January 28, 2003
Present: Chair-Elect Daley, Secretary Banks, Interim Provost Barnhardt, Parliamentarian Gilbert; Senators Allen, Ash, Atkin, Beasley, Bernhard, Carter, DeLuca, Fahmy, Fikry, Garval, Griffin, Havner, Headen, Hodge, Hooper, Istook, Jasper, Krotee, Lytle, Smoak, Stoddard, Sylla, Tyler, Weiner
Excused: Chair Carter; Senator Misra
Absent: Senators Brothers, Hammerberg, Honeycutt, Matthews, McRae, Peacock, Rice, Sawyers, Tetro
Visitors: Clare Kristofco, Executive Assistant to the Chancellor; Erich Fabricius, Student Senate President ProTem; Sandy Connolly, Assistant Vice Provost, Academic Affairs; Jevonda Greer, Coordinator of Communications; Daniel Bunce, Editor of The Bulletin, News Services Office
1. Call to Order
The tenth meeting of the forty-ninth session of the North Carolina State University Faculty Senate was called to order at 3:00 p.m. by Chair-Elect Dennis Daley.
2. Welcome and Announcements
Chair-Elect Daley welcomed Senators and Guests.
Chair-Elect Daley announced that the spring elections will be held in the Faculty Senate.
Nominations are needed for the O. Max Gardner Award.
3. Approval of the Minutes, Meeting No. 8, January 14, 2003
The minutes were approved without dissent.
4. Remarks from Interim Provost Barnhardt
Thank you for allowing me a few minutes on the Faculty Senate’s agenda.
First, I did not retire at the end of 1999. I stepped aside as Dean, believing that the dynamics of the Textile Supply Chain from Fibers to Consumers was changing at a very rapid pace. These changes required a Dean with an entirely different skill set than I acquired during the past 40 plus years.
Therefore, I returned to the faculty, hoping to teach for a few years, although I’m proud to say, I’ve taught 41/42 years.
My intent was to teach until reaching 65 years, but 65 came and went and I ’m having so much fun that I stayed on.
This semester I was scheduled to teach nine hours with one of three courses as a team member, but not the lead faculty.
Although Trevor Little, my Department Head, had to make significant adjustments, I’m still in the classroom 3-6 hours per week, and I intend to keep that schedule.
I was surprised to be asked to serve as Interim Provost, but I love this University too much to say no. My personal concern diminished rapidly as I interacted with the quality people on the Provost’s staff.
My first priority is to ensure that the offices of Academic Administration and Academic Affairs continue to function in a responsive and professional manner. Today I say with no hesitation that I have 100+% confidence in the professionals in these offices: Dr. Judy Peel, Ms. Sandy Connolly, Ms. Vicki Pennington, and Ms. Jevonda Greer.
The Reappointment / Promotion / Tenure activities will proceed on schedule with no changes to the established procedures.
Dr. Peel was deeply involved last year and Jevonda Greer has been so for six years.
I have met with Dr. Ellis Cowling, the Chair of the University Reappointment / Promotion and Tenure Committee and also with the Committee as a whole. When I left the meeting with the Committee, I asked if any member had any reservations about the process, and no one did.
In fact, Paul Williams, who is a member of the University Assembly, shared with us that GA considers the NC State University process to be a model for the University System.
Tom Hodgson commented on how proud he is of the quality of faculty dossiers he reads at the University. Again this process and the outcome has my highest priority.
On the basis of only a few weeks experience, I’ve come to believe that the University is prone to accepting too many new initiatives without bringing existing ones to a proper conclusion. Some studies are imposed upon us and some we create ourselves.
My goal is to identify all the studies currently affecting the Provost’s Office. Prepare a comprehensive matrix of progress to date and ask those involved, be they the Faculty Senate, the Deans, or my staff, to set realistic priorities for bringing the activities to a successful conclusion. The pipeline can overflow.
