March 19, 2002
Present: Chair Carter, Secretary Banks, Chair Emeritus Corbin, Provost Cooper, Parliamentarian Gilbert; Senators Ash, Bernhard, Blanchard, Braunbeck, Cassidy, Daley, Funderlic, Garval, Grainger, Havner, Headen, Hughes-Oliver, Kimler, Levine, Marshall, McRae, Rolle, Sawyers, Smoak, Tyler, Weiner, Wilkerson
Absent: Senators Brothers, El-Masry, Grimes, Hooper, Tucker, Vickery
Excused: Senators Allen, Hodge, Istook, Lytle, Misra
Visitors: Daniel Bunce, Editor, Bulletin; News Services; Herb Sendek, Head Basketball Coach; Debra Paxton, Regulatory Compliance Administrator; Judy Peel, Associate Vice Provost For Faculty Development; Matt Ronning, Assistant Vice Chancellor, Research Administration; Robert Sowell, Dean, Graduate School; Donn Ward, Faculty Athletics Representative
1. Call to Order
The eleventh meeting of the forty-eighth session of the North Carolina State University Faculty Senate was called to order at 3:00 p.m. by Chair Philip B. Carter.
2. Welcome and Announcements
Chair Carter welcomed Senators and Guests.
Chair Carter announced that there will be a presentation on copyright in the Faculty Senate Conference Room on Friday, April 12, 2002 at 1:30 p.m.
Chair Carter announced that the Harrelson Lecture is scheduled on Monday, April 15, 2002 at 3:00 p.m. in the Witherspoon Student Center Cinema.
3. Approval of the Minutes, Meeting No. 10, March 5, 2002
The minutes were approved as amended.
4. Remarks from Herb Sendek, Head Basketball Coach
"There is a real sense of unity of our Athletics Department with the other aspects and branches of our university. We are really interdependent and rely on each other a great deal. Rest assured that we want to do everything that we can in our men’s basketball program and in our Athletics Department to be a part of the university. I think often times on campuses there is an isolation. There is a gulf with no bridge. In the short time that we have been here together, I believe we have made some strides and continue to make efforts so that we are all one heartbeat. I want to take this opportunity today to let you know that if there is anything we can do in any way to help any of your respective aspects of the university we will be more than willing to do so. We have received tremendous help from a number of different people across campus at all levels; whether it is meeting with a recruit or whether it is being able to point to the excellence of one of our programs during the recruiting process. Our program has been the benefactor of your efforts as well as those of the rest of the faculty and the administration. I have met with the deans of the different colleges as well as other faculty members to try to get this message across. Today, I just wanted to reemphasize our commitment to being a real part of the university. Our desire is to be included and not thought of as an island as so often is the case, by virtue of some of the things that have happened over the years with athletics in higher education. Forgive me also for being a little bold for not being part of your group on a regular basis, but having the intuition that this is a powerful group. This is a group that can shape and influence policy and make a great difference. You discuss important issues that are going to affect the lives of many people, especially young people. On the heels of this past season, it is well documented here. I can assure you, on a personal note, that it is amazing what a word of encouragement can do for any one of us. When someone puts their arm around us and believes in us, that can make a difference. The term underdog is an often used one in athletics. Some thrive on it. We really do have underdogs not only in athletics but also in every walk of life. What I would like to submit today, since I had this opportunity, is to encourage you to take every opportunity as you make policy and discuss important issues to keep those underdogs in mind. Some of the kids we have had in our programs came here as real underdogs with some real challenges, but because a certain professor, a certain counselor or administrator, or a certain friend believed in them, they left here better. My hope is always to be more inclusive, not less. I think NC State is a wonderful place. We have caring people who celebrate the differences that we all have, embrace, and include. As we go forward, I would hope that this body will continue to keep that in mind. Thank you."
5. Knight Commission Report
Donn Ward, Faculty Athletics Representative congratulated Coach Sendek on his sideline deportment.
