Left Navigation

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

January 29, 2008

Regular Meeting No. 10 of the 54th Session

Present:  Chair Martin, Secretary Kellner, Parliamentarian Corbin; Ambaras, Akroyd, Anson, Bernhard, Dawes, Domingue, Evans, Fauntleroy, Fleisher, Genzer, Hanley-Bowdoin, Havner, Hergeth, Hudson, Levy, Lindbo, Lindsay, Moore, Murty, Overton, Ozturk, Raymond, Ristaino, Schweitzer, Scotford, Shamey, Ting, Walker, Wessels, Williams

Excused:  Past Chair Allen, Senator Poling 

Absent:  Senator Heitmann, Robarge

Visitors:  Nancy Gustke, Visiting Assistant Professor, History; Debbie Reno, Office of Extension Engagement, and Economic Development; Maxine Altkinson, Professor of Sociology; Marcia Gumpertz, ODAAA; Prema Arasu, CVM/Graduate School; Jo-Ann Cohen, PAMS; John Ambrose, DUAP; Katie Perry, Senior Vice Provost; P J Teal, Secretary of the University; Cheryl Brown, ACE Fellow; Jon Rust, CUE; Henry Schaffer, Professor Emeritus; Sarah Stein, Associate Professor, Communication; Mike Altston, Student Senate

1.  Call to Order
Chair James D. Martin called the tenth meeting of the fifty-fourth session of the North Carolina State University Faculty Senate to order at 3:00 p.m.

2. Welcome
Chair Martin welcomed everyone.

The first news I would like to report is that we hear that Past Chair Allen is doing well and the surgery seems to have gone a lot better this time.

The major focus today is looking at matters of faculty development and we shall be looking at the report received from the Faculty Development working group.  They have put together a series of recommendations that we all can discuss to see what might be implemented.  I also appreciate in the report their emphasis on the need to make sure that faculty development is thought of in the context of the kind of institution that we are. 

At the end of last week when I read the report, it happened during the same time I was meeting with the Governance Committee dealing with a lot of discussions as we are still trying to decide on who the general voting faculty are, I was struck by a level of confusion.  Here we are talking about faculty development and yet the same time we seem to be having trouble defining who faculty are. 

In addition with conversation from the Governance Committee I had conversations with a variety of clienteles across campus and I heard things everywhere from “faculty members are employees just like housekeepers and all have a vested interest in the institution.  I heard that the general faculty should consist of all those involved in the total development of students.  I heard that faculty should only be considered to be those with ranked faculty appointments.  None of those definitions really fit in my definition or perception of what a faculty member really is and I suspect that around this table there is at least a dozen, if not more, definitions or ideas of who or what is a faculty member and yet I suggest that deciding that is pretty critical if we are going to make any way in deciding what faculty development is. 

I recognize that I come from a very strong bias of the tenure, tenure track faculty stream.  From that bias I would say that faculty does not really fit the classic employer employee model.  After all who is my boss?  Do I work for my department head?  Do I work for my dean?  Do I work for the Provost, the Chancellor?  Who is my boss? 

The tenure system is frequently derided as an ivory tower of luxury found only in universities.  I have discovered that is not really the case.  I have a very good friend who happens to be an equity partner in one of the major law firms in North Carolina and I have discovered that their equity partner model is really much closer to my understanding of tenure and also reflective of my understanding of what it means to be a faculty member in a university.  Now among the equity partners, he noted to me there are a few managing equity partners.  I would argue those are not unlikely administration and academia facilitating the work of the common partnership, facilitating the work of the rest of the equity partners, but all equity partners have the responsibility to shake the common mission of the firm as well as to carry out their share of the responsibility to also acquire new business to produce quality work so that the reputation of the firm continues to grow.  In addition to the equity partners in this, like any law firm, there are going to be many lawyers who help carry out the day-to-day mission of that firm, as well as extensive staff support to carry out that mission.

