April 22, 2003
Present: Chair Carter, Chair-Elect Daley, Secretary Banks, Interim Provost Barnhardt; Senators Allen, Ash, Atkin, Beasley, Bernhard, Brothers, Fahmy, Garval, Griffin, Havner, Headen, Hooper, Honeycutt, Jasper, Krotee, Lytle, Matthews, McRae, Misra, Sawyers, Smoak, Sylla, Tetro, Tyler, Weiner
Excused: Parliamentarian Gilbert; Senators Fikry, Hodge
Absent: Senators Carter, DeLuca, Hammerberg, Istook, Peacock, Rice, Stoddard
Visitors: Holladay Medal Recipients (2002 & 2003); Chancellor Marye Anne Fox; Judy Peel, Associate Vice Provost for Faculty Development; Clare Kristofco, Chancellor’s Office; Bruce Howell, President of Wake Tech; Daniel Bunce, Editor of the Bulletin
1. Call to Order
The fourteenth 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 Carter.
2. Welcome and Announcements
Chair Carter welcomed Senators and Guests.
3. Approval of the Minutes, Meeting 13, April 8, 2003
The minutes were approved unanimously.
4. Retention & Graduation Rate Task Force
Secretary Banks stated that it has been his pleasure to serve on the Provost’s Retention and Graduation Rate Task Force, which is chaired by Gail O’Brien. There are ten people who have been working for the past several months on that issue. The task force will be in the final stages of preparing their report and will be bringing that to the Provost.
Secretary Banks stated that he will be happy to return to the Senate at whatever point is deemed reasonable, to report on the results of the task force.
University Wide Evaluation of Teaching Instrument
Secretary Banks updated the Senate on the University Wide Evaluation of Teaching Instrument. The Evaluation of Teaching Standing Committee spent a couple of years creating the University Wide Evaluation Instrument (UEI) and field tested it for a couple of semesters in the College of Management. They found it quite useful. Secretary Banks stated that he was informed by University Planning and Analysis that the implementation of that on a campus-wide basis had been canceled with the understanding that it presented budgetary problems. This group voted on that UEI on two separate occasions and passed it. One would have to go a long way to call it an overwhelming vote. It was a narrow passage on both occasions. "I would like to suggest at some point that perhaps the appropriate committee review steps that we might use to suggest that the University Wide Instrument be implemented across campus because I think it has a lot to recommend. I was on the Evaluation of Teaching Committee when John Lapp chaired the subcommittee that eventually created that instrument. I know the pains to which that subcommittee went; having seen the results of that work and having that instrument passed by this body on two occasions, I think we would like to see how that might be used as opposed to having all that effort gone for naught. I would like to recommend that as an issue of concern for the group that follows."
"This is my last Faculty Senate meeting for my second term and I would like to as a group thank you all for your collegiality. I had fun working with and getting to know you. Thank you very much."
5. Remarks from Interim Provost Barnhardt
It has been a great pleasure for me to serve as the Interim Provost for the past three months. Everyday has been exciting. I have learned a lot of things. I have enjoyed working with many of you. I have come to know you a lot better through some of the breakfasts that we have had, and have come to know the university better as we have interacted with the broader range of faculty, students, and programs, and have come to appreciate the great diversity that this university has in all of its activities. A special thanks to the Senate and particularly to Philip Carter for being willing to co-sponsor those Breakfast Meetings with the Chancellor and Provost. Those have been exciting meetings. The issues brought forth were the real issues that this university has to look at in the future. The best thing was the faculty when they would present an issue and would say "Chancellor we have a problem and it is our problem and together we can work on this and solve some of these things." It was the collectiveness, the collegiality of those discussions which were so interesting to me. One of the issues that kept coming up again and again in practically all of these morning breakfasts was the suggestion that we needed to develop more interdisciplinary activities. Whether these were the teaching level, research level, undergraduate level, or graduate level; it was how we can bring all of the disciplines of the university together. After I listened to those issues and discussions, I came to the conclusion that if I was only ten years younger that I would fight vigorously for the Provost job. I think it is a super challenge for the next individual. I know, with your support, this is going to be a great opportunity for the next Provost, whoever he or she might be.