Dr. Ward reported, "The work of the Athletics Council is finished on the Knight Commission Report. We submitted our report to the Chancellor. The Chancellor had an opportunity to review it, and has indicated that she appreciates and likes it very much. I had an opportunity a few days ago to go over this report very briefly with the Academic and Administrative Coordinating Group which is comprised of the Provost, Deans and Vice Chancellors, and the Chancellor.
The Knight Commission’s fourth report on intercollegiate athletics was a call to action, reconnecting college sports and higher education. It was published in June 2001. The purpose of this group getting together was to take a fresh look at what had transpired in the intervening years since the early 90's. This same group had written earlier reports on the state of intercollegiate athletics. The Chancellor asked the Council on Athletics to take a look at the current Knight Commission Report and to provide her with an assessment of its implications to intercollegiate athletics and specifically to NC State University. Let me give you a little background on the Council on Athletics report. We have a statement initially expressing the fundamental source of strength that derives from the diversity of the university. The reason that we wanted this in the report is because we recognized early in our discussions of this report that we were coming at it from different perspectives. Consensus was not a goal that we had in the beginning, because we all had different opinions on this report. Certainly it was not my expectation that any individual would forsake any deeply held conviction or opinion with respect to anything that the Knight Commission Report may have stressed. We made it very clear up front that, if necessary, we would turn in a report that basically reflected the majority thinking. We wanted people to feel comfortable if they had a different perspective and did not necessarily need to go with the flow. Ultimately everyone agreed with the report that we did send forward, and felt comfortable with what it stated. Again, I will stress that our goal was not to have a "consensus " report.
One of the most striking aspects of the Knight Commission’s Report is the sense of urgency. It talks about this escalating war and this dynamic tension that exist between athletics and the academic cultures, and the fact that the universities were losing this war. This leads the Commission to its principle finding that college athletics are in trouble and immediate action is necessary to restore order. The long term consequences of this would be a loss of the university’s primary mission. We began our report stressing the sense of urgency. The Commission identified three broad areas of concern: academics, financial arms race, and commercialization.
With respect to academics, the major concern was the poor graduation rates of student athletes. Furthermore there was an assertion that academic support programs for student athletes all too often are designed solely to keep them eligible, rather than to guide them toward the degree.
Concerns associated with the financial arms race have to do with the fact that rising athletic revenues on most college campuses have been overwhelmed by even higher expenses. Many schools believe that they must build major athletic complexes in order to remain competitive. They also believe they must pay large salaries to attract and retain high profile coaches.
The Commission also found that the increased commercialization of college sports is a cause for concern. There is a contention that television and equipment companies are becoming so integrated into the college community and college sports that it is often difficult to discern clear lines of demarcation between intercollegiate athletics, professional sports and the college community. One ramification of this is that competitive schedules are all too often tailored to TV’s viewing audiences’ needs rather than the needs of the student athletes.
The Council agrees that academics must be the top priority of the university and that recruited athletes must be capable of successfully meeting the academic challenges of the classroom. There was absolutely no disagreement with that. The report suggests that big time intercollegiate athletics appear to operate with little interest in scholastic matters beyond the narrowly focused items of eligibility.
The Knight Commission recommends that athletes should be mainstreamed through the same academic process as the other students. Specifically that includes criteria for admission, academic support services, choice of major, etc. They also state that graduation rates must improve by 2007. Teams that do not graduate at least 50% of their players should not be eligible for a conference championship or post season play. They also state that the NBA and NFL should be encouraged to develop minor leagues. That would siphon off these athletes who go to universities with little interest in academics.
The council agrees that student athletes should be admitted to this university on the same basis as any other student. It does not agree that they should not be mainstreamed with respect to academic support services. There are a number of our student athletes who are dependent learners and, for those individuals the academic support program has a very intrusive, aggressive approach to making sure those kids do well and perform well. It certainly goes beyond the narrow scope of eligibility. The goal is to get these kids to graduate. We would not endorse anything that would mainstream these kids into an academic environment. There is support here for any student at this university. If they are having trouble, they can find support here. The problem is many of them do not, and those that do seek support often do so too late. If anything, we encourage the university to look at what is happening in the academic support program for student athletes and to be more overtly proactive for those students.
