October 31, 2000
Senators present: Chair Corbin, Chair-Elect Carter, Secretary Brown, Parliamentarian Gilbert, Provost Hall, Senators Ash, Bottcher, Braunbeck, Brothers, Cassidy, Elmaghraby, El-Masry, Funderlic, Havner, Headen, Hodge, Kimler, Levine, Marshall, McAllister, Misra, Robinson, Sawyers, Smoak, Suh, Toplikar, Tucker, Tyler, Wilkerson, Wilson
Senators absent: Senators Grimes, Hughes-Oliver, Kirby, Lytle
Excused: Senators Banks, Grainger, Hooper, Malinowski
Visitors: Clare Kristofco, Executive Assistant to the Chancellor; Joanne Woodard, Vice Provost for Equal Opportunity; Phil Moses, Director, Academic Support Program for Student Athletes; John Wall, Interim Director, University Honors Program; Lee Fowler, Director of Athletics; Art Cooper, Faculty Athletics Representative; Daniel Bunce, Assistant Editor, The Bulletin; Jeffery Hunter, Student Senate President Pro Tempore; Frank Abrams, Senior Vice Provost, Academic Affairs
1. Call to Order
The fourth meeting of the forty-seventh session of the North Carolina State University Faculty Senate was called to order at 3:00 p.m. by Chair Frederick Corbin.
2. Welcome and Announcements
Chair Corbin welcomed Senators and Guests.
3. Approval of the Minutes, Meeting No. 3, October 3, 2000
The minutes were approved as amended.
4. Remarks from the Provost
Provost Hall addressed the issue of intellectual property. He noted that the Resources and Environment Committee reviewed the Intellectual Property Task Force Report that was assembled at the request of General Administration. It involved Peggy Hoon and Mark Crowell. The material provided by the committee is extraordinarily helpful. This is a major issue for the university and he thinks it is important that the Resources and Environment Committee, Peggy Hoon, Charles Moreland, David Drooz, Ross Whetten, David Danehower and himself pull the pieces together. Once General Administration approves the task force report, it will be the broad set of guidelines involving intellectual property for the system as a whole. NC State will then be in the position of having to work out implementation documents and a process. In fact, Peggy Hoon is already working on this. He noted that few issues this year are going to touch the interest of the faculty more directly than intellectual property and its disposition.
Provost Hall stated that Phil Moses heads the Academic Support Program for Athletics. Phil reports through the office of the Provost on these matters. Provost Hall thinks it is a wonderful scheme, and that it is one that is being increasingly adopted around the country. Provost Hall commended Phil Moses on his good work.
Provost Hall introduced Lee Fowler as NC State’s new Athletics Director. He noted that Mr. Fowler has been resolute in his commitment to academics and in every public and private forum.
Comments from Lee Fowler
Mr. Fowler stated that he believes athletics is a part of an academic system. He feels that athletics needs a relationship with academics. The Athletics Department plans to be a major part of the university. Mr. Fowler stated that academics will be first with them. They keep their jobs by winning but they will not do it at the detriment of academics. He said they will stand for the highest things in academics and athletics. Mr. Fowler stated that he is excited about working with his new colleagues and being at NC State.
Provost Hall introduced David Rainer, Associate Vice Chancellor for Environmental Health and Public Safety.
Associate Vice Chancellor Rainer introduced Tom Younce as the Director of Public Safety.
Chief Younce comes to NC State from East Carolina University, where he served as the Assistant Director for their police department for four years. Prior to his service with ECU, he spent eight months in Haiti with the US Justice Department helping to train the newly formed 5,000 member civilian police force. Chief Younce is also the former City of Wilson Police Chief and has more than thirty years of experience in law enforcement. He holds a B.S. in Education from Auburn and an MA in Criminal Justice from George Washington University; he has also done post-graduate work in Public Administration at NC State.
Associate Vice Chancellor Rainer said one of the things that attracted the Search Committee to Chief Younce was the fact that he was involved with campus life. He had excellent managerial skills, he knew what a campus community was about, and he pledged to become a participant in that community.
Comments from Mr. Tom Younce, Director of Public Safety
Chief Younce stated that he is proud to be a part of the community at NC State University, and said there are three goals he plans to work on during the next several months.
