Left Navigation

Faculty Senate Home Agenda Faculty Senate Bylaws Committees General Faculty Items of Interest Mediation, Grievances & Hearings Meetings & Minutes Resolutions Senators
SEPTEMBER 9, 2003

 

Present: Chair Daley, Secretary Weiner, Past Chair Carter, Parliamentarian Corbin, Provost Oblinger; Senators Allen, Atkin, Beasley, Bernhard, Bitting, Branson, Brothers, Brownie, Bruck, DeLuca, Estes, Fahmy, Fikry, Griffin, Hammerberg, Honeycutt, Jasper, Kasal, Khosla, Matthews, McRae, Misra, Smith, Tetro, Tyler, Warren

Excused: Senators Batra, Headen, Hooper, Krotee, Peacock

Absent: Senators Lucovsky, Middleton, Rice, Stoddard

Visitors: Daniel Bunce, Bulletin Editor, NCSU News Services; Carrie Windham, Editor, Technician; Donn Ward, Faculty Athletics Representative; Judy Peel, Associate Vice Provost; Phil Moses, Director, Academic Support Program for Student Athletes; Lennie Barton, Alumni Association

1. Call to Order
The second meeting of the fiftieth session of the North Carolina State University Faculty Senate was called to order by Chair Dennis Daley.

2. Welcome and Announcements
Chair Daley welcomed Senators and Guests.

Chair Daley announced that there is a vacancy on the Fee Appeals Board. He is also looking for Senators to serve on the Watauga Medal Selection Committee, the Grievance and Hearings Panels, and the Honorary Degree Committee.

Chair Daley announced that the policy on excused absence from meetings is to notify the Senate Office in advance.

Chair Daley announced that a Phi Beta Kappa Lecture will be held on Thursday, September 18th at 3:00 p.m. in Multipurpose Room of the Witherspoon Student Center.

3. Approval of the Minutes, Meeting 1, August 26, 2003
The minutes were approved unanimously.

4. Remarks from Provost Oblinger
Provost Oblinger shared ten items that he felt the faculty would have more than a casual interest in.

Campus Safety has been a topic of conversation and concern for a while now. The Chancellor has asked David Rainer and Tom Younce to Chair a task force on campus safety. They are in the process of rounding out the membership of that task force.

Judy Peel led a session of department heads last week on the subject of Reappointment Promotion and Tenure. There were approximately fifty department heads present. There was good discussion both in terms of the process in general, but also specific things or objectives that are in the Provost Office relative to enhancing that process from the standpoint of communication and understandability this year, and particularly years into the future. Provost Oblinger stated that this is not just an investment for this point and time, but also an investment that will carry us well into the future.

Compact Planning sessions have begun. "I have had several of those with the Vice Provost. I will soon be starting those sessions with the Deans. I encouraged everyone that was present at the Fall Faculty Meeting that I am really looking for faculty involvement and I have traced some of the history of compact planning as a process, and at one time it was just new initiatives, and then we transitioned into new initiatives and reinvesting in areas of excellence. I believe I gave you the tip of the iceberg as it relates to prioritization in this next round with me at the helm as Provost. We will be discussing new initiatives, reinvesting in high quality programs, and we will be discussing prioritization. I have charged both the Vice Provosts and the Deans with that and I am here before you today to tell you that the Chancellor has charged the Vice Chancellors that report to her with the same set of instructions for Compact Planning. I would like to reflect that this is continuity in terms of an approach to a very important process and set of procedures on this campus."

Dean Oscar Fletcher has announced his intention to step down as Dean of the College of Veterinary Medicine effective June 30, 2004. He is willing to step down sooner if a replacement is found before then. "I will be meeting later this week with Senators, the administrative team, and the faculty in the College of Management to discuss the search to replace Dean Bartley. I have scheduled a meeting in late September for the senators and faculty in the College of Veterinary Medicine."

"I have just returned from fourteen hours of meetings in the Office of the President. I attended my first Chief Academic Officers Meeting at OP. As it relates to mediation, NC State was held up as a model in the system for what we are doing with faculty and staff and I think we will hear more about that because they are very aware of the policies and procedures that we have put in place. In fact, Chief Legal Counsel for OP, Leslie Winter talked about this and that there may be lessons learned for the rest of the campuses in the system. I hoped that you would be proud of that because I know that the Senate has invested greatly in that endeavor."