In the issue of academic reform, the council agrees that there is a need for academic reform. In fact, there are two groups that are looking at some serious academic reform. It is going to happen whether we as a council or we as a university agree or not. The NCAA itself is actively involved with subcommittees that are proposing academic reform, and I suspect that is going to be on the agenda for some action in the very near future. The second group is now known as the group of six, representing the six major athletic conferences in this country. It is the ACC, Big East, Big Ten, Big Twelve, PAC Ten, and Southeastern Conferences. Two university presidents from each of those groups have gotten together. They meet periodically because they recognize that working through NCAA is a long process. The presidents from these institutions feel that they have enough clout as institutions to propose changes that may be implemented at a much faster clip than if it were to go through the NCAA process. They are also proposing academic reform. Examples of such things include increasing the number of core courses, increasing the percentage progress toward the degree so that at the end of five years of eligibility students will be able to graduate. The current requirement is very flexible. It is being proposed that each year students get 20% of their requirements for a degree behind them. At the end of five years they should be ready to graduate. As these things are proposed they will be implemented for all NCAA institutions.
With respect to graduation rates, the Knight Commission has made some specific comments about the poor graduation rate in men’s football and men’s basketball. They discount, to some extent, the reported comparative graduation requirements of a university as a whole and student athletes in general. They say that is an invalid comparison. We are not sure that is true. We also recognize that at NC State we need to increase and improve our graduation rates. Some of these graduation rates can be misleading. We do not support the concept in practice of having to have a 50% graduation rate in order to compete in post season. Some of this is ill defined. Coach Sendek is a prime example. Men’s basketball does not have a sterling graduation rate if you look over the last several years. Yet last year Coach Sendek graduated four students out of four. These statistics are going to start showing up. All of our teams have very small populations. Football has a larger population than basketball. In Coach Sendek’s case, specifically, the way the NCAA rules are spelled out right now, he can recruit eight students over the course of two years. If he gets five in one year, that means that he will only get three in the next. In the year that he gets three students, those three determine the denominator for ever and a day for that year’s cohort. If one of those three transfers, Coach Sendek goes from a 100% possibility of all of them graduating to a 67%. If another student decides to leave, the best his graduation rate could be is 33%. We cannot support that 50% graduation rate. It is a disproportional risk.
The Commission also recommended action to reduce the length of the playing season, practice season, and post season play. There are some sports in which things have gotten out of hand. The conferences of chief executive officers have an ad hoc committee that they have commissioned to look at a multitude of issues which they call student athlete welfare issues. Playing in practice season is one of those issues being examined. The Council backed off of that and are letting that ad hoc committee do their work. We recognize that it is an issue, but we are not going to make any specific recommendations.
With respect to the NBA and NFL, we feel that is a market driven issue. If someone can make money off of it and do well at it, they are going to go out there and form these minor league NBA and NFL teams. That should be market driven and not something that the NCAA actively gets in and promotes.
We also pointed out in our report that the relationship between academics and athletics is a fragile one. It is good now. We have a great relationship between the academic and athletic community. That is a consequence of hard work. The Chancellor’s Office, Provost’s Office, Faculty Senate, Council on Athletics, Academic Department, and Phil Moses’ group work very hard in communicating with one another. While the relationship is cordial, it is persistently fragile. We recognize that we are walking that fine walk. It is a very fragile relationship. We also recognize that we can have students on this campus to commit those same issues. The university deals with it, but it never becomes a public issue.
The Commission has folded several concerns into this overarching issue that they call the arms race. The basic issue is to reduce expenditures in big time sports. We wanted to point out that at NC State, football and men’s basketball generate the revenue that drives the rest of the athletics program. We also need to recognize that athletics do not get state money. All of the funds come from sources other than state appropriated funds. Yet they still operate on the accounting standards of the state.
