April 8, 2003
Present: Chair-Elect Daley, Secretary Banks, Interim Provost Barnhardt, Parliamentarian Gilbert; Senators Ash, Atkin, Beasley, Bernhard, Carter, DeLuca, Garval, Griffin, Hammerberg, Headen, Hodge, Istook, Krotee, Lytle, McRae, Misra, Peacock, Sawyers, Smoak, Tetro, Tyler, Weiner
Excused: Chair Carter; Senators Allen, Fikry, Sylla
Absent: Senators Brother, Havner, Hooper, Honeycutt, Jasper, Matthews, Rice, Stoddard,
Visitors: Will Kimler, Chair, Compliance Team; Judy Peel, Associate Vice Provost for Faculty Development; George Worsley, Finance & Business; Clare Kristofco, Chancellor’s Office; Erich Fabricius, President ProTempore, Student Senate; Daniel Bunce, Editor of the Bulletin
1. Call to Order
The thirteenth 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 Daley.
2. Welcome and Announcements
Chair-Elect Daley welcomed Senators and Guests.
3. Approval of the Minutes, Meeting 12, February 25, 2003
The minutes were approved as corrected.
4. Report on the SACS Accreditation Process
Secretary Alton Banks, a member of the SACS Leadership Team, stated that the SACS reaffirmation process is continuing a pace. There is a quality enhancement plan and a compliance team. The LITRE plan is proceeding a pace. On April 22nd from 12:30 until 4:45 p.m. there will be a campus-wide forum that will meet in the Witherspoon Student Center. "I would invite your attendance for a portion of that meeting. I know the people who have been working on that quality enhancement plan would be very much delighted to hear from you and your ideas with respect to some initial ideas they have had. We look forward to some additional input.
Comments from Dr. Will Kimler, Chair of the Compliance Team
Dr. Kimler, stated that in approximately two weeks the Compliance Team is going to make available for public commentary all the work that they have been doing since last August.
"Compliance asks you to go through a laundry list of items that are called either core requirements or comprehensive standards under SACS plus a hand full of federal mandates for all institutions and a handful of resource issues. There are seventy-seven of these if you articulate them separately. They are going to be present on a web site through University Planning and Analysis during the week of April 21st . We thought that we were going to be putting in our full final revision on April 15 to the leadership team. We have been delayed because it is complex. We have been very sensitive to trying to get this information out with time for faculty input and not have it be something which appears in the summer while everyone is gone. Realistically knowing that the deadline is mid-summer with the final report to SACS August 15 you can imagine that the last crazy editing is all going to be in June or July. However, we seek your feed back if you have issues of concern.
Let me direct you briefly to how I think you might be best served to read these reports or what you might be interested in. There are a number of things that you can just breeze over. There are standards that ask if we have a Board of Trustees which is not appointed by the family of the Chancellor or these sorts of standards. Those are just so straightforward that we point out the regulations that we live under as a constituent part of the University of North Carolina. There are other things though that are core requirements, e.g. on the adequacy of your faulty, resources for those faculty, adequacy of library and technology resources, student support programs, etc. This is where we have been spending most of our time, arguing about whether we are in compliance or not.
A lot of these standards are looking for bad behavior. If you do not have that bad behavior you just stamp "approved" and move on. We have a great library. We have a library that is 32nd in the nation in the research libraries. Where are we on space for students to use that library? We are inadequate on national standards of space in the library; not on books and monographs and computer resources, but on physical facilities. On the other hand things are better than they were. We have three choices on all of these compliance issues. We can choose full compliance. Let me read you the SACS language, "When you find yourself in compliance with one of these items, you then provide a brief narrative, explain the reason that you think you fit that narrative then should serve as a persuasive argument to support your claim." You give a list of evidence documenting that claim. On the difficult ones, it comes down to the question of whether we are finding ourselves adequate to a level or whether we are supposed to be assessing our own aspirations and our goals. As SACS puts it, if you are making claims about being a number one in this area or a premiere institution or a research university, and you do not have support for being high ranked or actually providing resources for doing that research, then you have a bit of disconnect. There is especially concern about what we might tell our public and what we might actually have on campus. The major areas that we had been discussing had been about faculty, adequacy of resources, part time teaching, and areas of physical resources or classrooms and teaching environment, computing resources and library resources. I urge you to pay serious attention to our front matter. We are going to make a case for what we find to be compliance. That is, meeting an adequacy standard as good as or better than most universities in our region, but nonetheless having our own standard for what we consider our university to be, what our mission is, and whether our facilities resource use and management fit what we claim to be doing. You will find a few of them where we are still in fact, arguing about whether we are partial compliance such as on the library issue. It is called core requirement number 9. Let me take a minute to read you one of these to show you the kinds of dilemmas we meet and the kind of feedback we would like from you.