"Also discussed was enrollment planning which is taking on more and more meaning, particularly as we have burgeoning populations of first time students coming to the campuses, and at the same time our graduate enrollment across the system is like here at NC State. We have experienced not quite the robust growth in graduate education and enrollments as we had projected. It seems to be a trend across the system."

Teacher education was another topic of considerable importance. Teacher education as it relates to lateral entry, because of a very significant deficit in the not too distant future, in fact, of right now some five to six thousand teachers who are certified in the subject matter areas that they are responsible for. This is a great concern to not just the Department of Public Instruction, but also the system, and we of course through our College of Education and in other ways play an important role in that overall area.

Another area that is particularly important to a research extensive institution like ours is another round of the National Research Council’s Doctoral Program Reviews. Last done in 1995, is dramatically changed in this next round which will gear up late this Fall dealing with four general program review areas: the life sciences, physical and mathematical science and engineering, social sciences, and humanities. These four topical areas are a change for us. "We will need to eventually get to the point of listing faculty name by name in each of those areas. A challenge because we are not at all put together the way this survey instrument is put together from an organizational standpoint. I think this campus, in most if not all of those areas has significant strengths that will actually come closer to the surface than they did the last time we had that in our NRC review which I mentioned was in 1995.

Early next week the first meeting of the tuition task force will take place. You have representatives in that group. We are trying to maintain continuity from last year’s task force on tuition as much as possible. You may or may not recall that last year’s group said two things that were very important as it related to campus initiated tuition increases, and those overarching themes were financial aid for students, to keep that focused sharply as one discussed campus initiated tuition increases, and the other broad based area of interest was academic excellence. There were a variety of factors that played into academic excellence; for example, faculty salaries, program availability, course availability, advising and mentoring of students. Those are all academic quality enhancers defined by last year’s team and that is where we are going to pick up where we left off with this meeting next week. There is also going to be a separate task force on fees. I can tell you that they listed in the enabling paragraph of establishing this group from campus to campus that there needed to be four entities present: Student Affairs, Finance and Business, Students, and Financial Aid. On our campus last Friday morning at the Executive Officers meeting we added a fifth group, Academic Affairs, read that as Provost or the Provost Designee to that group of five people who will sit and listen or hear appeals from the individuals that are proposing any change in fees. The important reason I thought it was appropriate for the Provost to be present or his designee, in this case Tom Miller, would be to participate in those sessions but also there is a fee known as the educational technology fee that comes this route as well. Those five individuals will be Tom Stafford, Chair; Steve Keto will be the finance and business representative, Tony Caravano or his representative as it relates to students, Tom Miller on behalf of the Provost Office, and Julie Mallette as it relates to scholarships and financial aid. That panel will hear proposals on fees.

When you hear us talk about the SACS Accreditation Review and you have heard about the compliance reports, you have also heard about the quality enhancement plan learning in a technology rich environment (LITRE). I just wanted to plug EDTECH 2003: Achievement in the twenty first century learner. There are elements that are going to be very strongly echoed at these presentations that will impact us for a long time particularly as they are considered to be participants in the LITRE Program that we have moved forward over time.

I have selected a Senior Vice Provost. I have completed the appropriate paperwork and Dr. Katherine Perry will be joining the office on October 1st. Those of you that know Dr. Perry know that she has been for the last six years the Associate Dean for Administration in the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences. Prior to that, a Department Extension Leader in Horticulture, prior to that an Associate Department Head in Horticulture, and prior to that one of the individuals who geared up what we now refer to as the State Climate Office which is a joint effort between Agriculture and Life Sciences and Physical Mathematical Sciences. She is a PhD in Meteorology. I hope you will appreciate the fact that I had three superb candidates to choose from and I would rate Dr. Perry very high as it relates to bringing rationale and reason to processes and procedures. This is especially true from the standpoint of the very complex organization from which she is coming. That does not detract or discount from the other two candidates. It is what your Provost felt that he needed the most at this point and time and I believe she will do a good job. I would ask for you to judge her on her performance and not based on where she came from. Thank you.

