Left Navigation

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

FEBRUARY 24, 2004

Present:  Chair Daley, Secretary Weiner, Past Chair Carter, Parliamentarian Corbin, Provost Oblinger, Senators Allen, Batra, Beasley, Bernhard, Bitting, Brownie, Bruck, DeLuca, Estes, Fahmy, Fikry, Hammerberg, Honeycutt, Jasper, Bohumil, Krotee, McRae,  Middleton, Peacock, Stoddard, Tetro, Tyler, Warren

Excused: Senators Brothers, Headen, Hooper, Khosla, Smith

Absent:  Atkin, Branson, Griffin, Lucovsky, Misra, Rice

Visitors:   Karen Helm, Director, University Planning & Analysis; Christine Klein, NCSU Transportation; Charles Duncan, Senior Staff- Technician; Clare Kristofco, Executive Assistant to the Chancellor; Alton Banks, Director, Faculty Center for Teaching and Learning; Thomas Conway, Enrollment Management; Jo Allen, Undergraduate Affairs; George Blum, Professor, BAE Retired; Bynum Driggers, Professor Emeritus, BAE; Kathryn Hart, University Treasurer; Lee Fowler, Athletic Director; Benny Benton, Editor, Bulletin; Tom Kendig, Director of Transportation; Greg Cain, Assistant Director, Transportation

1.  Call to Order
Chair Dennis Daley called the eleventh meeting of the fiftieth session of the North Carolina State University Faculty Senate to order at 3:00 p.m.

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

Chair Daley announced that delegates would be elected to serve on the Faculty Assembly and the Athletics Council at the April 6th meeting.

3. Approval of the Minutes, Meeting No. 10, February 10, 2004
The minutes were approved as corrected. 

4. Remarks from Provost Oblinger
I am pleased to see Karen Helm here along with Alton Banks.  The first thing on my agenda was to talk about the SACS Accreditation Review that we are going to have on March 23-25, 2004.  I have talked with you about the compliance reports.  We now know who is on the site team and I have given a copy of that team roster to Chair Daley.  The chances are, if it is consistent with SACS reviews of the past and particularly since we are in this new batch of institutions with a quality enhancement plan, there is a distinct possibility that you as members of the Faculty Senate may in fact, be asked about this review when they are on campus.  I just wanted to forewarn you of that.  We also talked to the Board of Trustees last Thursday about the possibility of them being contacted as well.  Since this permeates our institution I think I should mention it to the Faculty Senate as well.  Combined with this I would also make an announcement that I hope you have seen in the online University Bulletin relative to my appointment of someone to take a leadership role as it relates to LITRE, as we implement the LITRE plan which you have before you.  Lavon Page in Mathematics has agreed to be the Special Assistant to the Provost and head the LITRE activities for NC State. 

Provost Oblinger announced that Dr. Thomas Conway is the new Vice Provost for Enrollment Management and Services.  “I look forward to working with him in this capacity and hope you do as well.  I think he has demonstrated a lot of leadership and I know he has interacted with several groups of the Faculty Senate in a very positive fashion.

I have mentioned to you that the second round of compact planning is well under way.  The Deans and the Vice Provosts are in the process of making prioritizations.  We will not be making any allocations related to the compact planning process until we know where we stand in terms of enrollment increase dollars that will be hopefully forthcoming at full value to this campus, and until we know something more about the tuition increase outcome and we don’t know that.  As you know the Board of Governors will be debating that in the middle of March.  If you saw the News and Observer this morning, two interesting articles on the editorial page that I would call to your attention.  One from the Chair of the Board of Governors, Mr. Wilson and just below it, “Why Can’t Campuses Major in Efficiency.”  If you just read the point of view, I would ask that you read “Why Can’t Campuses Improve Efficiency”, as the challenge that is out there to all of us. George Worsley and I spent seven and a half hours with the subcommittee of the Board of Governors that is dealing with tuition and fee proposals.  It was an interesting experience to say the least and it was also informative because we heard from each of the other constituent institutions as to their plans for campus initiated tuition increases.  We attempted to make our case to that subcommittee. 

You will be pleased to know that in the College of Management search we have had ninety-two applications that the committee is sorting through right now.  I think we  are very definitely headed toward a situation where we will have a number of finalists that we will want to interview preliminarily in what I would call airport interviews to do a little further screening before we invite the finalists to campus.  Fifty-eight applications for the College of Veterinary Medicine and I know the committee will be working as early as Thursday morning to get through a list.  I am not sure if we are headed toward similar airport interviews or not there, but Linda Brady is doing an excellent job with a faculty committee that is very committed to that search. 