To restore confidence in management and operations within the department. He stated that the Chancellor has already set about implementing a recommendation of the State Auditor’s Office. His job is to put in place internal checks and balances. Chief Younce stated that he wants his department to look at furthering the implementation of community-oriented policing. They want to be a part of the community here at NC State University.
He also wants to seek accreditation for Public Safety. He knows what accreditation means to NC State, and it is something that started in the law enforcement field about fifteen years ago. He was a part of that movement and wants to seek accreditation for the NC State Department of Public Safety.
To open the dialog between the department, the students, the staff and the faculty. The department works for you and for the students. We need your input in letting us know what you need.
To provide a safe environment for our students, to provide an environment in which parents feel comfortable in sending their sons and daughters to this university, to provide the faculty and staff a safe place in which to work, and also to provide a place to enjoy one of the top athletic programs in the country.
Chief Younce stated that these are three simple goals. In order for them to be implemented, we have to work together. The department needs to know what kind of service it can provide. We need to help you and you need to help us in being an active part in preventing crime and providing the safe campus environment.
Chief Younce emphasized that he and the officers are here to work for the people on this campus. He feels that together they can provide a safe environment where the students can learn to grow and become a part of society.
5. Unfinished Business
Second Reading: Resolution on Honors Convocation
Senator Kimler read the resolution for its second reading.
Discussion on the Resolution
Senator Funderlic wanted to know if the committee is suggesting that there be two convocations each year.
Senator Kimler responded yes. Recognizing that NC State continues to have the problem of students who are not present by the time the event occurs, having something earlier in the year would be good. The program could be split to make it shorter and yet provide a proper level of respect in the presentation of each of the Holladay Medal winners in May. The committee thought that one thing to do would be to ask the Honors Council and the Provost to consider a convocation for each commencement. Senator Kimler stated that he would like the issue to be considered, since there was a great deal of faculty interest and some opinions about what the appropriate venues and timings would be.
Chair-Elect Carter suggested rewriting the resolution to reflect what is really being requested--to study the issue further. He feels that there are a lot of different views on this.
Senator Tucker suggested combining it with the Honors Programs.
Senator Kimler stated that if it is the sense of the Faculty Senate to have this issue studied by the Honors Council and to hold some hearings for input from students and faculty, the committee would be happy to recommend nothing about scheduling, and to send the issue to the Honors Council for them to report back to the committee on their deliberations and consideration.
Chair-Elect Carter feels that there should be a committee appropriately constituted to make the recommendations. It could include the current Director of the Honors Program, and perhaps invite a former Director of the Honors Council.
Provost Hall stated that he thinks part of what is being lost in the discussion is what will happen in some of the assumptions that underlie notions about attendance and timing. These issues have not been left unexamined in thinking about doing this in the spring, and in trying to formulate an event that would be of significant visibility and a significant reward to all of those students as well as to the faculty that would be involved. To that end, he would appreciate the opportunity to have John Wall provide an explanation about what they are attempting to do and then assess that and weigh it against the relative cost of planning two events. Two events on balance ends up doubling the effort and may not double the rewards. This has opened the question of whether we want the connection between a convocation event designed to celebrate excellence in each commencement that takes place. Bearing in mind that the arrangement that had existed here effectively disfranchised a number of students who had already graduated, who were never recognized by the university community. The virtue of what the current plans hold is that it at least provides for timely recognition of those students in their awards. On examination of those who were attending the old Honors Convocations were largely students who were required to be there. It was in many ways a false event, an event unable to generate a sufficient level of enthusiasm to bring those students out who were not otherwise honored. He hopes that we get an event that will in and of itself attract attention. He said he would be happy to consult with colleagues. Provost Hall has agreed to get the teaching award winners together the second or third week in December. We will recognize those people and in doing so, perhaps use that as a way of bridging the circumstances. We want to put a committee together to look at the next academic year. We are in a position where we need to mount the kind of event will be shorter, more direct, more robust, more engaging than what was previously going on in May.
Senator Kimler stated that it seems appropriate that plans are well underway for a May event and that perhaps we should see how that event works and then there will be a comparison.