Core number nine says:
"The institution through ownership or former arrangements or agreements provide and support student and faculty access and user privileges to adequate library collections as well as to other learning information resources consistent with the degrees offered. These collections and resources are sufficient to support all of its educational research and public service programs."
There is a mouth full there on all kinds of arrangements, so that it does not have to be physically in the building. We could have an electronic access and shared libraries. We are in fact, talking about our library being the University of North Carolina Library system, since we have shared collections with all constituent branches and with Duke. Adequate resource to ensure all these things means learning information resources. Some have made the argument that the lack of seats in our library does not matter because ResNet provides access to the library. That also requires you to think that what students need to use does not include 4M books. For some things journal access is electronic. Maybe you have a counter argument to a space problem, that it is insufficient to support all of its missions. None of us faculty would ever claim it was sufficient to support all of our missions. We want more and more and more. So where does an aspirational standard in a "best case scenario" meet a basically adequate standard? This is a great library. Is it good enough to be accredited? At one level it is good enough, but at another level shouldn’t we be using this to find where we ought to improve and where does the mix match between what we say we have or want and what we claim? If we claim partial compliance instead of full compliance, that is, if we use this in part to leverage asking for more resources or directing the campus to direct whatever resources it has to a problem, then there is something else we have to do for SACS. We have to tell them how we would fix it and fix it in a short term cycle (3 years). Do we want to make claims about partial compliance if there is no way we can fix things? The Compliance Team does not want to put themselves in the position of claiming they have a problem that is not fixable. There is no benefit to that. The whole process is supposed to benefit the university. SACS is ensuring adequate standards for their accreditation conditions but they are also trying to get us to do a self assessment and planning for the future. We are still asking out in some of these standards whether we want to take a slightly dangerous step of claiming partial compliance and showing the plan we have in place and think maybe we are immune because we can show the plan would be fulfilled if only a legislature gave us more money. That is what we are looking for. Read our narratives. Look at those issues you have some concerns about, perhaps technologies, resources, library resources, laboratory resources, and if you judge that there are some problems in your area, you ought to be telling us whether our narrative is convincing when we make such a case.
There are a number of standards that are about management, governance, legal affairs etc. One of them that was of great concern to this body for the last two years was copyright intellectual property. The policy part of this says:
"Institutions policies are clear concerning ownership of materials, compensation, copyright issues and the use of revenue derived from the creation or production of all intellectual property. This applies to students, faculty, and staff."
There was some question as to whether we could say we are in full compliance considering that the faculty sent a resolution to the Chancellor saying they were not sure that the way this was to be instituted for copyright issues was clear. On the other hand in legal terms, do we have a clear policy? Straight forward? It is accepted by the Board of Governors. It is an operating policy now in all the ways that it has gone through legal review and been accepted by the university system. It is different from other campuses. It is our own. It was formed here on campus and then approved. I would have a hard time saying that it was not clear, though you might say you do not like it. So there it comes again, aspirational and judgment. Part of SACS asks you, when you assess your own compliance, if you are doing it properly. I think the Compliance Team is going to say that we are fully in compliance there. We have a policy. However, this policy raises concerns. I would suggest that this is a great way to say, in reviewing our compliance, faculty still feel there is an issue to be addressed in the future. I do not think this process should cut you off from raising issues you find in these standards and cores. You might want to separate compliance for accreditation from an issue to be improved. That is what we would like to hear from you. Look at the things that concern you or interest you, read those standards and how we have judged what they mean. Read our narrative and tell us if you think we are papering over a problem on campus, or whether we have made a compelling argument. Send feedback to either Will Kimler or Karen Helm. We will share it with the committee."