The College of Agriculture and Life Sciences is in the process of electing faculty representatives to that Nominating Committee and I look forward to that report. 

The Deans individually have met with the Administrative Reappointment Promotion and Tenure Committee to indicate what was important as it relates to that process in their respective colleges.  I think that if you add the hours up that we spent on that, that investment of a days time of the Deans individually in front of the administrative RPT Committee was time well spent.  I think the Deans and the administrative group feel that way.

As a result of the resolution that we have received in Holladay Hall relative to a Budget Advisory Committee, I can tell you that we are working on a response to the Faculty Senate and will have that back to you in a very timely basis.  I will share with you also that George Worsley and I met on January 21st with a subcommittee to start discussions that I think will be leveraged once this Advisory Budget Committee is appointed and we are looking forward to your full participation in that.

Honorary Degree  Nominations
This is one of the most prestigious honors that we bestow on individuals on behalf of NC State University.  I want to solicit your active participation in the nomination process.  There is a very simple to complete web based form and the committee will take it from there.  I am asking each and every one of you to consider nominating an individual or individuals for this most prestigious honor, the Honorary Degree from NC State.

Lastly is an announcement that we received from the State Office of Management and Budget last week that I think some of you are aware of.  It instructs the campuses through the President’s Office to prepare impact statements of budget cuts at one, two, and three percent levels.  We are diligently approaching that task.  We will be discussing that with the Deans on Thursday morning, and are in discussions with the Vice Chancellors basically as we speak.  I did not want to leave you with the impression that that is not something that we have been asked to do by the State Management and Budget Office.

I would be happy to respond to any questions that you might have. 

Senator Honeycutt wanted to know if the budget cuts would be in the current year or for next year.

Provost Oblinger responded that there would be no additional cuts this year.  He noted that  we had a 2% monthly hold back that about three months ago was asked for in its totality for this budget year. 

5. Memorial Statement for G. Wallace Giles
Professors Charlie Suggs, George Blum, and Bynum Driggers presented a memorial statement to honor Professor G. Wallace Giles, Professor Emeritus and former Department Head of Biological and Agriculture Engineering.

6. Remarks from Robert Sowell, Dean of the Graduate School
“I would like to summarize some of the highlights of the National Research Council Assessment Program.

There was an assessment in 1982.  They did this again in 1995 and from 1995 until two or three years ago and still today the National Research Council’s assessment of research doctoral program is considered the authoritative source on the quality of doctoral programs in the United States.  The last two years there has been a committee appointed by the National Research Council to look at the methodology used in previous studies, make recommendations relative to future studies and particularly to make the recommendation to whether or not there should be a study roughly ten years later of the research doctoral programs. 

The bottom line is that the committee did recommend that the National Research Council conduct another assessment of research doctoral programs.  A study of the educational practices of these programs indicated that it is important to higher education, the funders of higher education to the students and to society.  The bottom line was that the committee recommended that a study be conducted.

Another concern that they had was that the data was old because the data were collected in 1992-93 and the report was in 1995 and those were the data that had been used since 1995 to talk about the quality of doctoral programs.  The recommendation this time is that the quantitative measures be conducted on a periodic basis, maybe as often as every two years and that the results be published on the web, that they be much more user friendly, and that there be much more focus on the prospective students.  Past reports were not focused on the prospective students but really on higher education.

Another issue that the committee recommended that the NRC take a look at is taxonomy.  The taxonomy used in the 1995 study they said was out of date, particularly the taxonomy in the biological sciences. 

Another area that is particularly important to us at NC State as a land grant institution is that in previous NRC studies none of the agricultural  disciplines had been included so the committee recommended that the agricultural disciplines be included in the future study.  They established a criteria of thresh-holds for inclusion, first for a field to be included nationally that there be at least 500 degrees granted over the last five years and for an individual program on a given campus to be included in the study, it should award five PhDs over the last five years. 

When I made this presentation to the academic coordinating group back in January the schedule for the NRC at that time was to start the study in July of this year, but in the mean time they had to find the money for this study as we appoint a study committee.  The previous committee would not be the study committee because it was the planning committee.  The NRC needed approximately $5.0M to conduct the study. 