Until recently some of our facilities were the most inadequate, least desirable in the Atlantic Coast Conference. Some folks took issue with that description and we tried to smooth things over so we say we are among the most inadequate and least desirable. That is true today in some sports. We have some gender equity issues that are specifically tied to this. The women’s cross country team, the second best in the country, had what basically amounts to a bathroom.. The women’s tennis team does not really have a locker room. The critical point is that there is a master plan in place. Teams know where they are going, and where they are moving to. That entailed someone investing in those programs to pay for the facilities infrastructure for some of these non revenue sports. Some of the council members looked at the investment in the ESA and the investment at the football stadium as part of the athletic arms race. Other members looked at that as a long overdue expenditure for those programs that pay for the rest of the programs. The Council as a whole looked at that as an investment. With respect to coaches’ salaries and compensation, the Council quickly came to grips with this issue. We understand there is a market value issue. We understand that, when you hire a men’s basketball or football coach, they get paid to win games, to put people in the bleachers, to fill the stadiums, to generate the revenue that supports not only their programs, but the rest of athletics. We do not necessarily like the salary structure per se but we understand that it is market driven. We do not necessarily agree with the commission findings that you can equate the expectations of a professor teaching a course and someone coaching a sport. For some of these sports maybe the transition is easier, but very few of us worry that we are not going to fill our classrooms to the extent that we are going to lose our jobs. We do not have that kind of pressure. There are those coaches who have been coaching for years. Things turn sour and they can lose their jobs. We do not necessarily think that is a good analogy that the commission is trying to make. We understand what they are talking about. There are inflated salaries and our advice to the Chancellor is, we do not want to be out there on the leading edge with these highly inflated salaries to our high profile coaches. At the same time we recognize the market value is such that they are probably going to make considerably more than your typical faculty member.
Even to the most casual observer, the intrusion of commercial interest in intercollegiate athletics over the past ten years is obvious. The commission’s concern is they feel that this is impugning the integrity of sports and impugning the integrity of the institution. We as a council in general do not see it quite that way. We see that this university takes all sorts of money from all sorts of public and private sources for all sorts of issues; to build buildings, to fund scholarships, to provide endowments to pay salaries. We feel that the university does that, and yet maintains institutional control over that money. We, as a council, believe wholeheartedly in this concept of institutional control. While commercialization is a factor needing to be carefully monitored by both the university administration and athletics administrations, we do not believe that taking money from commercial interests in and of itself means that this university is losing institutional control.
One area in which the council does get concerned with commercialization is that of game scheduling. We do not worry about an occasional Thursday football game. Of all the sports that are out there, I have less sympathy for football players who say they cannot do well academically. They play one game a week which is typically on a Saturday, maybe on a Thursday occasionally. The remainder of the time they can plan around that fairly easily. I have sympathy for basketball and men’s baseball. They have a horrific schedule.
I do think that we have some problems with the 9 p.m. basketball games. The games are over late and some of the students have 8 a.m. classes. The council is concerned that TV is starting to dictate schedules. The university has a compelling interest in its student athletes as students. It is far more compelling than TV audiences viewing ratings. Our encouragement is to the university administrations to try to gather that back into control.
The council has great respect for the Knight Commission. We have tremendous respect for their views and recommendations. We also recognize that they were looking at the vast scope of intercollegiate athletics while our focus was NC State. I think that we can say with some pride that we believe that our current program is managed with integrity and in a highly ethical manner. The council is very supportive of that NCAA academic wide reform to strengthen initial and continuing eligibility standards. The long term goal should be to improve graduation rates. Overall the council finds the Knight Commission Report to be a document that, at a minimum, should prompt the university to review the nature of the intercollegiate athletics program and its relationship to the university and its administrative and management policies."
Senator McRae commented that he thinks the demands on the football players time are just as much as basketball and some of the other sports.
Dr. Ward stated that the opinion that he expressed is his and not the council’s. He noted that they certainly have demands with respect to practice.
Senator Kimler commented that an institution should not be market driven. It should be driven by the way the university is.
Dr. Ward stated that he does not disagree with that, but believes that part of it is philosophy and part of it is reality.
Senator Headen wanted to know what is controllable and what is not. "If it turns out that the money is not controllable by us, then that is a statement that is worthy of concern whether it is market driven money or other kind of money. If it is not controlled by the university then it seems that may be a reason for fundamental concern."
Dr. Ward agreed with Senator Headen and stated that right now with the NCAA locked in with some long term contracts, it is a very problematic issue. The university could always make the decision to withdraw from the NCAA, which would cause other issues.