Finally, I truly appreciate the words of encouragement that have come from across the University community. And I pledge my commitment of time and energy to represent the academic community in the manner that it expects and deserves.
5. Pathways Nomination Process
Vanessa Compton, Staff Development Specialists from Human Resources stated that they are starting up the nomination process for the Pathways Leadership Development Program.
"I wanted to give you a brief overview of the process in case there are individuals in your distinct areas who are interested in applying to attend the Pathways Leadership Development process.
Pathway Leadership Development Program is an academic year long leadership program that links professional development of individuals to the departmental goals. The person who applies and is accepted into the Pathways Program undergoes a 360 degree assessment called a Leadership Practice Inventory. Based upon the results of that 360 degree assessment, they and their immediate supervisor join forces with their pathways advisor in Human Resources to develop goals that are going to benefit them individually and benefit the department.
Five key leadership practices that we base our pathways leadership development program on are based on The Leadership Challenge. These leadership principles are challenging the process, inspiring a shared vision, modeling the way, enabling others to act, and encouraging the heart.
We have had a good reputation for our Pathways Development Program here. It has been in effect since 1996. We have made some changes but we are still maintaining the integrity of the program.
The program is only available to full time SPA employees. You may have some people in your area for which you may be the supervisor. They fill out an intent to enroll form and have you sign it. They must already exhibit some leadership potential.
The nomination comes from the Chancellor, Provost, or Dean of that Division. The nomination process began January 13th. Potential participants complete the intent to enroll form. They fill that out and state why they would benefit from going through the Pathways Leadership Development Program. The immediate supervisor and department head sign it. The division head or the nominator makes a decision on who is to be nominated for the program.
We have identified more core courses that are required for the Pathways participants to complete in order to graduate. These courses directly feed into those five leadership principles mentioned earlier. We did have a supervisory track and a non supervisory track. The supervisory track was geared toward people who were current supervisors. We have eliminated those tracks. Everyone going through the Pathways Leadership Development Program will take the same core courses as everyone else.
The cost is $150. For that cost the participants are going to get access to the DDI (Development Dimensions International) online web courses that the State of North Carolina has plugged into. They have access to a variety of courses that will be tailored to meet their needs based upon the results of their leadership practices inventory. They will have electives from which to choose as well. The Meyers Briggs type indicator is also part of our core requirements.
An individual training plan is developed with the Pathways advisor. We work in conjunction with the participant and their immediate supervisor to form an individualized training plan. More information can be found at Pathway’s website at http://www2.acs.ncsu.edu/hr/pathways.html
What is the 360 degree assessment about?
At the beginning of the Pathways leadership year, once the nominations have been sent in and the participants for that year have been determined, we have a pathways orientation at the end of April. It is at that orientation that the participants receive the information that they need to complete the leadership practices inventory online, in which they will report on themselves in those five leadership practices areas mentioned earlier. Their immediate supervisor will also report on them and then they can choose five to six colleagues or others to report on that person. Once the results are received from that 360 degree feedback, we are going to have a meeting in June to give them their feedback. Based upon that 360 degree assessment, they will set goals.
Are all SPA employees aware of this program?
They should be. We have had this program in existence since 1996 and we have marketed this program throughout the campus.
How many people participate in this program each year?
We have sixteen letters to go out to nominators. From those divisions we divide them up based upon population. It is based upon Staff Senate districting.
This year we are shooting for forty-five participants.
Will the participants receive time off from their regular jobs to participate in this program?
We have designed our courses for half-days. Most of our classes are scheduled from 9 a.m. until 12 noon or 1:30 to 4:30 p.m., because we are very sensitive about monopolizing the participants time out of the work area. We work with the supervisor and the participant to make sure that the course load that they select together does not overwhelm the participant and does not distract from the work assignments of that participant. The advisor will make sure that they keep in constant contact to make sure that the participant is organizing their work load around the classes adequately.
Who covers the cost?
The sending department would cover the cost.
What has happened to previous participants? Do they go back to the same job or do they go somewhere else?