We were notified approximately two weeks ago that the NRC has decided to postpone the data collection phase of this study until the summer of 2005 with the report to be out in 2007, but what they did not indicate that is that the primary reason was actually difficulty in getting the funding.   Also, they had gotten lots of requests from graduate deans around the country to postpone the study because they did not feel that they would be ready to respond to the survey questions this next academic year.  You can see from this response that the universities are taking this quite seriously.  We would have been prepared but it gives us more time to do a better job at preparing for the study.

What do we have to do here at NC State to respond to the study?  First we have to make decisions based on the taxonomy that has been recommended.  We have to make a decision to which fields we will compete in.  Then, once we have made that decision we will have to do a serious and good job of putting the data together based on the questionnaires that the NRC Committee has designed. 

In 1982 there were thirty-two fields included in the study.  NC State participated in sixteen of those fields.  In the 1995 study there were forty-one fields and we  participated in twenty-three.  Those in both cases were broken down into biological sciences, humanities and fine arts, mathematical and physical sciences, engineering, social and behavior sciences.  For this next study there will be four groupings in four major areas and fifty- seven fields.  How many will we compete in, here at NC State?  My best guess would be somewhere around thirty, close to half of those it has been in the past.  We do not have PhD programs in Arts and Humanities so we don’t compete in that grouping at all.  In the Social and Behavioral Sciences we have Sociology and Psychology.  Economics can be used as part of bringing agriculture into the fold.  They have a separate field in economics, agriculture and resource economics for the next study.  So we will have to make some decisions there as to how we want to address the economics area.  In the Physical Science and Mathematics and Engineering everything is pretty straightforward in terms of mapping NRC fields onto ours here at NC State.  There is a category NRC has to be looking at that is referred to as the earth sciences, that would cover the geology part of our department of MEAS, but it also would bring Soil Science into the Earth Sciences and then the remainder of MEAS will have to decide if we want to have that entered into their Meteorology and Atmospheric area.  Engineering again is very straightforward.  It falls pretty much along our Engineering disciplines.  The one thing that we have to make decisions on is how we play with Chapel Hill in the new joint biomedical engineering program.  Obviously we do not have five graduates in biomedical engineering in the last five years, but the combined program.  The big one is the Life Sciences and we are going to have to pool together, a group of faculty administrators to decide which ones of those areas that we are going to compete in because they are clearly overlapping.  Life Sciences is an area that we can do very well in here at NC State because we can now bring the Crop Science Department, Horticulture, Plant Pathology and some of Botany into that particular area.  As far as how we are going to proceed here at NC State we have already started forming working groups to look at the taxonomy, particularly in the Life Sciences.   Once those decisions are made then it is a matter of getting prepared and geared up to provide the data.  Now that we have an extra year to do that we will be ready in 2005 when we will have to respond.

The planning committee is still open to suggestions.  “

Senator Bruck:  Bob did you say that they are going to include in future studies the quality of the programs or is it simply going to be a numbers game?

Dean Sowell responded no.  One of the concerns in the past is that too much emphasis has been placed on representation, that much more emphasis be placed on quantitative data. 

Senator Batra asked for clarification on the number of degrees granted.  He wanted to know if 500 degrees were granted in each area in the last five years. 

Dean Sowell responded yes, in a field.  Nationally they have by field the number of doctoral degrees that were awarded over the past five years.  For us at NC State to participate in those we need to have awarded at least five degrees in that field over the last five years. 

7. Remarks By Jo Allen, Interim Vice Provost for Undergraduate Affairs
Interim Vice Provost, Jo Allen handed out a brochure with highlights from each of the colleges about some of their outstanding students and achievements. 

She stated, “In many ways what we do in undergraduate affairs parallels the same structure of work that has to be accomplished at the graduate level.  If we look at the structure and mission of undergraduate affairs compared to the graduate school, essentially we both have an admission component.  The graduate school controls admissions for the graduate programs.  We do have some admissions through the First Year College and the transition program in our honors program.  We are also charged with oversight for major curricula cases especially if those come between the colleges.  For example, general education requirements are one of the pieces that is charged to Undergraduate Affairs. 

Allen handed out a list of the primary duties of the Vice Provost for the Division of Undergraduate Affairs.

Senator Fikry wanted to know if the Division of Undergraduate Affairs interacts with off-campus students.