Provost Hall stated that a very high proportion of our graduates come from this four or five county area. Those students will clearly be finished with their course work but they will also be awaiting graduation. We have an extraordinary number of students who are graduating cum laude, magna cum laude, and summa cum laude, as well as those who have been inducted into the Honors Society. We think that provides a very large group of people. What we need, as we needed at the event on teaching and learning, is really full support to bring colleagues to the event. He hopes that will be the case.
Senator Misra stated that there was some concern among faculty that this particularly is what is not happening. This resolution was not originally intended to address what will or will not happen in future years. It was supposed to address the faculty concerns.
Provost Hall stated that he would be very sympathetic and would welcome if the Senate would like to offer the names of three colleagues who would like to work on this issue. He said that he will put together three other colleagues to sit down and visit the question, and to provide oversight as we move forward in the spring semester with this event, an oversight in terms of the decisions that are being made and in terms of being advocates to draw as many colleagues as we can. Strikingly at the last commencement, the largest groups of people that were represented among the faculty were from the Department of Botany and the Department of History. That kind of arrangement would work well. It is oversight from the faculty’s point of view, but we would also get some advocacy back into the faculty from colleagues so that we could move this through.
Chair Corbin requested that the Academic Policy Committee study the resolution and present a report to the Faculty Senate at the next meeting.
Provost Hall stated that he would be happy to volunteer the service of John Wall for the purpose of meeting with the Academic Policy Committee to reach an agreement to bring forth something that will have very strong support.
6. New Business
A. Resolution in Support of the Community College/University Bond
Senator Brown introduced the resolution for its first reading and moved adoption with a suspension of the rules.
The motion was seconded.
Senator Havner offered a friendly amendment to the resolution.
The amendment was accepted and the motion passed to adopt the resolution as amended.
A. Report on the Council on Athletics
Dr. Art Cooper, Chair of the Council on Athletics, reported that during the past year they have had some successes in some areas where problems have existed. Our average team GPA is as high as it has ever been and again all (3) of our nominees for Atlantic Coast Conference Scholarships were awarded scholarships. In fact, a young man from the track and cross country team was awarded an NCAA post graduate scholarship. We unfortunately had twice the percentage of student athletes on warning and suspension last year as we had the year before. This has been a matter of some concern. Working through Phil Moses, there has been substantially different emphasis taken this year and Dr. Cooper would be very disappointed if the results aren’t considerably different. Graduation rates this year for all athletes were approximately 62% compared to 65% for the general student body. NC State’s general standing among Division I institutions will probably remain approximately what it has been for the last two years, i.e., it will be at the bottom of the top twenty-five of the one hundred plus Division 1A institutions in terms of graduation rates. It puts us in front of a lot of very prestigious institutions, many of which are members of the Association of Universities.
The Council has had several discussions with some of our key coaches over the past few meetings, and they have shared some of their concerns about their relationship with the academic side of the university. Some of those concerns are of a general nature, the sort of thing that can be dealt with by the Council on Athletics. There are other issues, however, that have come up in which the Council can only deal within its role as the Council on Athletics. These are academic issues that relate to the student body in general, and the Council on Athletics views its role simply as acting as an advocate for the concerns of student athletes. With respect to these issues, for example, course repeat policy and the requirement for matriculating into degree programs turn out to be issues that relate to the entire student body. They infringe on student athletes because they infringe on all students. Dr. Cooper told the Senate that as the Academic Policy Committee deals with those issues, he would like them to ask the Council on Athletics to provide input that will represent the views of the Council and the concerns of student athletes. Again, the point is not to try to influence any decision in a way that would be peculiarly favorable toward student athletes, but simply see to it that their interests are incorporated into the discussion. You will see that those interests will end up being the same as those of the general student body.
Also, this year a problem has come up again that was dealt with earlier, and that is the question of retroactive withdrawals. He pointed out that the granting of retroactive withdrawal creates a special problem for athletic eligibility. That was the basis of the problem for the academic criticisms that were received during the late 1980's. It turned out that student athletes were doing nothing wrong. They were simply taking advantage of a rather lenient university policy. The word of the Council on Athletics over the period of the time that Dr. Cooper has been Faculty Representative has been to separate athletic eligibility from academic eligibility. You can regain your academic eligibility with the university and that does not necessarily assure that you will have regained your athletic eligibility. The Council is again reexamining the protocol that is used for making decisions about athletic eligibility and cases of retroactive withdrawals and we will be working with the Provost in developing a new set of protocols that hopefully, will be acceptable to everyone.