I remember five years ago when Chancellor Fox was first introduced to the community. She said this university is poised to do great things. Four or five years later as I have looked at what has gone on during those years, we have done some very great things. We should be very proud of the accomplishments that we have. We are an excellent university and have nothing to be ashamed of in any way at all. With your support I know that we can surpass excellence and get to be an outstanding university. This will happen when we all begin to work together in the manner that we have been doing in the past three months.
Finally, Phil I really thank you. You have been a joy to work with. You have been very supportive. You have spent a lot of your time trying to explain things to me because I was starting from a practical zero base. That was very helpful. Also the words of encouragement that you gave me practically after every meeting. Some days were long days and to have someone say thank you at the end of the meetings was very helpful to me, and I appreciate that. I hope that all of you will convey to the faculty how proud I am of them, of the outstanding scholarship that they have, of the contributions that they make to this university and their teaching and research. It has been great. To end with just one tale of what today was like, the Chancellor and I started out very early down at the Legislature where there was a huge arrangement of posters of undergraduate students who had done the research while they were at the university. There were six or seven from NC State. We took the opportunity to have them explain to us what they did. The first things that they talked about always was the mentoring and support that they had received from their faculty. You have formed that at the undergraduate level. If we can continue that throughout the whole university, we really are going to be an outstanding university. I really do wish I was ten years younger.
6. Committee Reports
Senator Sarah Ash, Chair of the Academic Policy Committee, reported that the committee has been involved in several things. The last several meetings have evolved around the so called "admissions exceptions" (those students who would not otherwise be admitted to the university because of their highschool GPA, but who for one reason or another bring to the university a specific talent or background that the university has an interest in). This interest came to the surface as a result of what happened this past year in the admission of exceptions relative to student athletes.
Other matters that have been addressed by the committee are the minimum eligibility standard, the readmission regulation regarding academically suspended students, and the implementation of the University-Wide Evaluation of Teaching Instrument.
Senator Scott McRae, Chair of the Personnel Policy Committee, thanked those who served on his committee this year. He also thanked Frank Abrams and Judy Peel of the Provost’s office for assisting the committee in their consideration of many of the issues undertaken this year.
Senator McRae reported that as far as completed actions, included in the handout is the latest version of the proposed policy on Emeritus Faculty Status and Involvement. At the request of Senator Havner, Chair of the Lifelong Faculty Involvement Committee, the committee reviewed the document on several occasions and recommended the endorsement by the Senate which was subsequently passed.
The major things that are ongoing by the committee were:
1) The committee reviewed a draft regulation on special faculty ranks, at the request of the Provost’s office. This regulation has been reviewed by a number of committees and bodies on campus, and it is understood from Judy Peel that it will continue to do so until it has been adopted in the Fall. If the procedures set forth in this document are implemented, the committee will have done a great favor to non tenure track faculty as far as expectations and will have given them a good deal of stability in their service.
There are some items that this regulation does not address such as the status of serial one semester appointees. Senator McRae stated that he thinks this should be corrected.
"According to Judy Peel, we are increasing our use of non tenured faculty in the instructional program. There has been approximately a ten-year history of increase. This is a concern of the committee, and it is a concern which the Senate should address. "We need to be sure that this is the direction that we want our university to go. If not, some sort of program has to be undertaken to see if we can turn the situation around and reduce the number of non tenured faculty in the instructional program."
2) The Personnel Policy Committee began a review of the present Reappointment, Promotion and Tenure policies, their implementation at the University and College levels and the 2002 recommendations of the University RPT Committee.
Senator McRae stated that he does not consider that discussion complete. The committee achieved a number of advances in their understanding of current practices, and has suggested some things which the Provost’s office has and will adopt. Senator McRae feels that the committee should continue this discussion next year and review the actual implementation documents.
Resources and Environment Committee
Senator Richard Bernhard, Chair of the Resources and Environment Committee stated that they have not met since their last meeting. Steve Keto reported on the budget at their last meeting. "We have previously had unsustainability. Will Hooker, Sarah Ketchum, and Keefe Harrison are promoting the idea of sustainability which is something we really can do and must do. Basically we need more resources and less trash. That is our goal for next year."
Chair Carter thanked the committees for the work that they have done this past year.
7. Remarks from the Chancellor
Let me begin by echoing Phil’s statement about thanks for service on those committees. We know that you have worked very long and hard, and have thought very deeply about a number of issues that are of great importance to the university. We look forward to having those come forward so that we can continue that conversation and, where appropriate, move them into regulations.