5. Issues of Concern
Senator Tyler submitted a concern from a faculty member about the library’s listing of people who are on editorial boards and the concern that this somehow leads into the university’s desire to gain control of the copyright of publications and that this could be a disadvantage to the university.

Chair Daley assigned the concern to the Resources and Environment Committee.

6. Admissions
Interim Vice Provost Thomas Conway handed out literature that is sent out to prospective students and their parents. He discussed the issues associated with students who will be under special consideration for admission.

We set a goal this past year for bringing in a freshmen class of 3,650 students. Midway through the cycle we received mandate from the Office of the President that we had to increase our number by two hundred. Our new goal became 3,850. As of census date we enrolled 3,854 new freshmen. One of the issues that we are working with in Admissions is the spread of those 3,854 students. There are still programs that have capacity for taking students and within that spread there are programs that are overburdened with students. The issues with bringing that class in have been raised with financial aid and we have looked at moving up the dates for students being notified of their financial aid packets so they can make decisions earlier. In addition to that, through Registration and Records we have worked very closely with the colleges and departments to make sure that the new students coming in would have seats in classes and schedules when they showed up for the first day.

I brought this document to point out to you that as North Carolina State is going through the process of its growth, we really are being true to our goal to increase both excellence and access. If you look at last year’s freshmen class, the fall 2000 numbers are numbers that have been scrubbed by University Planning and Analysis. The numbers listed as 2003 were the data that was taken from the admissions files as of July 30th because a publication date had to be met for getting information out. This is data on the middle 50% of our incoming freshmen classes. If we only report the top of our class it actually deters some very good students from applying. If we only give the average, it still does not give students a sense of where they fit within our freshmen class. In terms of class rank the average for the middle 50% is in the seventeenth percentile of their class. So the point that I would make here is that our classes really are getting better. I would also point out to you that 37% of last year’s students were in the top 10% of the class that constituted 1,251 students. In this year’s freshmen class 40% of them are in the ten percent. The numbers went up by approximately 200 points. There are some quality measures that we look at that indicate North Carolina State students are coming in much better prepared. We are indeed moving forward in that regard.

We talked about students who would require special consideration for coming to the university. This has its origins in the conversations about the old admissions exceptions. From 1990 until 2001 the definition that we used for admissions exceptions was the admissions index. Any student admitted to the university with an admission index below 1.8 was labeled an admission exception and we had to report admission exceptions to the Office of the President. In 2002 we started looking at what the admissions index was, and was not, telling us about students. We found that the admissions index is a very good tool for doing broad stroke cuts but not a very good tool for making individual decisions about students. We are trying to move away from the notion that there is a cut score on any of our criteria. We want to review the total package and discuss what the student brings to the institution. This puts us in line with top tier institutions around the country. As that change was made, there was a lot of dialog about what needed to happen next, and the agreement was that I meet with the Executive Committee of the Faculty Senate. The Executive Committee of the Faculty Senate assigned it to the Academic Policy Committee. There were joint meetings between the Academic Policy Committee and the Admissions Committee. Out of those meetings there was an agreement that the Academic Policy Committee had endorsed the Admissions Committee as the group of faculty that should be charged with monitoring this process for the university. I continued to meet with the Admissions Committee and came up with a set of criteria for looking at students who we would identify for monitoring, students who we have been admitting to the university all along. Rather than looking for a group of students to identify as exceptions, we want to look at students who we are admitting, and then look at how we are serving those students that we would generally agree would be at risk for academic success. Who is in this category? There are going to be some political admits in this category. There are going to be some students identified by academic departments as uniquely suited for their particular majors and programs. There are going to be some legacy admits. There are going to be some student athletes in this group. We looked at numbers to see. The criteria that we identified for the broad group was we would identify students with an SAT score below 900, an SAT verbal or math score below 420, students who come to us who have graduated in the bottom half of their class, and any student we are looking at with a high school GPA at 2.5 or below. We looked at those numbers and we looked over the course of three prior classes asking the question: How many students would that generate for us to review? In the year 2000, that generated a number of 114 students. In the year 2001 that generated a number of 188 students, and in the year 2002 that generated a number of 110 students. Of those 114 students in 2000, twenty-two were student athletes. Of the 188 in 2001, twenty-eight were student athletes and of the 110 in 2002, thirty-four were student athletes. In my dialog with the Admissions and Academic Policy Committees we started to focus on our institutional values of offering students opportunities. We also have as a value providing support for students that we bring in. We have agreed to set up a mechanism whereby the Admissions Committee becomes the group that will monitor the academic progress of these students and the committee will also have input into the next round of changes that may need to be made and how we go about looking at these students at the admissions phase. We talked a lot about pulling together the committee and looking at all of the students as they were being admitted. It was the general agreement that that is not a good use of faculty time. We have an admissions process that requires us when we are looking at students to look at the academic departments and the academic support people who would work with these students and get a read on whether or not we believe the services that we offer can serve the students well.