Dr. Cooper stated that his tenure as Faculty Athletic Representative will come to an end on January 31, 2001. "My place will be taken by Don Ward, a professor in Food Science and a member of the Council for the past six years. I would like to point out that Dr. Ward’s service on the Council was initiated as a result of his election by the Faculty Senate. This should make clear to Senators that you indeed have a substantial opportunity to provide interaction with the Athletic Program and input in direction to it.
When I became Faculty Athletic Representative, we were in a time when I think it would be fair to say that there was a deep distrust in the Athletic Program on campus. When Chancellor Monteith made me Faculty Athletic Representative, he gave me a very simple charge. He said you are responsible for the academic integrity of the Athletic Program and I will hold you personally accountable for that. I added to that responsibility one of my own that I felt very strongly about, and that was the matter of building a bridge of credibility between the Athletic Program and the academic side of the university. My goal was to establish that we were all part of the same enterprise, that there was no such thing as them and us, and that there were great benefits generally to the university from a well run successful Athletic Program. I had a great deal of help in doing this. All of the members of the Council on Athletics participated in that effort. Over the past eleven years to a substantial degree we have had success. The Athletic Program shares a much higher degree of credibility now than it did eleven years ago. I do not take sole responsibility for that, but I will say that I think that is true. I also think that it is a bridge that can never do without more solid foundation. The more we work on developing that bridge, the better off we will be. There are two elements of the academic dimensions of the program that are particularly important to mention. First is the academic support program that Phil Moses runs. It took us five years to get that program to the point where the philosophy of the program and its direction and management were consistent with a high quality operation in the Division I Athletic Program. One of the most important features of that program is that it reports through the academic side of the university. The other academic matter that I want to comment on is the role of the faculty in determining eligibility. We have a system here at NC State that is unique, in that the determination of what we refer to as continuing eligibility is determined entirely by members of the faculty. The responsibility for those determinations in eligibility rest with the Faculty Athletic Representative. If we play an ineligible student athlete, there would be no fingerprints from the Department of Athletics on that decision. That decision of error would be the Faculty Athletics Representative’s. You need to understand that the responsibility for determining academic eligibility rest with the faculty and not the Department of Athletics or the Academic Support Program. It is my feeling that we now have the base elements for a strong Athletic Program in place. Those base elements are academic credibility, a solid compliance program, and financial stability. Now we can begin to look forward to the fourth foundation of a quality Athletic Program, and that is greater competitive success. Number one of my most important contributions to the Athletic Program is my service on the Search Committee that recommended Lee Fowler to Chancellor Fox. It was my feeling that we needed a strong administrator who could take the individual strong pieces of the program and meld them into an overall competitively strong program. I have every confidence that Lee will do that. I close my comments by simply asking for your constructive concern and constructive interest in the Athletic Program. Continue to be concerned in a constructive way to the Athletic Program and continue to be interested in it. Its strength and its quality are as important to this university as the strength and quality of any of your individual departments. Thank you again for your help and cooperation over the last eleven years, and I am confident that you will give the same help and cooperation to John when he comes over."
Senator Funderlic wanted to know why is it that the coach decides eligibility when an athlete is guilty of a crime.
Dr. Cooper responded that the coach does not make the determination, but participates in making the determination. There are others who are also involved.
Lee Fowler, Athletic Director, responded that, as far as his department will be concerned, the coach comes to him and they discuss it and make recommendations. He noted that the perception in the paper will discuss the player and the coach, but the coach never makes that decision because they want to make the best decision for the student. He stated that the university and the student are the important things and winning will always take care of itself later.
Resolution of Commendation for Art Cooper
Chair-Elect Carter read a resolution of commendation from the Faculty Senate to Dr. Art Cooper for serving as Faculty Athletics Representative for eleven years.
Senator Bottcher moved that the resolution be adopted with a suspension of the rules.
The motion was seconded and passed without dissent.