Allen responded no.  They do work in partnership with some academic policy pieces as they are coming through for regulations for distance learning as they fall under the regulations that affect all undergraduate students.

Provost Oblinger asked Allen to comment on the Virtual Advising Program that has developed.

Allen stated that the Virtual Advising Center is one of eight or nine academic support programs we have.  It was created in 1999 with strong input from the faculty.  The faculty who were engaged in advising wanted a place where students could go to get their routine questions answered that would free the faculty advisers for more mentoring like questions or putting together a curriculum that would lead them toward the kind of careers they wanted.  The Virtual Advising Center has been up and on line for three and a half years.  We routinely get more than one million hits per year.  Twenty-six countries have students visiting the site to see what programs NC State has.  The goal of the Advising Center is to either answer those easy questions or to direct the students or faculty from other colleges and institutions to the office or best person on campus to answer their questions.   In many ways it is an opportunity to answer some easy questions.  It is typically in the top five of similar programs in the nation.

Senator Honeycutt wanted to know how effective the Council on Undergraduate Education is.

Allen stated that the Council on Undergraduate Education was devised as a subcommittee   that broke off of the University Courses and Curriculum Committee.  It was particularly charged with looking at general education in terms of requirements, the implementation of structural changes, resources and assessments for general education.  It routinely reviews these areas.  In fact, we are looking at a new task force that you will be hearing more about, for pulling together a more concentrated look at general education requirements at NC State. 

We don’t have any kind of concentrated advisory board.  The work that is designated to committees by the authority of Undergraduate Affairs focuses on general education requirements for review for the University Courses and Curriculum Committee and then the Committee on Undergraduate Academic Program Review.  Those three together have a considerable work-load as you may know if you or any of your colleagues serve on them. All three of them routinely meet throughout the summer because of this workload.  Your faculty representatives are truly outstanding in their commitment to that work.

8. Remarks By Greg Cain, Assistant Director for Parking Services
Greg Cain, Director for Parking Services stated that they held several forums this past fall at which they invited faculty, staff, and students to come and talk about their parking concerns.  “We have also been working with an advisory team and we have faculty and staff representation on that group.  We have also been working with a Parking Consultant that is nationally known and we have been working with the Physical Environment Committee and the Transportation subcommittee of that group.  All of this in and effort to get an idea of what are the biggest concerns and issues related to parking that need to be addressed in a short term.  Two things came out of that that was very significant.  One is that the system is very complex.  It is very difficult for users to understand and it is very difficult for folks in transportation to administer.  The other big concern is a lack of adequate parking in the Dan Allen area, particularly around the Dan Allen Deck for faculty and staff.  A lot of that has been driven by the bond project.  To address the complexity we are making several recommendations.  We are recommending that we eliminate six destinations that we have within our parking system.  One is a “D” which is a commuter lot.  The only double-digit designations we have are “DE, DW, DC, DD” and there is confusion with that so we want to remove the “D” to eliminate that confusion.  Another is “BP” which addresses a lot adjacent to North Hall and another lot behind the old Daryl’s.  We are recommending that we integrate the spaces for that zone and the parkers into the “B” area.  The others are subsets of residence parking and Centennial Campus designations that we integrate into existing zones without any complexity being added and still maintain the ability to administer those effectively. 

We are recommending elimination of cross parking into the two decks and also for the resident zones.  This will enable us to much better manage these areas and the numbers of parkers that are sold permits to park in those areas where we can get the greatest use of the existing space and maximize our efficiency without having an overloaded situation.  

The shortage for faculty and staff parking in the Dan Allen Deck is going to get even more difficult.  We are going to lose the steam plant lot at the end of this semester.  That is the parking lot adjacent to the Student Health Services.  We are going to have a particular shortage of staff and faculty parking in what we commonly call the “C” zones.  We are making two specific recommendations to address those:  1) split the two towers of the Dan Allen Deck and make the east tower entirely “C” parking and that is for a faculty and staff only zone which would add approximately 390 parking spaces into that area, and, 2) close the central campus pay lot and convert that to a “C” parking zone which would effectively add another 230 spaces in that area for faculty and staff parking.  We also have a strong movement of a lot of service functions in the north campus area over into the western end of campus.  The Facilities Services booths are moving over there.  Some are already located and others are going to be moving in the near future.  Administrative Services II is moving along very quickly.  There is going to be a lot of staff moving into that building and parking is already.  The campus police function is also moving on that side of campus so we are addressing some specific things along the Sullivan Drive core to manage that space more effectively and insure that there is adequate staff parking when all those groups move.

