.
Senator Tyler read the resolution for its first reading.
Mary E. Kurz, Vice Chancellor & General Counsel, added that the Governance Committee also made a recommendation to clarify the appendix in the composition of grievance panels. She inserted language to clarify, as it related to tenured and untenured faculty, the categories from which panels are picked. One other thing that was left out of the revision that they inserted was a phrase from the UNC code called "imposition of serious sanctions." In place of "termination, demotion and suspension," they added in parenthesis, "demotion and suspension" as being a serious sanction. They took out "termination" because that is in another procedure.
Chair-Elect Daley wants to know if this means that the harassment procedures will be totally dealt with by the OEO and not through the grievance process.
Vice Chancellor Kurz responded the law requires expeditious resolution of harassment complaints. "We have to investigate immediately and it does not depend upon someone filing a formal grievance. To avoid having two separate tracks going down at the same time you provide for one mechanism to investigate and take action. That is what the new process addresses to alleviate the liability associated with the longevity of having it go through the grievance procedure.
The second question is with regard to harassment complaints, whether they be sexual harassment, racial harassment, etc. There are often legal questions that are associated with the liability under the law. There are legal questions that need to be addressed in the context of the investigation of liability of the employer. They are normally not the kind of factual disputes. Sex discrimination and race discrimination, continue to go through the grievance process. It is the harassment complaints that do not always arise in the context of the grievance procedure, because it is against an administrator’s action that you are dealing with."
Chair-Elect Daley wants to know if this also involves the sanctions coming out of that process.
Vice Chancellor Kurz stated that if there were a sanction coming out of the process, it would be the Faculty Hearings Committee. If it is a sanction against someone who has been found guilty of harassment, they can grieve that. It is the harassment investigation that is not a part of the grievance procedure.
Chair Carter stated a question was voiced in the Executive Committee as to how the mediation requests would be handled with the rearrangement, with personnel actions going through Human Resources. There was some question about whether the mediation requests from faculty should go through the Chair of the Faculty. Clearly the request for grievances has to originate through the Faculty Chair’s office. The language regarding university mediations is as follows:
Any university employee may request mediation services by submitting a mediation request form indicating the nature of the issue, the parties involved that the mediator preferenced, if any. Mediation request forms may be obtained from the Director of Employee Relations in the Division of Human Resources, the Coordinator of Employment Programs in the Office of Equal Opportunity or the Chair of the Faculty. Request for mediation must be followed within the time period in which the employee would be eligible to file a grievance under applicable university policies at Section A. Section B: SPA employees must direct request to the Director of Employee Relations. Faculty and non faculty EPA Professionals may direct their request to either the Chair of the Faculty or the Coordinator of Unemployment Programs.
Chair Carter stated that if someone comes to him with a grievance or a proposal or request to file a grievance, the first thing that he does is to ask that individual to consider mediation. The current policy is that a faculty member does not have to initiate any mediation with the Chair of the Faculty.
Personnel Policy Committee
First Reading: Resolution on the Office of University Personnel
Chair Elect-Daley read the resolution for its first reading. There was a second in support of the resolution.
Chair Carter proposed referring the resolution to the Personnel Policy Committee for refinement and returned to the Senate for a second reading.
The proposal was accepted.
Academic Policy Committee
Report on Minimum Eligibility Standard
Senator Ash presented a report that outlined the current system which allows students to remain on technical and academic warning. She stated that it is important to understand that any student whose GPA falls below 2.0 is on academic warning. They are eligible to continue. The current system allows students to continue with an extremely low GPA in the first couple years of their tenure here. Another problem with the current system is that it no longer fits with the progress toward degree regulation, such that it allows students with junior hours to have a 1.8 GPA and the progress toward degree would require students to be matriculated into a program at junior hours which would require them to have a GPA of 2.0.
Senator Ash moved that the Faculty Senate adopt the report from the Academic Policy Committee that suggests making recommendations regarding changes in the minimum eligibility standards.
Senator Fikry wants to know if the stipulations will apply to only incoming students.
Senator Ash responded yes.
The motion passed without dissent.
Resources and Environment Committee
Senator Bernhard reported that the committee continues to see a sequence of colorful and interesting leaders who have inadequate money to do what they do. Last week Sam Averitt, Vice Provost for Information Technology, attended their meeting and talked about the lack of money for supercomputing. He will be attending the next Faculty Senate meeting to discuss this issue.
Michael Harwood, University Architect, will be attending their next meeting to discuss the University Master Plan. He will give remarks at the Faculty Senate meeting on November 12.
Jack Colby, Director of Facilities, will be attending the Resources and Environment Meeting three weeks from today.
7. Issues of Concern
Procedures for Reviewing the Chancellor: Concern that the faculty as a whole was not surveyed
Response: Clare Kristofco, Executive Assistant to the Chancellor, stated that every fourth year the Chancellor is reviewed. It is a process that is prescribed by the Board of Governors policy. It is a process that is conducted by the President of the University in conjunction with the Board of Trustees. It conducts a comprehensive review of the Chancellor’s performance that will include major campus constituencies such as faculty, students and staff. The process under way now is under the direction of the Chair of the Board of Trustees, Peaches Blank. She has been in contact with, and working in concert with President Broad. One aspect of the review is a questionnaire, and the questionnaire has been reviewed by the President. There are four different questionnaires depending on the group that is being surveyed. The questionnaire process that the Chancellor is following with the approval of the Chair of the Board is the process that is very similar to the process that she conducts with her five year reviews with the Vice Chancellors. In that survey for the Chancellor there was one questionnaire that went to EPA faculty and EPA non teaching Professionals and the recipients included the Executive Committee of the Faculty Senate, the Council of University Professors, the Executive Officers, the Deans, the Research Operations Council, and the Extension Operations Council. The idea with that grouping was to hit all of the main areas of the university’s mission of teaching, research and service, and extension and engagement.
There is a separate questionnaire that was developed for SPA staff. Recipients included the Staff Senate. Recipients of the student questionnaire included the President’s roundtable which represents the leadership of campus student organizations and the Student Senate.
The fourth group not listed in the Board of Governors’ policy, is one that the Chancellor uses for the Vice Chancellors, and that is external advisors. This group included the Board of Trustees, The Board of Visitors, The Alumni Association Board of Directors, and the Student Aid Association Board of Directors.
The questionnaires were due back to RTI. The results will be given to the Chair of the Board. After the full Board meeting in November, the trustees will go into closed session to discuss the results that they have received. In addition, the process includes a consultant that will work with the Chair and the Board of Trustees. The consultant will conduct a series of interviews as well.
Concern: The manner in which the first year English requirements were changed this past summer.
Chair Carter referred the issue to the Academic Policy Committee.
Concern: Senator Fikry thinks it would be a good idea for Senators to have identification cards to identify them as members of the Faculty Senate.
Chair Carter suggested that Senator Fikry communicate this issue to Senator Scott McRae, Chair of the Personnel Policy Committee.
Chair Carter adjourned the meeting at 5:00 p.m.