Senator Beasley stated that in a world of accreditation, you are essentially working to a set of minimums. When you start introducing information that is obviously in excess of the minimum but not necessarily where you want to be, two things can happen. One, you can muddy things up and get into trouble when you should not have been or, two, if you said you might be trying to fix a problem that you cannot fix anyway. I do accreditations in Engineering and I would much rather see a document that is straightforward and that answers the questions as opposed to getting into a lot of philosophical arguments about whether we are on the right track or not. Obviously we are a good university, and anything that would derail us from getting SACS accreditation is probably misplaced. We need to be careful because we might get ourselves into trouble.
Kimler stated that that concern is almost exact parallel to the discussions that they have had on the Compliance Team. That might be one way to do it. Look for where we have declared partial or even non compliance. There again, you have to have a plan to show how you would fix it. If you think the plan is undoable or we have somehow gone beyond what we needed to do, let us know, give us the backing to say, "no you have made the case for meeting minimum." I know SACS is in a quandary because they are a set of minimum standards. That is what accreditation means. On the other hand they would like to be a body that helps you study yourself and make improvements.
Senator Beasley stated that they are in the process of going from input- based to outcomes- based standards, and that is the problem that all of these accrediting bodies have right now.
Kimler stated that if you make a claim about what you are, and you are well beyond the minimum standards or services you provide, you had better have evidence. SACS does essentially function to assess minimum standards. They do not rank universities. There are no brownie points for being really great at this.
5. State of North Carolina Budget Crisis
Stephen Keto, Associate Vice Chancellor for Resource Management and Information Systems stated that the State Budget is 14.3 billion dollars.
"There are significant shortfalls for the coming year. There are some one-time revenues that were in the budget for the current year that have to be replaced before you can get to even going into the 03-04 fiscal year. The first of those is some one time revenue that was transferred from other sources within the state government accounts.
We have already absorbed the budget reversion on this campus $100M as well as other state agencies. There was one time money required out of the budget this year to get even.
Sales tax and income tax sunset clauses are the law today, so these two tax resources will go away and will not be available for 03-04. Those contribute to part of what is the shortfall going into next fiscal year. To start out even, we need $854M of new money to get us back to where we started from.
Concerns or requirements for 2003/2004 are in the "got to" have category of things that must be funded next year. Education Enrollment growth includes the university system public Schools and community colleges. The university system has approximately $46M and NC State only has $2.1M for this coming year. We are not projecting a huge enrollment growth next year.
ABC Bonuses ($105M) are for the preschool programs and public instruction.
As the economy goes bad, the requirement for Medicaid funding ($250M) increases. They are increasing at a time when the state match is at its high point. Medicaid moves up and down with federal and state matching, based on the economy of the state. Up until now the economy has been strong so the state match is high. Now we get caught in a declining situation so we have to put up more money. The Medicaid budget is approximately 1.2 billion dollars in the State of North Carolina.
New prisons ($65M) is an industry that seems to prosper regardless of the economy.
The State Health Plan is being negotiated. The amount listed on the handout ($125M) may be inadequate from what we have seen in some of the preliminary discussions.
General Inflations and State Building Reserves ($100M) are for the new buildings that are coming on line. You have to get utility money, housekeeping, ground, safety, etc. Since I have been here, we have never really gotten an inflationary increase on our budget at this university. That is the first $860M of new money that is needed for next year.
Another $300M, which is somewhat of a real rough estimate, is the cost to the State revenues of the military deployments. Military personnel moving out of the state, overseas, to other areas on temporary assignments, or in combat will not pay income tax. Will their families stay here or leave? That will affect sales tax. Those are items that are real unknowns at this point, but clearly could have a negative impact on the state revenue.
If the dividends exclusions which were included in President Bush’s tax reduction plan is successful and the North Carolina Legislature adopts it, that could cost the State of North Carolina 175 to 200 million dollars alone on a continuing basis and then a general decline in the consumer confidence and business economy of the state puts us at about 2 billion dollars short where we were going this year without the two items that are below the line. A salary increase of 1% costs approximately $90M. The governor has recommended 1.6%. Restoring the employer contribution to the State Retirement System would require $72M per 1% (in 1999-00 employer contribution rate was 8.15%) going into the fund. The State is now working through the budget process. The House has proclaimed that they will have it by April 15th. The Senate will then come up with its version of the budget. There will then be a conference committee and at some point we will have a budget.