These members are vested in the success of the firm, like all staff from the faculty to the housekeeper at a university, but those members don’t have the same responsibility for or the ability to shape the direction of the firm, as do the equity partners although it must also be noted that if one of those lawyers makes major contributions they have the opportunity often to become equity partners.  So my view of what it means to be a faculty member particularly as a tenured professor is that I am an equity partner in the firm of the university.  From employee to partner and probably many definitions in between, we define who and what are faculty.  Clearly our answers are going to impact what we mean by faculty development and of course this opens up a whole new series of questions, just like the series of questions as to our faculty.  We have to ask what is the difference between faculty development and employee development.  We want to do both, I assume.  Who and what is a developed faculty member.  What is it that we are trying to develop, great teachers, great researchers, visionary university leaders, strong community engagement?  What do we mean by being developed? And once you are developed -- you are the great teacher, you are the great researcher, and you have made full professor and maybe even distinguish professor.  Are you now on your own when it comes to development or do we as a collective body still have the responsibility to continue to develop and make great scholars and maybe have some of us become members of a national academy.  We also must ask who has the responsibility to develop the faculty member, the institutions?  The individual? And what about resources to do this?  Is there institutional support or do you as a faculty member, particularly once you are funded, need to generate support for your own development.  Clearly there is no one answer to any of these questions, let alone a comprehensive set of questions.  Similarly, there really is no simple answer to any of them. 

We have to recognize that faculty development must be a process that needs to require constant attention and continued resources.  Yes, I as a chemist think about these things in terms of limited resources.  

In this glass there is a solution of ethylene blue.  It doesn’t look very blue right now because it is in the presence of dextrose which reduces the ethylene blue, but if I shake it up and introduce oxygen to the system it’s now blue and it’s going to stay blue as long as I shake but as soon as I stop oxygenating the system, the dextrose is going to reduce it back to the colorless form. 

The infusion of oxygen brings life and color and richness to the entire institution, if there is continuing infusion of oxygen, but if we loose that infusion of oxygen and we just let it sit, the color will quickly fade.  Though we might note that if the color fades, the color has not completely faded at the interface where we still are in contact with the oxygen so at least for a while we will maintain those resources around the edges, but to develop the institution we have to have a mechanism for infusion of important reagents so, who and what are faculty?  How should they, we be developed?  I don’t expect that we are going to answer those questions today but as we consider the hard work and the recommendations from the working group on faculty development, I hope that as equity partners in our higher education firm we can together build those mechanisms to infuse oxygen throughout the institution, frankly at all stages of faculty careers and for all types of faculty. 

Chair Martin announced that the student group called Wolf Pack Environment Student Association is connected with the focus the nation program, which is looking to have a national teach-in to call attention to environmental issues on January 31.  Their recommendation is that anybody in a class think about these environmental sustainability issues in the context of the material that you are teaching. 

Robert Reich will speak at the Millennium Seminar on Thursday, January 31 about “China, India: the future of everything” at 3 p.m. in the Stewart Theatre.

The Executive Committee will meet from 1:30 –2:30 p.m. Thursday.

The Sisterhood Dinner will be February 27 at 6 p.m. in the McKimmon Center.  Doctor Rachel Croson will talk about “Don’t Settle for Less:  Gender Differences and Negotiation.”  Chair Martin will sponsor a table for the Faculty Senate.  Anyone interested in attending should let him know.

Chair Martin announced that some information would soon be sent to faculty regarding the review of Susan Nutter, Vice Provost and Director of Libraries; Jose Picart, Vice Provost for Diversity and African American Affairs.  There will be review sessions where faculty will give input and there will be response time for faculty as well as surveys available. 

Vice Provost Nutter’s face-to-face meeting will be February 4 and Dr. Picart’s review February 13. 

There will be a brown bag lunch of the Faculty Senate Strategic Planning Committee on February 7 and February 21 from 11 – 1:30 p.m. in the Faculty Senate conference room.

Chair Martin announced that two slots are still available for the Emerging Issues Forum.  Contact either him or Vernice Stevenson if you are interested in attending.

3. Approval of the Minutes, Meeting No. 9, January 15, 2008
The motion passed to approve the minutes 

4. Remarks from Provost Nielsen
Provost Nielsen announced that he participated in the Krispy Kreme challenge on Saturday.  There were more than 3,000 participants and  $20,000 was raised for the Children’s Hospital. 