I want to bring you up to date on where we are on the budget. The House voted last week on a budget and the governor had presented his own budget before the House voted. Two thirds of the budgetary decision is made, that is the Governor and the House budgets are made. We have yet to see a Senate proposal and then a Conference Committee before final decisions are made on the budget. I can tell that there are some very good things in the budget, given the severity of the economic depression in the state, and others that remain challenges for us. The first thing that is very positive is that the budget has funding for full enrollment. So, to the extent that the University of North Carolina System takes on additional students, those students are funded completely in both the Governor’s and the House’s budgets.
Another part that is good news is that both the Governor and House budgets have substantial contributions toward financial aid; $10.2M in the Governor’s budget and $5.1M in the House budget.
The other thing that is very positive about this is that there is no mention in either budget of overhead. I can tell you that is not by accident. We have worked very hard to be sure that indirect costs are protected and that they are retained, because they provide to us, a university with a relatively small endowment that relies significantly on State Legislative support, with virtually all the discretionary cost that we have. If we were to lose indirect costs (an amendment was introduced just this afternoon to do exactly that) we would have essentially no discretion in how budget allocations would be made. So the fact that it appears in neither the Governor’s Budget nor the House Budget is good news so far.
There are other things in the budget that are challenges for us. Although the governor’s budget continues to fund graduate student tuition remission, the House has a substantial cut in graduate student tuition remission. It is part of the need we all have to emphasize how important graduate education is for innovation and economic recovery in this state. The House budget cuts $3.4M in graduate student tuition remission. Roughly about one half of that would fall to NC State and half to Chapel Hill. A little less of course because of other graduate programs at other institutions in the UNC System. In addition another challenge that appears in this budget is that the funding for MCNC supercomputing is retained completely in the Governor’s budget. That is good news, but it is cut by $2.5M in the House budget. That would represent the entire amount, given the $5.0M cut last year, that would be allocated to supercomputing. If passed, this would mean we would have to figure out means to fund supercomputing apart from state appropriation. To my knowledge there is no supercomputing center in the country that functions completely on user fees although many places do have substantial user fees whereas we have been able to avoid that in the past. Without some state subsidy it would be difficult for us to maintain supercomputing as a long time objective. We are paying very close attention, as the budget deliberations continue, to being able to address those two aspects in particular, graduate student tuition remission, without which it would be difficult for us to grow our graduate programs, and MCNC, in which the absence of funding would make it very difficult for us to have the kind of computational support that our research programs here require.
The other piece of bad news in the House budget but not in the Governor’s budget is despite the Board of Governor’s recommendation, a significant increase in tuition. Right now in the House budget it is a 5% increase for instate and out-of-state. As amendments have come forward there has been even a larger shift of that burden onto our out-of-state students in an amendment that so far has not passed. One proposal would involve a 10% increase for out-of-state students. We would move to the very top, or at least the second, position among our peers for out-of-state students while still retaining the lowest or second to lowest position with respect to our peers for instate tuition. Obviously our ability to have a diverse community that responds to demographic opportunity would be limited if that passes.
One positive thing is that we have a budget from the House this early. They did keep their word to produce a budget by the middle of April. We still have a great deal of work to do to retain those things that are positive about the budget and then to make sure that the legislators, as they deal with difficult financial times, are aware of the significance of the consequences with respect to graduation student tuition remission and the affect on supercomputing and tuition.
Continuing in that mode of bringing you up to date on where things are, the Provost Search Committee has done a yeoman’s job this semester. They have worked very hard and diligently. Just last night they gave me their list of three candidates for the Provost. They are the three candidates who have been brought to campus: Dick Edwards, a faculty member at Chapel Hill and the former Dean of Social Work there; Jim Oblinger, our Dean of Agriculture and Life Sciences, and Joan Stewart, Dean of Arts and Sciences at the University of South Carolina. These three candidates I think had wonderful interviews. There has been an embracing by the campus of all three candidates. I have received hundreds of comments about each one of these pointing out their strengths and, where appropriate, their weaknesses. We are in the process of doing due diligence on all three candidates and I would hope that we would be able to announce a Provost by the end of April. That means that we would be in a position where a Provost would be ready to start immediately after commencement. Interim Provost Barnhardt would officiate his last event, which would be commencement on May 17th. He has our great thanks, because he has done a wonderful job in bringing along the administrative tasks and challenges faced by the Provost Office.