The governors budget has recommended a 5% reduction. The House and Senate will start with that and winnow down further. We have seen a proposal in the 10% range at this point. It is hard to say where it is actually going to end."
Keto provided a funding formula that addressed the change in the semester credit hour consumption (page 2 of handout).
Keto stated, "For the current year it is projected that the university will increase by approximately 22,000 credit hours. The weighting of each of the cells on the handout are the same weights for all the institutions in the university system. If you are a category One undergraduate and generate 643.72 credit hours you get one faculty position. If you are a doctoral institution with 70.71 student credit hours, you get one faculty position. We received 122 faculty positions. That multiplies by an average salary of positions (not of people) which gets us $8,688,835. We then add to that 44.89% for the support of those faculty positions which includes their benefits, secretarial support, lab support, material supplies, etc., giving $12,589,661 for teaching. Then we take the 12, 589,661 and multiply it by 11.48 and that gets $1,445.872 that goes to the library. Multiply the 12,589,661 by 54.05% that goes to General Institution Support. For the current year we have $20,841,064 for regular term instruction. There is another formula sheet exactly like this for distance education (page 3). Everything is the same except the credit hour changes are concerned.
Some of the funding is going to be generated by the projected growth and enrollment by resident and non resident students. Part of the university’s total budget is generated by student tuition. To us it becomes very important that we get not only our semester credit hours but we also get our mix of both resident and non-resident students. This year we fell short by 249 non-resident students. Multiply that times $14,600 each and that is how much revenue we came up short this year. We are working on finding ways of accommodating that."
Senator Beasley wanted to know if credit hours are generated by the classification of the student or by the course that is being taken.
Keto responded, the discipline of the course.
Senator Tetro wanted to know if the funding formula includes summer.
Keto responded, no, only fall and spring semesters.
Keto explained how the money is allocated on campus (page 4 of handout). He stated that for the last three years we have had campus initiated tuition increases of $300 per student.
Senator Sawyer wanted to know if the need for enrollment growth is $15M and the General Assembly is budgeting $2.1M.
Keto stated that for 2003-2004 our request is only $2.1M. The General Assembly has usually funded the enrollment growth.
Senator Tetro wanted to know what Student Centered Programs refer to.
Keto stated that those are a category of the request that included items like the Undergraduate Affairs Program, the Enrollment Management, and the Graduate School. Those are student based programs from which the Provost had solicited requests, with student input and student recommendations.
Senator Jasper wanted to know if money was put into Faculty Salary increases since they were told for the last couple of years that there were no faculty increases.
Keto stated that it was put into the faculty line for salary adjustments and new hires.
Senator McRae wants to know what Adjustment For Rent is.
Keto stated that the Distance Education Program is basically not on campus. They make an adjustment where they take money out of the General Institution and Support category and provide it to the Provost and the Distance Education Program to pay the rent for space that is being rented off campus.
6. Non-Tenure Track Faculty Task Force
Judy Peel, Associate Vice Provost for Faculty Development, stated that last Fall Provost Cooper appointed a Task Force to review a report that was issued Spring 2002 from the Office of the President on non-tenure track faculty. The task force is made up of a wide variety of people: tenure track faculty, non-tenure track faculty, department heads, deans, representatives from the library and representatives from Student Affairs faculty. They began their work with a charge from the Provost. The first part of the charge was to review the report and evaluate how the eight recommendations could be applied at NC State. Provost Cooper also asked them to research best practices for non-tenure track faculty to see what the University can do to improve the work situations of non-tenure track faculty at NC State. He also charged the task force with collecting data on current practices at NC State.
A handout was provided with recommendations from the Office of the President and then a statement of what the Task Force plans to recommend to the Provost. She noted that it is still in draft form and they are taking feedback from various groups before presenting the final report to the Provost at the end of May.
Associate Vice Provost Peel reviewed the recommendations with the senators.
Senator Jasper wanted to know if there is an actual contract for adjunct faculty.