6. Remarks from the Provost
Provost Cooper announced that Mark Fleming, Assistant to the Chancellor for Government Relations is resigning to take a position with the Office of the President of the UNC systems.
The administrative reviews on reappointment, promotion and tenure have been completed. Provost Cooper is discussing the results with the deans. So far he has met with the deans from Engineering, Education, and Natural Resources. Once the deans review the decisions that have been made, they are free to formally tell the faculty the results, realizing that it is unofficial until it is acted upon by the Board of Trustees and ultimately the Board of Governors.
Provost Cooper stated that he will be talking with the deans about things that he has observed with respect to this cycle. He thinks there are still issues of morale such as letters, how they are solicited, and their uniformity across colleges. There are some colleges that are very thorough and others that are more casual. Overall he feels that it was a good process this year. Provost Cooper stated that there is a university wide committee that will be giving him independent observations about process this year.
Provost Cooper stated, "There are reappointment, promotion and tenure guideline revisions that are taking place. You have seen a version that has been modified by the Office of Legal Affairs. The intent is not to change the content, but to change the wording. That revision will be available for a Senate committee in the near future. Our goal is to present this revision to the Board of Trustees at the April meeting.
A fairly important but technical item in some ways is the university calendar. We have received permission to go from a 75 days per semester schedule to a 71 days schedule. Martha O’Donnell is leading the effort and has sent schedules to the Faculty Senate, and the Student Senate. The proposal is to have the changes implemented in 2003.
In the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, Dean Oblinger is under his five-year review. There is an open session on April 15 at 2:00 p.m. in 2215 Williams Hall.
We are forming an ad hoc committee to look at non tenure track faculty positions. There was a report recently from the Office of the President on non-tenure track faculty. We have been dealing with that issue particularly in the College of Humanities and Social Sciences through the dean’s three year plan to improve the salary structure of non-tenure track faculty.
We are establishing a campus based ad hoc committee to decide what we are going to do about issues such as salaries, working conditions, non-uniform appointment titles for non-tenure track faculty. We will consider all of these details and will connect with the Faculty Senate as we decide what we will do to strengthen the non-tenure track faculty role. I think the consequences of what is happening is that we will have fewer non-tenure track faculty, but the ones in that track will be treated better. I think we probably will have a goal as a university that the tenure track faculty should be teaching undergraduates as much as possible, but we have to, in certain areas, rely on non-tenure track faculty, because of the way our university is organized. That ad hoc committee will probably be called to action in the spring semester and work more intensively in the fall.
There was an item on the university evaluation instrument approved by the Senate. We are considering implementation in the spring. If things fall into place it might possibly be as early as this fall. If it is not implemented in the fall, we will continue with the pilot program of those departments that have been participating in the use of that instrument.
Another serious item in terms of consequences is the choice of a quality enhancement plan. Part of the SACS Accreditation requires the university to take a project on that is four or five years in duration to enhance learning outcomes at the university. Karen Helm is leading that effort and is also coordinating all the SACS accreditation activities. We have considered a lot of options of what the quality enhancement plan ought to be. Themes that were considered by the Council of Deans included globalization, inquiry guided learning, and distance education in terms of learning outcomes. The plan that is going to be proposed to the Chancellor and the Executive Officers is learning in a technology rich environment. A lot of the aspects of globalization of business education can fit in that context. The emphasis is going to be on learning, as opposed to teaching, and active learning as facilitated by the use of technology.
There is a lot of talk about graduation rates. We are implementing progress toward degree as led by Thomas Conway and our academic affairs unit for Fall 2002 implementation. There is still to be completed an advising template. This template will be a tool that has some of the flavor that you would find at the virtual advising center. That is a very powerful web-based tool that is a referral service and answering service, and it is probably one of the best in the country. Only Penn State comes close to what we have. Progress toward degree will have an important component. The students will work with this template, that would describe their academic curriculum and their goals while interacting with their adviser to get approval of course plans . The advising template coupled with the requirement of a known number of credits per semester is part of this program that will keep students marching along toward graduation. It will also facilitate matriculation into a major for which the student is eligible within a reasonable amount of time. This will affect faculty and will increase, to some extent, advising intensity as we go forward.