Phil Donahue will be the commencement speaker on May 17th and we are conferring four Honorary Degrees. One to Ken Burns, a documentary film maker; one to Carol Joyner who has been a business leader and a philanthropist especially at NC State; Cyma Ruben, a graduate of the College of Textiles who is a Broadway Producer and is also the curator of an exhibit that will come to North Carolina State next year containing all the original Pulitzer Prize photographs from the beginning of the Pulitzer Awards; and Professor William Hills, a Geneticist for whom a symposium will be conducted in conjunction with commencement in May. We have a great group of people coming. I want to acknowledge Phil Carter for his assistance in making the arrangements for Phil Donahue as well as his long term service on the Honorary Degree Committee.
The Honorary Degree Committee is being looked at by the Board of Trustees. Any comments that you may have about ways in which we can enhance more participation of faculty or how they would handle Honorary Degrees would be most welcome as they think about these questions this summer.
I wanted to mention to you another project which is coming along well, I hope. That is the bio-processing facility which is a proposal of our Chemical Engineering Department, a major facility to be located on the Centennial Campus. Peter Kilpatrick has been leading an extraordinary effort for more than six years to recognize that biotechnology and agriculture come together and have the possibility of making high valued products and a new kind of manufacturing in North Carolina. As part of this effort the industry group has come behind Peter’s leadership and has fully endorsed the construction of a facility that would allow training at the Associate, Bachelor, Masters and the Doctoral level so that this industry could begin to flourish. A proposal has been produced that would construct this facility on Centennial Campus. Since it involves basically Chemical Engineering using Biological materials it would be essentially managed and coordinated by the Department of Chemical Engineering. It would be conducted in conjunction and in collaboration with five separate community colleges around the state and North Carolina Central University. NCCU would use this as part of their new emphasis on biology as a means by which this industry can grow. The bio-processing facility itself would be approximately a thirty million dollar investment. The community colleges would contribute another fifteen million dollars as well as North Carolina Central so that funding from a variety of sources, including the Golden Leaf Foundation and Legislative investment would provide for continued operation. We would be able to get this facility up and running in about two to two and one half years. It is still being considered by the Golden Leaf Foundation as a major investment and they are looking for concrete evidence that the effect of such a facility would be strong collaborative impact on not only NC State University and NC Central, the two universities from the UNC system, but also on the community college system. The fact that this would be done in collaboration with industry is a very important consequence of the partnerships we have been able to foster.
As you know, you are here today because there was a fire last night. The library has a little bit of smoke damage but we believe it is going to recover very quickly. We have some people doing what they can to restore service as soon as possible. The fire started in the food court. It was not in the library. Although the cause is yet unknown, it is covered by insurance and so the university will not incur a major expense in addressing that fire.
The library has maintained its ranking from the Association of Research Libraries as 32nd in the Nation despite the fact that we have had to endure quite severe budget cuts.
Finally with respect to the position of Vice Provost for Diversity and African American Affairs, the Search Committee is identifying five candidates who will be coming to campus within the next several weeks. That commitment to diversity remains strong. I believe Joanne Woodard has done a wonderful job this year, filling in as Rupert Nacoste returned to the faculty.
The Climate Survey that was conducted last fall is still being investigated and amplified by additional studies through focus groups. One of the principle responsibilities for a new Vice Provost for Diversity and African American Affairs will be to embrace that study and to continue ways in which diversity is spelled out effectively on this campus. Thank you for your contributions this year. I draw special attention to Dennis Daley, who with Linda Brady chaired the Provost Search Committee, and of course a number of you who have served on that committee. It was, as anticipated, intense work but very important for the university.
Is there any possibility that ECU will end up with a College of Engineering? It is sort of leaning that way.