Finally, we are asking for the authority to institute a fee for visitors’ parking.  We have never had a fee for visitors’ parking and we are the anomaly for institutions our size in that respect and at this point we have a lot of mechanics to work out exactly how this would work.  We also know there are concerns about VIP parking, potential donors, etc., and we have proposals on the table for how we would like to address that.  At this point we are just looking for the authority to move ahead in instituting that fee. 

Senator Brownie stated that a colleague wants to know if NC State is in compliance with the city ordinance when it comes to the size of the parking spaces.   She measured the space and it was one foot less than what is in the city.

Cain responded yes.  The vast majority of their spaces are in compliance with the standards for parking.  “We do meet compliance with lots that have been paved within the last ten or fifteen years.  There are a few older lots here and there or small parking areas that may not necessarily meet that but for the most part we do. The standard is eight foot six inches.”

Senator Fikry wants to know if this has been approved or is it in the recommendation stages. 

Cain stated that these are in the recommendation stages.  They will be brought to the transportation subcommittee on Thursday and that will be the start of the approval process.

Senator Tetro wants to know where the central campus is in relations to the steam lot that is going to be taken away. 

Cain stated that it is not north campus.  It is south of the railroad track bordered on the east by the Student Center and to the west of Dan Allen Drive.  It does include Dan Allen Deck.  Basically it is all those staff functions that are housed south of the railroad tracks but are not in the western precinct. 

Senator Tetro wants to know where one is going to find these spaces except to take them away from students that are now parking in front of those dorms all along Cates Avenue. 

Cain stated that the central campus pay lot has 261 spaces in it.  It is a pay lot now.  Our recommendation is to convert that to a “C” zone.  There are some spaces that need to be set aside for the clients of the Student Health Services that we can net approximately 230 additional faculty/staff spaces in that area.  Also the Dan Allen deck would net about 390 more spaces with converting that to an east/west tower concept. 

Senator Tyler stated that she applauds them for having more faculty and staff parking at Dan Allen, but there is not enough space for the students either.   Allocating more spaces for faculty and staff still doesn’t leave enough places for the students to park.

Cain stated that the students would still have parking.  The west tower would be all of the “DD” designation as most of that deck is now. 

Senator Tyler noted that the deck is currently full every day with the exception of the top.

Cain stated that we currently have a number of students with “DD” permits competing with the faculty and staff with B and C permits.  Our proposal is to split that out and manage those separately.  Even though it may look like we are going to push students out, in effect they are not getting in there for the most part now.  We also have excess parking in the west lot, which is over on Sullivan across from Lee, which is only running about sixty to seventy percent occupancy now.  We have in fact, had an open sale on those parking permits and have had very few takers.  We also want to be able to create a little excess space in Dan Allen Deck so we can again park some visitors in there.  We have been unable to do that this year. 

Senator Bruck noted that he can be invited to UNC Carolina, Duke, or other places as a guest speaker or seminar giver and he goes up through the main gate where there is a guard.  They ask for his name and check it off on a list that they have, gives him a permit and he is given a space where it says “Visitors Only Tow Zone” usually within a very short distance of where he needs to go.  If someone is paying for that he doesn’t know.  It is often embarrassing if I have to have a visitor come in and he or she has to walk three quarters of a mile

Cain stated that one of the concepts that they are working on is encouraging colleges to buy one or two reserved spaces that they could use in any manner they saw fit. 

“To answer your question about UNC, yes someone is paying for that.”

Senator Batra wanted to know if there is some way for faculty to have access to parking. 

Cain stated that the opportunity to park in the Dan Allen Deck would be better under this scenario because one would be able to find somewhere to park in the east tower whereas particular times of the day now one cannot find a space in the deck at all.

Cain stated that as far as access to the north campus that is one of the situations where you pick the lesser of evils.  If you have folks on Centennial Campus that have these permits and they can come into the north campus zone it becomes nothing more than a hunting license as we already have more “B” permit holders than we have “B” spaces because we are losing more to the bond projects than what we are losing through attrition.  We have not issued any new “B” permits for three years now because of that.  It is still a crunch.  The more people you add into that pool that can access an area then the more difficult it is to control and to be able to provide some reasonable accommodation of parking for those who have the permit to park in that area on a full time basis.