We cannot guarantee a promotion based upon the completion of this program. However we have seen a lot of our participants go on to other positions because of the leadership potential already embedded in them. Our focus is helping to groom that and prepare them, with extra experiences that they have not had previously, for moving up within their departments or elsewhere on campus. Our goal is to help retain our talent here at NC State.
6. Review of Changes in the RPT Process/Review of Upcoming Requirement for Salary Ranges
Charlene Hayes, Associate Vice Chancellor for Human Resources, stated that they are here to discuss changes in the RPT Process and the requirement to use salary ranges in setting salaries.
"Those changes and that requirement come out of our institutional plan for management flexibility. In the fall our plan was approved by the Board of Governors to provide responsibility at the level of our Board of Trustees to make more of those personnel decisions, rather than having them go to the Board of Governors. The ability to do that was delegated to the Board of Governors under North Carolina General Statues. It also said the Board of Governors could delegate a lot of those decisions to the campus Board of Trustees. Last January the Board of Governors decided to do that and also decided that special constituent institutions could gain that flexibility to appoint and fix compensation if they met certain requirements. We submitted our institutional plan and were granted the right to do that."
Judy Peel, Associate Vice Provost for Faculty Development, stated, "I would like to share with you how the management flexibility plan will affect several of the processes and actions related to reappointment promotion and tenure. There are eight actions that will be affected. Basically this plan will shorten the process by one step and will change the group with the highest level of approval in each of these processes.
Appointment and reappointment of non tenured track faculty and appointment and reappointment of librarians: You can see under the previous plan the highest level of approval came from the Provost. With management flexibility, the highest level of approval will come from the Dean. In the case of Student Affairs, Music, and Physical Education the highest level of approval will come from the Vice Chancellor. The Director of the Library will be the highest level of approval in the case of the librarians.
In the case of appointment and reappointment of tenure track faculty, the previous highest level of approval was the Board of Trustees. That has now been delegated to the Provost.
The appointment to a tenured position, conferral of tenure to an existing faculty position, promotion of a current faculty member to a tenured position and appointment to professorship of distinction with tenure previously required Board of Governors approval. Now it will require Board of Trustees approval. Promotion of tenured faculty members was previously approved by the Board of Trustees. Now that can be approved on campus by the Chancellor. Those are the changes that will be involved in reappointment, promotion and tenure relating to management flexibility.
Associate Vice Chancellor Hayes stated, "At the same time they gave us the authority to make compensation decisions. They also said you can do that only if you use market data and salary ranges which means that as a result of management flexibility, we have to establish ranges for groups that we never before used salary ranges to make salary decisions. That includes faculty. They were specific to say that when you set these salary ranges you have to use the market. Market has to include your peer institutions. The peer institutions are defined by the Board of Governors. Ranges are also defined by discipline. The plan was approved last fall. Human Resources is working with University Planning and Analysis to gather the data that will be used to establish salary ranges by rank and discipline for faculty. We will be meeting with Department Heads and Deans to discuss the data we gathered. The hope is that we will be able to set wide, broad ranges so that we are not in a situation in which we are in a position of getting exceptions because of the salary demands of faculty we are trying to recruit. We need it in place for July 1st increases. Our plan is to have as much of this done by the end of March as possible, so that we can get these ranges before the Board of Trustees in April. I welcome your suggestions for others that you think we should work with to get this data analysed and to talk about the disciplines and what is involved in that.
If we use data from an institution that is not identified by the Board of Governors as our peer institution, we have to get approval from the Board of Trustees."
Senator Beasley stated that each college has its own set of peers.
Hayes stated, "The college peers do not match the Board of Governors established peers. As it stands now, in order to establish these ranges we have to use data from the Board of Governors peers. In those situations where there is a college that believes the Board of Governor peers do not meet their needs, then we are in the position of having to make that case to the Board of Governors to get them to approve an alternative set of peers."
Senator Weiner wanted to know if that case can be made consolidated or does it have to be made for each college.