Peel stated that currently, with adjunct faculty, there is just a letter that goes out. In working with the Personnel Policy Committee, they have tried to develop a definition that would be clear and would be consistently used across campus. An adjunct position for non-tenure track would be an appointment of a person whose employment is either outside the university or outside the department in which the adjunct appointment is held.
Senator Griffin wanted to know if an adjunct could be full or part time.
Peel stated that typically an adjunct is part time.
Senator Griffin wanted to know if it is possible for the full time and non-tenure track faculty to be increasing at the same time.
Peel responded no because you are looking at a proportion of the total. Right now it is 29% non tenure track faculty as a total of the faculty at NC State. In 1990 it was 24%. Over a ten year period it has increased 5%. We want to have a way to review and have justification or explanations of why departments and colleges are using more non-tenure track faculty.
Senator Garval wanted to know if there is a way to account for the non-tenure track full time.
Peel stated that the committee would like to recommend that there be a rationale for why departments are using so many. "If you have so many people teaching on one semester agreements and that is done over and over again, why is that person not put on a one or three year contract. That is the type of issue we want to get to."
Senator Fahmy stated, "When you say that you are going to change it from visiting to non-tenure track faculty, can there be something like a non-tenure track professor."
Peel responded no. They would like to see that practice changed on campus. "Currently we have visiting professors who have been here from ten to twenty years. We would like to see the term "Visiting" used when we have a person coming from another institution who is in residence here for one or two years, so that the term visiting is only used as a temporary prefix."
Senator Fahmy wanted to know if there is a non-tenure track Assistant Professor, Associate Professor, and Professor.
Peel stated that they may have Research Assistant Professor or Clinical Assistant Professor.
Senator Beasley asked, "Do they all have an adjective in front of their title or do we have non tenure track faculty who are just called an Assistant or Associate Professor?"
Peel stated that there would be a small number who do not have a prefix but most of them do have a prefix.
Senator Lytle stated that his recollection is that there are quite a few faculty members in departments that are designated as Associate members of faculty. "Are you proposing to replace that term?"
Peel stated that Associate is a term used for regular faculty which would be tenure track faculty. Typically Associate Faculty rank is given to a person who has a split appointment and who’s salary is paid from two departments.
Senator Lytle stated that it seems to him that out of this proposal, if you have a tenure track person serving in this capacity they would be called an Associate. If you have a non-tenure track person in the same kind of relationship they would be called Adjunct.
Will Kimler, Professor of History, stated that there is no recommendation about a global issue. There is a slippage between 35% and 25% because one is about non-tenure track (35%) and one is about full time non-tenure track (25%). "Does this task force consider that all part time non-tenure track?"
Peel stated that the task force would like to see an analysis of part time positions and how many of those part time positions could become full time positions.
Senator Fahmy wanted to know if the recent prefix, non-tenure track, is part of the title. If someone becomes an Associate Professor who is non-tenure track, does he call himself non- tenure track Associate Professor?
Peel stated that the tenure policies defines regular faculty as being tenure track and special faculty as being non-tenure track. In the academic policy under discussion it defines special faculty, and that would be all of the titles people that we are talking about with prefixes.
Senator Lytle stated, "You mean that two half time people equals one in the calculation of this 25%?"
Peel stated that it probably would not be that simple. The Compliance Team would like to see a minimum of abuse to non tenure track faculty. "There are some non-tenure track faculty who have been employed for years, semester by semester and are never eligible to receive benefits because of the way they are employed. We want to try to minimum those extreme cases where people who are hard working and support the mission of the university. It is a disservice to them and the work that they are doing. We also recognize the need for flexibility. We know that you have to have some one semester appointments. At times there are probably too many that could indeed be one year appointments.
Senator Headen wanted to know if deans, independent of changes of the regulations, could eliminate this problem.
Interim Provost Barnhardt stated that to eliminate the problem does say that there have to be some budget considerations. "Everything that is said has a financial implication that I think everyone around the table needs to understand as you go forward."
Secretary of the Faculty Senate
Suzanne Weiner was elected to serve a two-year term as Secretary of the Faculty Senate.
Chair-Elect Daley adjourned the meeting at 4:15 p.m.