UNC Tomorrow Commission has finalized their report and NC State has to develop campus responses.  The Chancellor has asked him to serve as chair.  A strategy team of twelve people has been created and a faculty team and a partner’s team have also been created.  There will be approximately 40 or 50 external people on the Partners Team.  In addition the people that are on the Strategy Team have been tasked to go to their constituency groups to get help in providing input.

Provost Nielsen plans to come to the Faculty Senate, Staff Senate and a variety of other campus-wide organizations to get thoughts as they go forward.  They will also be scheduling open forums for the campus as a whole.  Provost Nielsen noted that campus response is due on May 1, 2008 and fortunately our strategic planning process over the last couple of years, our focus areas, and all the things that we have been doing fit right in to the content and the style of the report.

Provost Nielsen encouraged everyone to take advantage of the Gregg Museum of Art and Design’s new exhibit, which is Randy Scholl’s Crossing Boundaries.  This will be a traveling exhibit and it is going to be in Raleigh for a few months.  It was curated by a former curator of decorative arts for the Oakland Museum in Oakland California.  When it leaves here, it will go to a museum in San Francisco, then a museum in Washington State and then a museum in New Orleans.

Provost Nielsen reported that NC State has created a 3-1 degree program with Zhejiang University in China, where outstanding students at that university having completed three years of an undergraduate degree can come here for a year and by proper overlap of degree, they can finish up their undergraduate degree and then get a one year professional masters degree at NC State.  He stated that the students are full-paying out of state graduate students.  This year six or seven students took advantage of the inaugural opportunity and last semester those students got all A’s and one B so they are quality students doing a good job.  There are now more than sixty applicants for the program for next year.  NC State is again making you proud in proving that from a dozen donuts to a few dozen Chinese students we are number one.  Thank you.

Chair Martin asked what department/programs do they get their professional masters in.

Provost Nielsen responded that the first year they were all in CALS, but for next year the opportunities will be much broader.

5. Faculty Development Working Group
Betsy Brown, Special Assistant to the Provost recognized the working group:  Prema Arasu, Carol Brown, Cheryl Brown, JoAnn Cohen, Marcia Gumpertz, Nancy Gustke, Debbie Reno, Jon Rust, Sarah Stein, Paul Williams

Dr. Brown stated that this is a consensus report and they are anxious to receive feedback from campus especially the Faculty Senate.

Dr. Brown stated that some resources that the working group used to get some ideas about faculty development on campus were the mission statement, the strategic plan and the five focused areas to see what does NC State say our goals are going to be and what are the implications for the faculty.  We looked at some relevant regulations and policies for the universities.  We looked at websites from a number of universities to see how they brought together resources for faculty development.  We looked at the results of the faculty well being survey at NC State also the survey of tenure track faculty and we got data from the Provost Office on off campus scholarly assignments.  We also sent questionnaires to each of the colleges and to people who provide faculty development and we had members of the working group interview a number of people who currently or have been involved in faculty development on campus.  We were very much guided in our inquiry if not in our conclusion by a book by Mary Sorcinelli who is the Head of Development at the University of Massachusetts along with some colleagues, called “Creating the Future of Faculty Development, Learning from the Past, Understanding the Present.”  There is a set of questions in the back of that book which we adapted for our use as a way to structure our thinking and our inquiry. 

I would like to draw your attention to page 8 of the report where we have included our guiding statement about faculty development. 

“Through faculty development NC State enables continuous fulfillment and growth towards excellence in all realms of faculty responsibility in support of the university’s mission”

One of the things we think is important about this statement is faculty development really is an institutional responsibility.  The institution needs to provide resources, activities, and support both for individual faculty group and also faculty development in support of the university mission and goals.  A good example is our focus on energy this year. 

We also are careful to acknowledge all the realms of faculty responsibility both in the statement and in our report and we look to the statement of the six realms for the steps.  We think it is important to identify us as the relationship between the individual faculty and the university.

Recommendations of the Working Group:

The first section the recommendations really address is scope.  We think that like our working group NC State needs to have a statement of purpose about faculty development. 