Senator Krotee wants to know what the long-term answer is for parking now.  “Do you have any long term solutions for parking decks or in taking the surface lots and kind of reshuffling them around.”

Cain stated that the advisory team that he mentioned earlier is working on a project that is tying parking and the transportation systems together.  As a subset of that there is a parking task force that is going to meet in a couple of weeks to identify what areas have been suggested as potential parking deck locations and try to prioritize those.  There have been locations identified such as Riddick, North Hall, Brooks Lot,  and West Lot for potential deck sites.  The good news is that within a couple of years Transportation should be in a financial  position to be able to go forward with a parking deck.  “We are very preliminary now looking long term.  We really saw a lot of short-term issues that we needed to address real quick and we have done that and now we are starting to get into more of that long term thinking.”

Senator Allen stated that other universities this size or bigger have lots with bus service.  Where could we put such a lot?

Cain stated that they just opened a large park and ride lot on Centennial Campus. 

Senator Allen wants to know if the bus comes straight to campus or if there is a twenty-minute wait.

Cain stated that he does not deal very much in the bus system but he thinks that is certainly what this campus past project is all about and that is finding efficiencies in all of our systems.

Senator Tetro stated that Transportation is about to cram all of us into different areas of campus and the students seem to be much more willingly than she to park illegally and get a ticket.  Why did we stop towing?  How are you going to negotiate?

Cain stated that he is not taking the steam plant away.  That is part of the utility project that is occurring.  What we are losing there is approximately 145 spaces and we are going to gain in the lot adjacent is 230 spaces.  We do still tow.  We do not tow off campus.  There were a lot of issues when we did.  We tow the vehicles on campus, but we use towing as a last result. We do give tickets on a regular basis.  The vast majority of the students park correctly.  It is a small percentage that makes it difficult for everyone else.  If they have a number of tickets that they owe and we find them in violation  again and they have had six tickets within the most recent twelve months we put a boot on their vehicle.  It costs them $25 plus the cost of all of their tickets to get that boot removed. 

Senator Peacock wanted to know if they are still planning to oversell permits by fifteen percent.

Cain responded, unlikely in the staff area.  They will sell with a slight oversell.  If they see excess space that is not being utilized, they will release more permits. “Ideally you want to get your utilization around 95% at your peak time and that is what our goal is.  Fifteen percent is probably the best-case scenario in the staff area.  In commuting student zones you can go 50% and still be in pretty good shape. 

Senator Fahmy stated that he has noticed that in the last few years that more and more spaces  have been converted into vendor spacing  and also handicapped spaces.  He wants to know how the proportion of these spaces is determined?

Cain stated that there was a conversion done with service vehicle spaces and administrative vehicle spaces where those were split out two or three years ago.  “I was not here then so I am not familiar with why that was done or what the thinking was.  I was here previously and there was a tremendous  problem with service vehicle parking.  It seems like that has been solved.”

Senator McRae wants to know the current over-sale on B spaces in the changes Cain described. 

Cain stated that it is about percent.  The BP integrations will not make that any worse or any better.  It is probably at about a 25% oversale.  They are identifying those with BP’s that are not based on north campus.  We are not going to readily renew their BP’s.  We are going to offer them a “C”.  We use to have a BP area on south campus and there were a lot of holdovers that had the permit for that area and just did not turn it in. 

Senator McRae stated that there are people who have BP’s that still want to park on the campus itself for convenience, which is  going to make the situation worse. 

Cain stated that the spaces that are in the BP area would come into the BP zone.  A good majority of those BP permit holders will go to those areas to park.  There certainly is a potential that some of them would come into the main campus court and they would take a space there, and they would park free in the existing BP area at this time, which would also be “B”.  I recognize that is not a great situation.  This is one of those that there is not a great solution for but we do think that integrating the two zones is going to be better in the long run than keeping it separately.

Senator Tyler wanted to know if the lot across from Nelson Hall on Hillsborough Street is going to be a B or C.

Cain responded, that lot will remain a B.

Senator Tetro wants to know if the task force is considering increasing the cost of the students’ tickets.  She stated that having parked in the Dan Allen Deck for many years when she worked in Nelson it was the most uncomfortable place to go into after dark.  Senator Tetro wants to know if the lighting is going to be considered.

Cain stated that they survey other colleges and universities every two years to see what they are charging for tickets and they are very comparable. 