As we made our changes, the Office of the President has also changed the minimum course requirements for the admission to the university system, which will ratchet up for the 2004 and again for the 2006 class. The students entering in 2004 will be required to have two courses in the same high school foreign language course for admission. Up until this time it has been highly recommended, and in 2004 it becomes a requirement. In 2006 there will be the requirement of a fourth math course beyond the Algebra II level. The Department of Public Instruction is currently working on a set of courses that will be available to students in their high schools to fulfill that requirement. The Office of the President also said, because particularly NC State and UNC Chapel Hill, recruit all over the country, there are going to be some systems that do not require their students to have four math courses or may not require the students to complete the two foreign language courses, there is the option for waiving those requirements for students that have outstanding academic records or bring something to the institution that the institution values. If we admit those students we are required by the Office of the President to report those students to the Office of the President and to the Board of Trustees. At the same time that this is going on with the Office of the President, they changed both their policies on the minimum course requirements and the policy on student athletes. The NCAA changed its policy on progress for student athletes. Up to this point, after two years student athletes have had to show that they have completed at least 25% of their requirements for graduation in the major that they are in. After three years it went to fifty percent. After four years it went to 75%. The NCAA now stipulates that after two years it is going to be forty percent completion towards degree. After three years it is going to be 60% and after four years it is going to be 80%. The idea is to push student athletes toward graduation at a faster rate. What that 40-60-80 does with us is it lines up with what we had begun to require with our progress toward degree regulation. It does not change anything at all for student athletes coming to North Carolina State. The NCAA also dropped its minimum requirement based on SAT scores. Up to this point the minimum SAT score that a student could get and qualify for NCAA eligibility was an 820, and the minimum high school grade point average was 2.0 to qualify for NCAA eligibility. With the 820, a 2.5 grade point average was required for graduation from high school. With the new regulations the NCAA has put forward, they have done away with that part of their scale and have extended the scale to go the full range of grade point average and SAT. Consequently on the extreme a student with a 1300 SAT score could have a high school grade point average below 1.0 and be eligible for NCAA competition. A student with a high school grade point average of 3.55 could actually be eligible with an SAT score of 400. That puts an onus on us to take a look at the students that we are getting in. The specific instructions that came back from the Office of the President stated, "We must look at the students that we are admitting and make a determination that the students we are admitting can graduate from the institution." We are looking at developing the metrics that will allow us to make those kinds of determinations with the understanding that we are going to be presented records of students that are very different from what we have been looking at. We are going to be working very closely with the Admissions Committee to work our way through this and come to some understanding of what is best for the students that we are looking at bringing in the university in that regard. My report to you today is that we are continuing to do what we believe we have been asked by you to do and that is work with the Admissions Committee to come up with a process that works.

Senator Allen wanted to know how many of the thirty-eight athletes are football.

Conway stated that it is probably a significant number because football is a significant portion of our incoming student athlete cohort. There were 148 in the 2003 class. "We are looking at a list of 148 student athletes that we brought in and of that 148, twenty-two would probably be football and of that twenty-two there may be less than ten that would be targeted for this.

A senator wanted to know if the comparable count number to the 110 in the 2002 class is with the 2003 class.

Conway stated that the data is going to be scrubbed by University Planning and Analysis and will be available after the October 15th date.

Senator Fahmy wanted to know what dual enrollment is.

Conway stated that those are students that are registered for university level courses while they are still in high school. He noted that more and more students are starting to accumulate university credits while they are in high school.