We think it is important to pay attention to the strategic plan to the five focus areas.  What does it say about where the university is going?  What are the implications for faculty development? 

Several of the five focus areas, a lot of things in the strategic plan, have implications for multidisciplinary work and so does the new general education program.  We think it is important to always keep our eyes on the big picture and see if we are focusing broadly enough on what faculty may be called upon to do and what kind of support they need to pursue those things.

There were a number of people in the group who had never looked at the strategic plan so we should probably keep our eyes on that as it develop because it does have implications for faculty.

Meeting the Goals of Faculty Development looks at what do we know about issues that faculty have raised about their satisfaction with a range of faculty development, resources or services.  One source of that information was the faculty well being survey.

There is a lot of discussion in written comments about adequate support for departments and adequate support services for faculty.  We think you can’t develop a faculty who can’t focus on what their jobs are, so we think it is important to have in addition to anything else adequate support to get the job done.  We learned that there is a lot of concern about support for balancing personal and work responsibilities. 

We looked at websites that NC State could do for faculty and it was not easy to find ten things without lots of clicks.  We have no kind of single source page for information to link faculty to information about the faculty resources that are available. 

We looked at data on off campus scholarly assignments.  We recommend that NC State continue to collect that data. 

There are a number of things about the kind of institution we are that we thought was important to recognize and that is what we addressed in the session on recognizing the institutional context. Then the two important characteristics we thought of this particular campus community is the decentralization to a large extent of a lot of what goes on here and the fact that we are researching diversity.  As a whole we think decentralization works well for faculty development.  There are some places where issues had come up about whether there are equal opportunities across colleges for some kinds of faculty development activities.  One of those is new faculty orientation.  We do have two faculty orientations and we thought it was important to look at whether or not they are both servicing faculty needs well. 

One thing that came up is the importance of faculty development for faculty who are not on tenure track.  One of those was whether we should include them in orientation.  Another place where there may be services that kind of falls between the cracks in this decentralized structure is college and university research services. 

Another area of decentralization was seed grants.  There are a lot of offices, university level programs that offer small grants for particular objectives.  There is not a lot of money in these grant programs other than in research and DDDED but we think there needs to be further assessment of the impact of those grants.  There is not a lot of accountability. 

The Provost’s question was are we getting the best impact from the funds that we are using.  

The group looked at new directions that the university is going.  They suggested that whenever a new initiative is launched that faculty development needed to be part of that conversation. 

One thing the group heard a lot is the research mission of the university does not encourage faculty to take teaching seriously, to participate in faculty development for teaching and learning. 

They think that encouraging people to participate in faculty development activities is not really the point.  The point is what is the outcome of that involvement.  If we could ask providers of teaching and learning and the faculty to participate in those programs to think in terms of how this activity serves not only their own courses in teaching but also the direction the department is going in that linking that activity to individual goals helps us to document the outcomes.

The other thing the group acknowledged is that we are a research university the SME’s don’t tend to most faculty assignments from one area of the rounds of responsibility.  There is a plan for professional development that accompanies the SME.  In some departments those are more living documents than they are in others but we do think the plan for professional development has at least the potential of helping us think more productively about faculty development.   If this is your plan then what kind of developments and opportunities might you need, what kind of resources might you need.  I am not suggesting that we further enforce the requirement that people fill these out but I think it is kind of a missed opportunity for the university in terms of really thinking about what faculty needs to accomplish. 

Meeting the needs of diverse faculty
We did not have time to assess whether we were adequately serving various subgroups of faculty and a lot of these recommendations addressed that so we are recommending that we look at whether we are serving the needs of senior faculty as well as serving the needs of early career faculty.  Are we serving the needs of non tenure track faculty as well as we are serving the tenure tracked faculty and other sort of divisions? 

We think that with some exceptions the model of faculty development here, as it is most places, is two or three hour work shops across campus whereas the way other kinds of work get done tends to be at your desk using some sort of computer resource without having to go across campus.  We think we should focus more on faculty development opportunities regardless of time and location.