Tom Kendig, Director of Public Safety stated that they have had some concerns about lighting in the Dan Allen Deck.  They are trying to see if there is a feasible way to address that.  One thing they have done in the past is they have asked the evening parking enforcement officers to go through the deck several times with their lights flashing to try and have a presence there.

9. SACS Accreditation
Alton Banks, Director of the Faculty Center for Teaching and Learning stated that SACS modified the reaffirmation process to replace the very extensive checklist of items numbering more than 400 to a group of approximately seventy-five.  The institutions in that SACS reaffirmation process would typically use that 400+ item checklist to verify their approach, providing high quality education experience for undergraduates.  The list has been trimmed to about seventy-five core requirements and comprehensive standards.  Over the past eighteen months careful attention to those standards have been addressed by two groups of our colleagues.  The compliance team is co-chaired by William Kimler from History and Karen Helm from University Planning and Analysis.  The second group was the Institutional Effectiveness Compliance Team that was co-chaired by Jeff Schaub from Mathematics and Ephraim Schechter also from University Planning and Analysis.   Those colleagues and our colleagues from the faculty assembled materials to describe the standards that we at NC State felt complied with core requirements and comprehensive standards and the evidence that we used to demonstrate our compliance with those standards.  As you may know in the old process, SACS described what evidence was necessary to demonstrate compliance.  In this new process each institution gets to define its standards and its compliance based on the basis of its mission accepted based practices and comparisons to peer institutions.  The core requirements and comprehensive standards comprise half of the new reaffirmation process.  Three months ago that set of documents went off to Southern Association of Colleges and Schools and an offsite campus review team looked at those materials.

The second half, our quality enhancement plan, the new portion of the reaffirmation process represents some exciting possibilities for NC State to position us nationally as leader of teaching and learning.  It rests on a broad base of students learning the knowledge skills and behaviors that students achieve in our programs causing us to ask, “How is this going to change what happens in the classroom and how will it change what faculty do in the classroom?”  Our campus quality enhancement plan is learning in a technology rich environment.  It was co-chaired by Hugh Devine from the College of Natural Resources and Sheri Pitt from the Learning Technology Services. 

Comments from Karen Helm
As the Provost and Alton have said the onsite review will take place March 23-25.  The onsite review team will look at any compliance issues that are left over that remain unresolved after the offsite review of all of the paper that we sent them in August.  We prepared the compliance certification.  We sent it to them in August.  An offsite team reviewed all of that material and they passed us on almost everything.  They have a few things that they would like to ask us about in person since they could not determine compliance based on the paper. 

The items that they will be reviewing cluster around assessment, particularly assessment of general education graduate programs and assessment in administrative units.  They will also look at how we document faculty credentials.  There were a number of academic policies that they could not quite determine compliance with.  Their main task is to consult with us on the LITRE Plan.   

The LITRE Plan is focused on how we can improve student learning with technology and it launches an empirical and oncoming empirical study focused on how we can use technology most effectively to improve student learning.  At the beginning we will launch a variety of small projects that are in or near the classroom and we will launch a LITRE grants program to fund small projects in the future.  We hope that from all of these projects we will learn what works, how we can use technology to improve student learning, and apply what we use to decisions that are made in the future about resource allocation and scaling good ideas across campus.

10.  Issues of Concern
Senator Beasley stated the following issues of concern from colleagues. 

The faculty member stated,  “In 1998 when I joined the university I misunderstood the death benefit payment of two years of salary to be on top of a survivor’s benefit for my spouse.  In fact, before reaching age 60 or twenty years of service my spouse would only get my contributions and interest, not the state’s contributions.  The state keeps their contribution and gives a death benefit instead to a maximum of $50,000.  The problem is that this cap has not changed in the fifteen years that I have been in service and if you consider the state contribution as being near to what mind have been plus four percent, then the state gets to keep significantly more and only give $50,000 to my spouse.  This issue is not well understood by our faculty.  At the very least the death benefit cap needs some serious adjustment for inflation.”

The faculty member stated, “I have been concerned for a long time about the fact that the State Health Plan does not provide an employee/spouse coverage option.  Employees who wish coverage for only their spouse after the children are no longer eligible or forced to keep the employee/ family coverage.  I believe this practice is discriminatory.  I believe that employee/spouse coverage should be lower cost and in a similar cost structure to employee/child/children.  In this time of rising health cost I would like to see the option of employee/spouse coverage be developed.”