A report card was presented to the campus at the African American student leadership town meeting which rated everything fairly low, i.e., the number of minority students, the number of faculty , support services, etc. I responded at that meeting and tried to show that we do have, compared to our peer institutions, a comparable or larger number of African American faculty and undergraduate students. We are certainly going to work on retaining our faculty and getting more students. What I could not defend was the graduation rate. The six year graduation rate for majority students is 65%. The graduation rate for African American students is 45%. We have a problem and we are beginning to address it explicitly at the Deans Retreat that I am holding on March 27. The retreat will have several elements. One will be six of the colleges that have not presented to the other deans their development goals for the capital campaign are going to present. Toward the end of the day Rupert Nacoste is going to lead a discussion with the Deans and the Diversity Coordinators in each of the colleges. We are going to brainstorm and discuss issues around graduation rates for minority students and hopefully begin the process of developing an action plan to change those numbers.
Finally, I am happy to report that, the biomedical engineering joint initiative between North Carolina State and Chapel Hill is moving forward. This week I received the report of the joint university committee and we are now considering what our next steps are going to be. We will continue to update you on that joint degree program."
Senator Blanchard wanted to know if there is going to be a method to train the faculty advisers in this new method of the progress toward degree.
Provost Cooper responded yes. "In a certain sense we have a grace period of the fall semester because things do not come to a head until the spring semester for our freshmen. We can handle a lot of the detail of what is expected of our freshmen and all the other services we provide to freshmen during orientation."
Senator Kimler wanted to know if there are any CHASS non-tenure track personnel on the ad hoc committee on non-tenure track faculty .
Associate Vice Provost Judy Peel stated that they have defined the committee as a Dean, a Department Head and two faculty members. They are hoping to get people from CHASS since that college has the greatest number of non-tenure track personnel.
Senator Headen suggested that, with regard to the African American retreat, the Provost get feedback from the senior faculty on this problem instead of simply having people who have looked at the problem for a long time look at it again.
Provost Cooper stated that he agrees 100%. This is the first step in a campaign to deal with the issues. He thinks the students have put the issue out there, and that it is something that everyone would agree is a problem.
Provost Cooper stated that, as you implement change, you have to wait six years to see the full expression of the change. "I am hoping that some things may have been done in recent years to start seeing that statistic go up even more rapidly than now."
Senator McRae stated that he did not hear in the discussion of the non-tenure track faculty issue of significant conversion of slots to tenure track. "Is this not a possibility?"
Provost Cooper responded yes. The deans retain their budget. So they have a pool of money that is used to support this class of faculty. It can be used for faculty in general. It is salary dollars. You could take twenty non-tenure track faculty positions and create three tenure track positions out of them and maybe ten non-tenure track faculty positions that are more attractive. Part of it is also going to have to involve the dean and department heads, in given situations, working through the faculty work loads and getting people into the class rooms.
Senator McRae stated that it seems strange to discuss permanent non-tenure track positions, which is essentially what some of these things are.
Provost Cooper stated that it is not intended to be that. There are always senior lecturers. If you have a person that has consciously decided that they are not going to be a contributor in research, this is a potential for them to contribute in a long term way at the university if there is room and if there is interest and if there is history. "I think that is what distinguishes tenure track expectations from non-tenure track. It is the component of research and scholarship."
Senator McRae asked, "Is that what we should seek in a faculty member?"
Provost Cooper responded no. "I think we are mostly aligned in a direction of teaching and scholarship as part of our assignment. These non-tenure track positions come out of the necessity of meeting large freshmen classes in certain areas and the economies of the dollars that we have to spend. It is a balance."
Senator Kimler pointed out that in the College of Humanities and Social Sciences, non-tenure track faculty teach introductory courses. The reason for this is because the college does not have PhD programs. He stated that the institutional way to fix this is to think about PhD programs across the humanities. He feels that there is a structural issue here which makes it very difficult on this campus.