We think NC State should consider a program like the Hewlett model a few years ago that encourages collaboration and collegiality across campus and across colleges.   We think we need an assessment of mentoring and career advising and also an assessment for leadership development, not just for administration but also for faculty. 

We were asked to propose an organization for faculty development on campus and our goals in these recommendations was to give faculty development priority in the administrative structure, in attention from the Provost and others, but also to have the programs communicate and collaborate more effectively.

We don’t know whether we have all the faculty development that we need because it happens so many places by so many different people.  We need some mechanism for getting people to talk to each other in a very broad way.

We have recommended an advisory of faculty advisory committee on faculty development. 

We have recommended that those who fund most of the faculty development meet periodically with input from this advisory committee to assess if we are using the resources in the best way and whether we are missing opportunities that need to be addressed.

The two most potentially controversial recommendations are

We think we should consider looking for external resources to fund some of the activities that we have talked about.

Questions and Comments
Senator Evans:  How are non-tenure tracked faculty oriented differently from tenure-tracked faculty?

Dr. Brown responded that the new faculty orientation offered through the Faculty Center for Teaching and Learning has not directly addressed or invited non-tenure track faculty.  The PAMS and Engineering one does and I’m sure some college and departments do.  They are often given a brief overview by their department head. 

Dr. Nancy Gustke stated that in some cases non tenure tracked faculty get no orientation at all so it is all up to the individual as to whether they want to seek out orientation.  It is different in each department and each college.  Sometimes there is none and sometimes there is probably quite a bit.  That is one of the things she hopes will come out of the faculty development, that there is some recognition of part time faculty and where they fit in especially in orientation. 

Senator Fleisher commented that there is an increasing number of clinical track faculty in the College of Veterinary Medicine that he speaks with and he thinks the general sense is that they feel isolated.  They don’t feel that they are part of the university community.  When things of university importance come up they don’t know where they fit.  It would be good if you and the central administration were aware that perhaps they could do something to make themselves more visible to these faculty members so that they feel more a part of the university community.

Dr. Cohen stated that it is important to fully integrate the faculty with the different groups together.  One problem the university has is that it is such a large group across campus that it is hard to do an orientation that will include everyone. 

Dr. Brown stated that one of the really comprehensive programs for professional development is the Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis (IUPUI) Office of Professional Development.  They have a person who has part of his time dedicated to making sure that the faculty know about what is available generally or that there is particular programming for their needs. 

Senator Overton wants to know if a general assessment was done for everyone. 

Dr. Jon Rust stated that they found more places where we did a good job and more places where we didn’t. 

Provost Nielsen agreed more on the side that we don’t do a very good job on it.  The big reason for bringing the task force together was that I felt like we are faculty development however defined is inadequate except maybe on the teaching and learning side.  The utilization for the Faculty Center for Teaching and Learning has fallen off so dramatically that in my mind we are either really great teachers or we decided that the particular services provided there aren’t going to warrant.  

Dr. Sarah Stein stated, this has been a long term issue here about various forms of communication so I think for our task force it was the sense that we were being given a mandate from the Provost to address many issues but that somehow whatever we did I think we felt that we needed to come up with suggestions that address faculty, that we have a way that everyone would know what is going on and where to find it and one other thing I would like to address is NC State homepage isn’t very utilitarian.  We could change the tenor to make it something where we will say this matters to us. 

Dr. Cohen stated, I think it is critical that current faculty have the resources they need to succeed, but when I look at what we offer it is important to me when we are trying to attract faculty, that those things be visible, that the applicant see that this institution is committed to helping them develop throughout their professional careers.  I think it is a two-prong need.

Senator Williams stated, one of the things we learned from all of this research is the place that does the best jobs and those places where faculty development in all aspects is done the best, all have someone who is in charge of it.  If we want to rationalize that on this campus given the nature of this communication problem we continually discuss, someone has to be responsible for it. 