Hayes does not think it will work consolidated. She stated that they either have to accept the Board of Governors peers or make an argument that is specific to an individual college.
Hayes stated that they will be using established salary surveys. "In terms of the individual college related surveys, our constraint is the fact that they have to show that they include our BOG established peers. If there is a survey out there that is better suited for Engineering, for example, and it has only one or two of our BOG peers, then we have to make the argument for using those salary surveys."
Senator Headen stated, "It seems like it has potential to reallocate resources among the disciplines. Have we thought through that?"
Hayes stated that it could have implications. "There are a lot of implications for gathering these data. We have not done that before so we don’t know what the picture is going to look like. Obviously we have to use it for salary decisions. There may be other implications in terms of the priorities we set for budget and how allocations are made."
Senator Hodge wanted to know if Hayes has worked with the Deans and Department Heads to find out if they think that the Board of Governor’s designated peer institutions are suitable for their college or department.
Hayes stated that they have not asked that question yet. She has talked with the deans about them having to do this. They will be getting feedback from deans and department heads throughout this process.
Senator Atkin wanted to know what ranks are included.
Hayes responded all tenured track ranks.
Senator Fahmy wanted to what happens to existing faculty whose salary happens to fall below or above the ranges.
Hayes stated that she does not anticipate that there will be a faculty salary that would be above the range. "When we are going through the process of setting salary ranges, we will take into account the high/low average salaries that we have on campus now as well as the market data. I can see finding a faculty salary below the range, and at that point there has to be a decision about how we set the range. Once we do, we really should not have anyone who is below it. When I say that our goal is to make it as high as we possibly can, I am not anticipating that we will find a faculty member that falls outside of the range. Part of our requirements from the Board of Governors would be that if we have someone who we want to bring in above the range or someone who is here and we are giving an increase that would take them above the range, we will have to get approval from the Board of Trustees to do that."
Senator Fikry wanted to know if this process is similar to what is currently in place for the SPA employees.
Hayes responded that the difference is that these salary ranges will be market based.
Senator Beasley stated, "Our peers will not be regional peers. We have to be careful that we do not just limit ourselves to Land Grant Universities because they are not necessarily who are going to be hiring our people away."
Senator Garval asked, "Does this management flexibility initiative extend only to the RPT process and salary changes or does it go beyond that?"
Hayes stated that it grants the authority to appoint and fix compensation in several areas. It is not just the RPT process. There are academic and administrative officers that are affected by this. The Chancellors and Vice Chancellors are approved by the Board of Governors. It affects EPA non faculty, SAAO Tier II and faculty. The difference is the Board of Governors already set salary ranges for Chancellors and Vice Chancellors. "We have never had salary ranges for faculty nor have we ever had salary ranges for those senior academic and administrative officers. Those are new in this process. Under management flexibility now the Board of Trustees can make those appointments and fix the compensation of Vice Chancellors."
Senator Fikry stated that he sees the reason for the minimum salary but not for the maximum salary.
Hayes stated that you cannot have a range without a maximum. Those ranges will be adjusted with market changes on an annual basis.
A senator wanted to know how the disciplines will be defined.
Hayes stated that they are currently working on that.
Senator Tyler wanted to know if there are some universities that the Board of Governors should consider putting on their list that this is an opportunity to make those arguments.
Hayes responded yes. "It is not a matter of putting it on their list because we are not going to convince them to change our NC State peers but it is for the purpose of setting those salary ranges. The assumption is that we will use the Board of Governors’ list of peers."
Senator Headen wanted to know if all the department heads are deeply involved with this process.
Hayes responded no. They will soon be getting feedback from deans and department heads especially given the implications for peers too.
7. Issues of Concern
Senator Fikry feels that a mechanism is needed to contact and receive feedback from the faculty more quickly.
Chair-Elect Daley assigned the issue of concern to the Governance Committee.
Chair-Elect Daley adjourned the meeting at 4:10 p.m.