The Board of Governors commissioned a study last academic year which was not undertaken until this academic year. The group that came in from outside worked very strongly with Dean Masnari, and did recommend not to establish an independent school of engineering anywhere else in the state. They looked at Asheville, Western Carolina, and East Carolina in their analysis. The situation with East Carolina is the cloudiest. I can comment that Asheville continues to say positive things about our 2+2 program in mechatronics and looks forward to collaborating on distance education for additional options for their students in Engineering. Western Carolina has a similar arrangement with UNC-Charlotte for their needs. It is only East Carolina where there really is a question. Here too the report was very clear that there was no need for an additional Engineering school. There may be a need economically in the state for a program that would relate especially to Computer Engineering. I think the people at East Carolina, in trying to move away from what seems to me to be a well founded result established by very highly confident consultants, are thinking about Engineering that involves strange combinations or at least combinations that seem strange to me. One of these is teacher education. Combining a professional engineering education with teacher education is one that they are suggesting. One is their fine arts program. Again, I am not sure how that curriculum would evolve. One is systems engineering which I suspect is related to Computer Engineering in the way they are defining it, but I have not seen the detail. There is yet a fourth that has a rather strange combination of disciplines. On the one hand interdisciplinary proposals are interesting, but I think that the chances that East Carolina will be able to bring one of those to the floor at least this budget year are very remote indeed. Will it ever change from that? I cannot predict. I think for now the Consultant’s Report suggest that the programs remain the critical ones for the universities, supplemented by the undergraduate program at Charlotte.
8. Remarks from Dr. Bruce Howell, President of Wake Technical Institute
Chair Carter introduced Dr. Bruce Howell and presented him with a gift.
First of all, thank you for the invitation. Special thanks to you for the fact that you allowed my two children to graduate from North Carolina State.
We have all worked together for the improvement of education in North Carolina. Community Colleges and the university system worked a few years ago on the bond issue. I think we are all seeing the fruition of that bond issue. I just hope that the State of North Carolina is not so short sighted that we don’t get all of these wonderful buildings built. I would also like to thank you for the students that transfer from Wake Tech to NC State. Most young people today do not even know why they are in college, other than the fact that mom and dad wanted them to go. You would be hard pressed to find a class on our campus that had over forty students in it. The average class is going to have approximately thirty students. Our faculty gets to know each and every student, and they take them under their wings and "mother hen" them. Some of our students that are in university transfer programs end up being some of the best air conditioning and refrigerating people that you could ever find. Likewise, we will have a student who thought that he did not have the ability and wanted to become anything in the vocational area. We find out how gifted they are, and we encourage them to move into some other tracks. The truth is that any student that graduates with an Associates Degree at Wake Tech in the college or university transfer track will do better at North Carolina State than a student who comes to North Carolina State and puts in the first two years here.
I had twenty-three years at Wake Tech. We have had a great working relationship with the university. I would say that the last two Chancellors have been the best, and it has been great working with Chancellor Fox. I have worked for thirty-seven years in education and there are many days you sit at your desk and wonder if you are making a difference. Then you have a student who writes back as one who wrote back to me and said, "Dr. Howell I would like for you to know that I got my GED at Wake Tech. I got my Associate Degree at Wake Tech. I transferred to UNC Chapel Hill and I have just graduated. They have admitted me into the doctoral program. Would you mine writing me a letter? I really want to go to the Harvard Medical School." I do not know whether he got into the Harvard Medical School but I wrote the kid a letter. That is one of those days when you think that your faculty and you have made a difference. Paul Harvey used to say that whenever he left this world he just wanted everyone to know that he left the wood pile a little taller than he found it . I think that is the case with education. We need to leave the world a little bit better than we found it. Thank you very much.
Chair Carter thanked the retiring Senators for their service on the Faculty Senate, and asked the senior Senators from each college to introduce the new Senators.
Chair Carter recognized the 2002 and 2003 recipients of the Holladay Medal.
Chair Carter recognized Dr. Stuart Cooper, and presented him with a photo engraved copy of the Resolution of Commendation that was passed by the Faculty Senate for his term as Provost.
Chair Carter recognized Interim Provost Barnhardt and presented him with a signed book on Bolivian Textiles.
9. Transfer of Gavel
Chair Carter transferred the gavel to Chair-Elect Dennis Daley.
10. Issues of Concern
Senator Lytle stated a concern from some faculty members in CALS regarding the operations of the Institutional Committee on Animal Use and Care.
Chair-Elect Daley noted that the Research committee have been reviewing this issue.
Chair-Elect Daley adjourned the forty-ninth session of the Faculty Senate at 5:00 p.m.