Chair Martin asked, why is that not the Provost?  We have lots of Vice Provosts, whether it’s diversity, African American Affairs, Equal Opportunity, whether it is what ever it is.  We have more than a dozen Vice Provost, Associate Vice Provost, Assistant Vice Provost, etc. etc.  Many of those have faculty development responsibility and my concern would be that if we create yet another Vice Provost position we are going to have an organization that can make a lot of reports and create a lot of programs but doesn’t it go back to the Provost to really establish that culture.  Isn’t the Provost the primary faculty development officer of the university? I don’t understand why not. 

Brown stated that the Provost may be that but he is also the primary of a lot of other things.  It’s hard for him or any Provost to think about faculty development every day.  I think we need the operational stuff.  We also need a group like this advisory committee and we thought a person responsible for sort of the big picture. 

This was not something that we immediately agreed on but finally this was the recommendation that we will have to work with the Provost on to see how this plays out.

Senator Williams thinks there should be a designated individual to keep their eyes on things. 

Senior Vice Provost Perry stated that she thinks the reason we have struggled and the reason we haven’t done well is because we tried to do it as one and that’s not going to work. 

Chair Martin stated, as Chair of the Faculty you meet a lot of people from a lot of different places and what you discover is, there are some departments that do it very well and there are others that don’t do it very well.   I think part of what we are dealing with is are we looking at a programmatic approach or a cultural approach to faculty development.  Where faculty development works is when you are in a department where there is a culture where faculty development is important.  That culture doesn’t exist across campus.

Dr. Brown stated that she is not sure we have that culture, that we are interested in a culture approach, faculty governance. 

Cheryl Brown, ACE Fellow commented that what you are doing well in one college versus another college to allow an exchange or sharing of that information and maybe it is a case of what is happening at some other place that is really working for a particular college could also be a part of what is happening at NC State.  So someone who could really be the focus of what is going on can make sure that it is tried in a particular college.

Dr. Brown said, I think we think that we are doing a lot and we think a lot of what we do is of very good quality but it is difficult to answer whether we are doing all the things we need to do in the most effective way, and that is why we think we need additional focus on this.  We did not try to access every program but we tried to look at all the things that were going on and the very fact that we couldn’t get our head around it very easily suggest that we need further conversation about all the things that are going on.

Senator Kellner stated that he is hearing a lot of people who are saying the sort of thing he wants to hear about non-comprehensive approaches.  “When I look at this I see ‘comprehensive’, I hear the word ‘we’ and the ‘are we doing well’ and the answer is ‘yes and no’.  Maybe so.  But my response is how can the answer be anything but inconclusive?  When we start to talk about these things, that fact is that the real diversity that we all have that matters here as professionals is disciplinary, that comes first when we are here as NC State faculty, and it seems to me that any kind of report that isn’t set up with the idea of analyzing college by college, discipline by discipline, what our different practices and what our different needs are, so that we can understand that we are not doing well over there, but we are doing well over there.  I think that the emphasis on getting outside models is fine but actually we are all professionalize and we all understand almost everything only in terms of our own discipline, our own department, our own college, and therefore our needs are different. In devising these things it seems to me that looking and surveying what is being actually done unit by unit rather than the comprehensive “we, how is NC State doing” is what is going to come up with more interesting sorts of answers.”

Dr. Brown stated, disciplinary developments pretty much happen in departments and colleges but university level development is really the stuff that goes beyond individual disciplines.  We really looked at how the things beyond the discipline can be more productive.

Senator Hanley-Bowdoin said she thinks from faculty development that the most valuable thing a new faculty member that is trying to go to the next level can do is to find a mentor. 

“What I would say from perspective of being a faculty person who have mentored a number of faculty, what I think is missing not only from the recipient of the mentoring but also the mentor is adequate resources to allow them to have the time to do the job and to make it successful.  I think resources not only for the person you are trying to develop but also the developer, because if we spend all of our time doing administrative type things that maybe other people could do equally well because of lack of resources we have less time for things that we are particularly well suited to do.  I think when you set this up you can’t only look at what the faculty you are trying to develop needs, you also need to look at how are you going to make it possible for people that can help you with this development.”

Dr. Brown stated that there is a real sense in faculty development that faculty who are being surveyed that people feel like they are sort of caught up in busy work, so we understand that issue.