Provost Cooper stated that there is a lot of diversity in different colleges.
Senator McRae stated that the tenured faculty are the ones that should really deal with this issue and decide what it is that they want to have happen.
7. Unfinished Business
NC State Regulations for Responding to Allegations of Research Misconduct
Matthew Ronning, Assistant Vice Chancellor for Research Administration, stated that Senator Daley and the University Research Committee have reviewed and revised the Allegations of Research Misconduct policy.
Chair Carter stated that one of the Senators suggested that the institution of an ombudsman position might be a good intermediary step to evaluate whether there are any accusations of scientific misconduct.
Assistant Vice Chancellor Ronning stated that for the scope and nature of this policy an ombudsman would be helpful for a lot of different things at the university. But for the scope and nature of this particular policy, which is intended to address specific regulations of the federal government as they pertain to misconduct that must be reported back to the federal government, an ombudsman would only play an advisory role. He stated that in short he prefers keeping the inquiry stage, which is essentially what the ombudsman would assist in, at as a local level as possible; that the dean and any necessary affiliates to inquire as to the misconduct of the question will be satisfactory. The investigative stage is not a stage that we can tamper with. Therefore having an ombudsman would add no value to that stage.
Senator Daley stated that an ombudsman is part of the mediation process. Most of this is going to be somehow on the record. You are not already into a legal system. You want to keep the number of people down in part because of the few people with real expertise on these issues, and in part because of confidentiality.
Senator Daley moved that the Faculty Senate endorse the NC State Regulations for Responding to Allegations of Research Misconduct policy.
The motion was seconded, voted on and passed without dissent.
8. New Business
Proposed Academic Calendar Changes
Senator Blanchard, Faculty Senate Representative to the Registration, Records and Calendar Committee reported that the Office of the President has given them the opportunity to shorten the academic calendar from the previously prescribed limit of seventy five days per semester to seventy. The Registration Records and Calendar Committee has proposed a three year calendar that begins the new sequence for the 2003-2004 academic year. The committee made some changes in 2003. The only change that was made to the spring semester was to change the start date from Monday to Thursday shortening the spring semester by three days at the beginning of the semester.
The changes in the calendar would be implemented beginning with the first summer session of 2003. Having Memorial day off is a change. There are some constraints on the summer calendar in that the first summer session has to end by June 30. One change that will take place beginning with the Fall 2003 calendar is that the fall semesters will start on Wednesday. The fall break is being switched from a Monday/Tuesday to a Thursday/Friday to balance the calendar. The Wednesday before Thanksgiving is now a full day with no classes. The spring semesters will begin on a Monday but will begin a week later than they traditionally have. There will be no Tuesday class day off after the Martin Luther King Holiday. The Easter Holiday has been reduced from Wednesday, Thursday, Friday to Thursday and Friday. Senator Blanchard stated, There will still be a week for spring break, and we will finish by May 15 the end of contracts for the nine-month employees."
Those are the major changes. The calendar is balanced in terms of the number of Monday, Wednesday, and Friday, and Tuesday and Thursday classes in the fall and spring. It is balanced in terms of the number of full uninterrupted weeks in the fall and the spring. It is probably not balanced in terms of Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday night classes.
Senator Blanchard stated that her committee does not determine whether Good Friday is a holiday or not. Human Resources does the calendar for University Holidays.
The calendar committee would like the endorsement of the Faculty Senate for this proposed calendar.
Senator Sawyers stated that it may be beneficial to move spring break a week.
Senator Blanchard stated that she will tell the committee that the Faculty Senate would like for them to be more flexible when spring break occurs so that it is not on top of the Easter Holiday.
Senator Sawyers stated that if it is an Easter Holiday it makes more sense to have off Monday following Easter as a travel day as it does Wednesday before Thanksgiving.
Senator Blanchard stated that the problem with that is that the university has a Monday off for Martin Luther King day, and if another Monday is taken off for Easter then those Monday night only classes have taken a hit.
Senator Kimler moved that the Faculty Senate endorse the calendar.
The motion was seconded, voted on and passed without dissent.
Chair Carter adjourned the meeting at 4:50 p.m.