Senator Fikry wanted to know the meaning of ethnic origin as it is referred to on the report handed out.

Conway stated that looking at the middle 50% of our students, two percent of that population would be Hispanic in that regard.

Conway stated that the October 15th data is the data that will be used to report officially to UNC General Administration.

Senator Griffin commented that the top 25% of the class will definitely reflect performance scores that may actually be lower than the middle 50 percentage.

Conway stated that the way the numbers are compiled, there is almost no chance of that. The top 10% is taken out so they are going to be the students with the highest predictors coming in. There may be some areas where a student may be in one versus the other but that is not generally going to be the case.

Senator Atkin wanted to know when the NCAA will start the new sliding scale.

Conway responded, with this incoming freshmen class. "We actually have two NCAA progress rules in place now. The new initial eligibility rule that includes that expanded scale came in with the entering 2003 class."

Chair Daley wanted to know the status of the special exceptions that were admitted in 2002.

Conway stated that in 2002 six students were admitted as exceptions. Four of the students were football players, one was a basketball player, and one in a non revenue sport. Of those six, five are in good shape relative to their continuation for the upcoming year. There were two students below 2.0 and the others were above. The one student that was not eligible essentially checked out at the end of the first semester. That student was probably the best academically qualified in terms of the general projections. There were other issues that caused that person to leave.

Senator Bitting stated, "Given our mandate to provide services to assure that such admits do achieve success while they are here, is it your sense that those services are in place or are there gaps that need to be filled?"

Conway responded that he would argue that what we are going to need to do is organize existing services and make sure those services are being taken advantage of by students. "We are going to require that academic or administrative units advocate for students that they want to have considered under the special considerations process. When they advocate for them we are going to start discussing what is in place to make sure these students are supported by the areas that are advocating for them."

7. Remarks by Lennie Barton, Alumni Association
Dr. Lennie Barton, Associate Vice Chancellor for Alumni Relations stated that the Alumni Association provides a lot of services. There are 40,000 living alumni at this university. There are 88,000 in North Carolina and 34,000 in Wake County. "Our mission is to reach out and keep these people engaged with the university and to try to be a service to them. We also want to serve our faculty and students. Many of you know we are responsible for the Caldwell Fellows Program. We have about a $12M endowment. We gave 119 scholarships last year so we are trying to promote academic excellence and serve the students. We also want to serve faculty. I went to Honors Convocation this past year and presided over an event where we gave out 18 outstanding faculty awards. That was $68,000 in stipends. Those awards are $3,000 per year for two years. I would encourage you to think about that. In fact, I am planning to have a dialog with the Provost in the future because it is my understanding that several colleges did not even nominate any of their faculty for these awards. We want to make sure that happens.

Dr. Barton handed out a special faculty edition of the Alumni Magazine. He noted that one article in particular is on professors who shape the lives of students.

Dr. Barton announced that on Wednesday, October 22, 2003 at 12 noon the Alumni Association will be sponsoring a picnic at the Talley Student Center to honor faculty. He noted that the Alumni Association wants to spread the word about what they do and want to honor the faculty and thank them for their services.

Dr. Barton recognized Dr. Philip Carter as the retiring Chair of the Faculty and presented him with a Captain’s Chair from the Alumni Association.

8. Athletics Update
Dr. Donn Ward, Faculty Athletics Representative stated that with regard to expansion that when he met with the Faculty Senate’s Executive Committee during that expansion process they had a very good give and take dialog that he felt was productive. The end result of that dialog was a series of issues that he was charged with taking to his colleague at the conference level to discuss. Dr. Ward forwarded the information to the Chancellor indicating that he had promised to take it to the conference. The Chancellor took up the issue as well. Those issues have been brought before her peers within the conference just last week. "I have not yet done that because we have not met. Those 5 issues were sent to you. They involved the delineation of clear policies regarding the role of the faculty athletic representative and relevant structures of faculty governance such as Faculty Senate, Standing Committees, so as to facilitate and ensure appropriate faculty involvement in athletic related decisions. I view this as an institutional issue and not a conference related issue. The policies regarding the actions and activities and the relationship vis a vie my responsibility, the Council on Athletics’ responsibility and the Faculty Senate’s responsibility."