Senator Williams stated that there may be an idea person to take on this role but there is no mechanism whereby that person can sit down and have a heart to heart talk with people in terms of, are you going to let me do this, convincing them that they should be allowed to do this.

Senator Overton stated that she thought it was intriguing.  “I’m glad you brought up that little piece that you said about there had to be a connection between the university goals and the way faculty are developed on campus.  It is an issue.  It may not be a faculty development issue, it may be a communication issue or it might be a ‘transfer of information to know where we are going in the future’ issue.” 

Dr. Brown stated that she would like to reiterate what their view of this relation was.  There is your personal research and support for that in faculty development.  There are big issues like the five focused areas, which not everybody is going to get involved in but if there are people that are going to be involved in them we need to say are there faculty development implications.  Those are not neutrally exclusive.  There is your own sort of individual research and there is this big comprehensive, so we need to not overlook either one.

Senator Fleischer asked, what is the next step?

Dr. Brown stated that they would publicize and get response from people and see what the Provost decides. 

6. Reports:  mid-year committee updates
Governance Committee
Senator Gary Moore, Chair of the Governance Committee reported that the committee made extensive revisions to the General Faculty Bylaws and that they were approved at the General Faculty meeting last fall.

The committee is currently working on revising the Faculty Senate Bylaws.  When looking at the Faculty Senate Bylaws the committee discovered that two documents were needed, bylaws and operating policy and procedures.  They plan to work on an operating policy and procedures document this spring.

Personnel Policy Committee
Senator Overton reported that the committee took on the task to deal with the lack of a hearing policy on campus.  It began with some background work on AAUP recommendations, what is being done on other campuses.  She stated that someone in legal might have been taken what was written up as guidelines and already may be trying to write it up as policy.  They invited Sarah Lannom to a meeting to see how that process was going.  The committee left it that her plans were simply to take the guidelines, put them into policy format and then get back with them to fine-tune the document because through their review they found that some of the language needs to be changed. 

As soon as the committee receives something back from Sarah they will begin working hard at the language of the hearing policy.

The committee addressed the issue of ombudsman service on campus.  Human Resources spoke with them about services that were directed toward faculty.  There is a person by the name of Beth Buck who is to devote her time to faculty issues, which is different from the initiative that some people would prefer that is to have a dedicated ombudsman on campus for faculty. 

Resources and Environment Committee
Senator Paul Williams reported that the committee worked on three major items in the fall. 

The student association proposed a resolution to create a memorial for Riddick Field.  The faculty senate endorsed the resolution and Tom Evans has agreed to serve as a member of that planning committee.

The second issue was the Rocky Branch Phase III.  The issue was raised about sewage lines construction work around the tennis court and because the tennis courts are build on fairly unstable soil there was concern that there would be damage done to the tennis courts that would require repair and that there would not be money forthcoming from the grant for Rocky Branch III and there wasn’t money available otherwise to do it. 

The committee was assured that none of the current plan would in any way impinge on the tennis courts so they got assurance that the tennis courts are without risk in terms of the completion of the phase III.

Personal quotations added to university correspondence, especially emails:  The committee met with David Drooz from Legal Affairs who explained to them what the origin was and as part of those discussions they concluded that language that exists now is a little bit ambiguous.  It does seem to include things that aren’t precluded.  Senator Anson agreed to rewrite some of the language to make it clear and he and David Drooz are still in the process of exchanging iterations of this.

Senator Williams noted that there is so much on the agenda of Resources and Environment. Water is a big issue in Raleigh and with the additional 10,000 students we are going to add 10,000 users of water.  There is the issue of safety, which is an enormous problem that has multiple parts to it, the issue of green buildings and the issue of infrastructure.  He stated that the committee would like a little guidance from the Senate on what items they need to focus on.

Senator Williams reported that the GLBT Center has been dedicated and is up and running.

Senator Williams announced that he is on the Earth Day Planning Committee and that they are planning an Earth Day Week.  They are trying to plan some events to occur on various days during the week.  Anyone that is engaged in research or programs that involves energy or efficiency should contact a member of the committee.

7. Adjournment
A motion passed to adjourn the meeting at 5 p.m.

Footer Nav