Chair Daley directed the issues of concern to the Personnel  Policy Committee to have them redirect them to the Group Insurance and Benefits Committee to see if they will address the issues.

Past Chair Carter stated that members of the Board of the University Club recently approached him for input on some proposals for improving participation in the University Club.

Past Chair Carter stated, “It occurs to me that maybe this whole thing has turned on its ear and that instead of focusing on addressing membership from faculty and staff who are close to the present location perhaps what we should do is actually consider seriously relocating the University Club into a more successful spot.   I think it is time that we as a faculty take responsibility for that as a benefit to the entire faculty and staff and not just to those who are currently members. Maybe we should ask our Resource and Environment Committee to consider the possibility of planning for a University Club that is really part of this campus, that being a place on the Centennial Campus approximate to probably the new golf course.  Perhaps that could provide an additional source of public/private leveraging of funds to get what we need in terms of the golf course, pool, and Conference Center.”

Senator Batra added that the Faculty Club is not a Country Club with admissions, etc.,  the way this club has been run in the past.  My feeling is any member of the faculty and staff is entitled to be a member of this and you pay for the services you use. 

Senator McRae stated, “I would really suggest that you consider that the facility on Centennial Campus should be associated with the golf course but there should also be a club here on the main campus where most of the faculty is going to remain.”

Chair Daley assigned the concern to the Resources and Environment comment.

Senator Jasper stated that the university issued new cards because they were concerned about social security numbers being on them.  However social security numbers appear on our benefits cards.  He was wondering if there was going to be any action to get it more in line with the university.

Chair Daley stated that he would have the Personnel Policy Committee check with the Group Insurance and Benefits Committee.

Senator Bruck would like to be filled in on changes coming up on the GER requirements in Humanities.

Chair Daley stated that there are proposals that will have to go through the proper committee structure before they can be implemented on changes on the general education requirements.  The proposal is dropping three hours of social science.  It has not been approved yet.

Senator Tetro stated that her request is that our text support system follows the same pattern as the university because she still has to give them the last four digits of her social security number or her date of birth. 

Chair Daley stated that he would have the Resources and Environment Committee contact the text support people to remind them of that.

11.  New Business
Voting Faculty Involved in Special Faculty Hiring
Senator McRae stated that in response to some concerns that have been expressed on the part of department heads to hire special faculty to work in their departments, the members of the committee believe that they should change the requirement for consultation on special faculty with the word professor in their titles so that they would be voted on by the voting faculty of the department just as a tenured track professor in the department is voted on by the voting faculty.  They took the current regulation and inserted some words and took out a few, which they believed would serve to make this take place.  The committee did get concerns from administration that the department heads would still need to hire instructors very quickly to fill sections prior to the semester.  They did not change the current voting requirement of just three faculty within the department in order to approve those titles. 

Chair Daley noted that since the document is being introduced to the Senate today, it will be voted on at the next meeting.

Response to Issues of Concern
Senator McRae stated that the committee discussed Senator Brownie’s concern and agreed that it involved personnel issues that the committee is not equipped to deal with.  They forwarded the concern to the Provost Office with the request that it be investigated and processed by his office.

Senator McRae stated that on the issue of retention packages, the committee is in the process of compiling some questions for the Provost’s Office, which they hope, will clarify the issues.

Finally the committee is discussing several aspects of the RPT implementation and regulation.  Currently they are focusing on the six realms of faculty responsibility.  Ellis Cowling attended one of their meetings and what they seen to have found was that very few faculty and department heads are aware that these are the criteria that should be used today for promotion.  Senator McRae stated that the committee would soon be coming up with a recommendation on that. 

Faculty Senate Nominations for Chair-Elect of the Faculty
Three faculty members were nominated to run as Chair-Elect of the Faculty; Senator Nina Allen, from the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, Senator Cecil Brownie, from the College of Veterinary Medicine, and Senator Richard Bernhard from the College of Engineering.

Prior to the senators  voting for the two candidates that would run for Chair-elect of the Faculty, the nominees were given an opportunity to make a short statement to the Faculty Senate.  After the votes were counted, it was determined that Senators Nina Allen and Richard Bernhard would be the two candidates to run for the office of Chair-Elect of the Faculty.

12.  Adjournment
Chair Daley adjourned the meeting at 5:10 p.m.

Footer Nav