On the other four issues:

Limits or some guidelines on the distance students can travel during the week and the amount of class and study time they can miss in order to participate in competitive sports. Such limits will have to be discussed with coaches, students and faculty. A great issue, one that I think will have some interest at the conference level.

Limits on the number of long distance trips that the teams must take to participate in ACC competition.

Limits on the number of Thursday night games as they have a devastating affect on the classroom participation by athletes, and spectators alike in Friday morning classes.

Limits on the number of 9 p.m. games for the same reasons sited above.

"I can assure you that these will be taken to the conference. I can assure you that some of our coaches applaud the discussion that will take place. I also want to tell you that change is a process, not an event. Therefore, by the Chancellor taking these issues and talking with her peers, and by me doing the same, will just initiate the discussion. I hope somewhere down the line that some reasonable accommodation of these particular issues can be arrived at. As I indicated to the Executive Committee I certainly cannot make any promises that these will be embraced and accepted wholeheartedly. In fact, I will probably say that they will be debated and discussed wholeheartedly and with a reasonable amount of spirit. I do feel that in the long run that some accommodation can be made on some of these issues. I do also think that the ACC will have to initiate dialog with other conferences so that we are not on the breezy limb alone, that in order for these things to be truly effective, other conferences would have to come into line and agree to support the ACC and its endeavors should we move in this direction."

The other item that you were sent electronically regarding the academic and athletic highlights for 2002-2003 is that there were six special admits for student athletes during 2002-2003. There were no changes in the initial eligibility standards for the student athletes that were enrolled in 2002-2003 but for student athletes that enroll in this falls (2003-2004) cohort there were some significant changes in initial eligibility standards for that group of athletes. There is also a significant change to the continuing eligibility standards that these enrollees in 2003-2004 will be measured against. For your information, we have two systems operating now, those coming in from 2003-2004 and those who matriculated earlier. Both of those requirements are in the document that was mailed to you. All of this is being driven by the desire of the NCAA Division I Chancellors and Presidents to significantly improve the graduation rates of our student athletes. Consequently, they have elevated the bar and it remains to be seen if it accomplishes what it is intended to. I have every reason to believe that there will be some significant progress in that area.

We had 109 student athletes on the Dean’s List and 228 had 3.0 GPAs for the fall of 2001 and 192 had 3.0 or better for spring of 2002. Sometimes I think we focus on the challenges and fail to recognize that we have some outstanding student athletes in all of our sports who do an exceptionally fine job of representing this institution both athletically and academically.

I want to also note that the NCAA graduation rate for the 1996 cohort of freshmen recruited student athletes that were receiving financial aid was 64% which was the same graduation rate that we reported for the student body as a whole. Please note that when student athlete graduation data is reported it is not for every student athlete that you see out there. It is only reported for those that were recruited and are receiving financial aid. Walk-ons do not count. Mid-year enrollees do not count. Consequently there are a number of people who do quite well who do not end up in the calculation.

The six-year graduation rate running four-year average stands at fifty-nine percent. The NCAA six-year graduation rate for men’s basketball was seventy-five percent. The graduation rate for women’s basketball was fifty percent. These numbers fluctuate dramatically because their incoming classes are so small.

The graduation rate for student athletes who receive financial aid and who exhaust their eligibility here (play all four years for which they are allowed to by the NCAA) the ten year running average since 1986 is now eighty-four percent.

The NCAA Board, composed by representative CEOs from the Division I Institutions is now actively engaged in a process to develop a set of legislations that can be couched in terms of an incentive/disincentive proposal. They would be able to penalize institutions and teams of those institutions that perform poorly in the classroom, and the other side of that same coin would be the ability to reward those institutions and specifically those teams that do well. This is still a very fluid situation. The legislation has not, in fact, been drafted and voted on in its final form, but I can assure you that something will happen.