B. Academic Policy Committee
Senator Kimler reported that the Academic Policy Committee met with Terri Wittig and some of the Libraries’ Collection Management staff last week. He stated that there was a cut in journals last year that is being finished now, and we are facing a continuing cut in serial subscriptions. As you know, this is a problem facing all research universities. In fact, at the work shop on Scholarly Communication we heard some tremendous parallels out in the rest of the academic world to our own university situation. NC State’s 3% cut in serials is on target with what the other top twenty-five university libraries are having to do. It is particularly a problem with some very expensive publishers who are basically stealing us blind in journal costs. We spent time discussing the procedures for how those journals are chosen that will be cut and gave a lot of feed back and received a lot of good answers. The committee plans to have Vice Provost Susan Nutter address the problem in a more general way to the Faculty Senate. He noted that there are lots of ways that faculty can be involved to help resolve the problem. It is an enormous issue that will be around for quite some time and is one that all the faculty should be concerned about.
C. Personnel Policy Committee
Senator Bottcher, Chair of the Personnel Policy Committee, reported on a couple of issues. One is that the Executive Committee has asked the committee to consider initiating a campus-wide discussion comparing the merits of department chairs and department heads and reviewing information that has been developed in the past. The Personnel Policy and Academic Policy Committees have planned to meet jointly at 3:30 p.m. on Tuesday, November 7, in the Faculty Senate Chambers. Senator Bottcher would like anyone who is interested in this issue to attend the meeting.
The committee has also considered the issue of graduate students not being allowed to have their stipend checks direct deposited. Esther Wilcox, President of the Graduate Student Association, was scheduled to have a meeting with the Director of Payroll concerning this issue. The committee will get an update from her at the next meeting.
Senator Bottcher reported that the Administrative Board of the Graduate School endorsed attempts to illuminate the reasoning for this policy. He pointed out that there may be some rationale for this policy regarding the fact that some departments may be experiencing problems in timely actions regarding changes in payroll status of graduate students, especially when there are numerous graduate students and frequent changes in their payroll status which will then increase potential for students to receive checks improperly. This is an issue that needs to be addressed.
Senator Funderlic reported that in the College of Engineering there has been a request for a list of citations for all the published faculty works, and it is not clear who’s asking for this and what the purpose is. The committee is looking into this issue.
D. Resources and Environment Committee
Intellectual Property Task Force
Senator Brown reported that the Committee reviewed the Intellectual Property Task Force Report of the University of North Carolina System (dated June 2000) and met with Peggy Hoon, Scholarly Communication Librarian, on October 24 to discuss the report. The Board of Governors is expected to approve the report during the first week in November.
In the course of the meeting the committee identified some areas of concern. She stated that she cannot emphasize enough that this full report strikes at the heart of what the faculty’s work is all about. It attempts to delineate for faculty, SPA, and students whether the institution, i.e., the university, or the individual owns that intellectual property. She emphasized that no one has been more vigorous in supporting the rights of faculty than Provost Hall.
Senator Brown stated that the report, as it is laid out, sets a broad policy parameter. It will be up to each individual campus as to how it is implemented and interpreted on that particular campus. She said the Resources and Environment Committee feels very strongly that there should be a strong faculty voice in that process.
Senator Brown reported that the Resources and Environment Committee addressed the issue of PeopleSoft. The committee met with Steve Keto, Associate Vice Chancellor for Finance, and Gwen Hazlehurst, Interim Director, Enterprise Information Services. Essentially the major problem with PeopleSoft at the moment is the very slow response time, and some data corruption in the course of operations. Training and reporting were also identified as major issues. PeopleSoft was evidently designed to operate most effectively and efficiently in a very centralized environment. We are operating in a very decentralized environment, and that may have something to do with the response time. They are in the process of having consultants look at the underlying file structures to see if they can get to the root cause of why the response time is so terrible.
8. Issues of Concern
Senator Suh stated that some Faculty members are concerned about the per diem on meals. He wants to know if anything can be done to increase it.
Chair Corbin assigned the issue of concern to the Governance Committee for them to address.
Chair-Elect Carter is concerned about the rats and rat holes in the Yarborough Courtyard.
Chair Corbin assigned the issue of concern to the Resources and Environment Committee.
Chair Corbin adjourned the meeting at 5:00 p.m.