Individual sports teams at institutions that do not do well academically will ultimately expose themselves to some penalty from the NCAA. That penalty may be, loss of scholarships, could ultimately be the inability to participate in a conference or division championships or post season play. What is being suggested is that there be a metric defined in which you look at your incoming students and get points for those students who retain their eligibility and remain in school. If they retain their eligibility this semester you can earn two points per student athlete. One point for remaining eligible and the other point for staying in school. Over the course of an academic year one student athlete could earn his or her team four points. Ultimately a metric will be devised with a cut point so that teams that meet that cut point are going to be okay. Teams that do not meet that cut point will be compared to a metric comparing all Division I teams. If, in fact, they are on the right side of that cut point that will be established by the CEOs then they will be fine. If they are to the left of that cut point then they go to another filter. That other filter will be to compare that team to other teams and how they have done in keeping their athletes eligible and keeping them in school. If they are to the right of the cut point, no penalty imposed. If they are to the left of the cut point they go to a third and final filter. That third and final filter will be comparing that team’s metric to the student body at that institution. It was deemed appropriate to compare it to the student body because of the varying mission at different institutions. To hold a team accountable after being compared to "elite schools" that graduate a large portion of their students in general was deemed inappropriate, so you needed to compare it with the students at that institution. If, in fact, you are to the right of that cut point, no penalty imposed. To the left of it, then you would be subject to sanctions. Initially the CEOs are talking about letters of warning, etc., but ultimately scholarships will be lost, post season competition will be lost to those teams that do not get their act together, and in fact, start retaining their student athletes and keeping them eligible. Why all of this? Because data shows that if you can retain your student athletes at an institution, keep them level and on course to graduate, then ultimately they do graduate. All of this is fluid. It was proposed and I actually told our coaches here that it was going to be in effect and then the CEOs decided against it for this year, but there is a contemporaneous penalty that will be imposed. If you as a coach have an athlete on your team who is not eligible and does not come back to school at that institution, then the penalty is that you lose that scholarship for one year. Originally they were talking about this starting to go into effect this coming year with the incoming recruiting class but the NCAA Division I Board of Directors felt that the institutions had not had enough warning. Therefore this will be in effect beginning with the incoming class next year. There will be a contemporaneous penalty imposed if any student athlete who is on your team, is not eligible and does not come back to that institution to try to regain their eligibility. Then in fact, a scholarship will sit on the shelf for one year.

Senator Bruck stated that he could figure out how to corrupt that system in about 3,000 different ways. "What is to prevent me at Southern Alabama, Southwest State University from creating an entire curriculum of pablum for athletes where you could not flunk out if you had a 37 IQ, compared to NC State where we have electrical engineers and pre med students. In other words, you are going to punish one institution that has really tried to uphold aggressive athletic and academic standings. You are going to take a third rate university and literally reward them for having them retain students who are going to graduate with nothing.

Dr. Ward stated that there is nothing to prevent an institution from doing that. Those institutions will have to live with themselves.

"I wanted to give you heads up because it is coming or some variation around that theme. We do not know what the cut points are going to be yet. That is going to be established by the Board and they have gotten data from every Division I Institution and have been playing around with how this might look. I have told our coaches that they are not going to set a cut point that does not hurt anyone. They are going to set it so that it catches somebody. I feel confidant that what is set will not be chiseled in stone. The idea is that it will be continually ratcheted up to continually push programs to graduate their student athletes."

The Council on Athletics bylaws states that the Faculty Athletic Representative will be evaluated every three years. My third anniversary is coming up in February, and so consequently I alerted the Chancellor to this and she is going to set the wheels in motion for me to be evaluated. She has indicated that it will involve the various constituencies that I interact with. I am saying that not to illicit any support, just to give a heads up.

Senator Tetro stated that she is curious based on the guidelines of class attendance in the course catalog in which it is up to the discretion of the faculty member to decide if the absence in that persons’ class is excused or not excused. "When the conference looks at that or when we look at that are we going to verify that the class attendance policy that we have here at NC State is comparable to the ones that they have at other institutions because if ours is more strict than theirs or theirs is more strict than ours then that is going to be problematic."

Ward stated that he thinks that the idea is to get some sort of handle on scheduling so that when we do play these competitive events that no one particular institution or team at an institution is competitively disadvantaged by being out more than their peers at other institutions.

Ward stated that he would have to agree with the coaches when they tell him that at the end of the day more often than not, the thing that they are evaluated most heavily on are wins and loses. "I think that is changing a little bit at this institution and I know that through the efforts of the Provost and Chancellor’s offices and the Academic Support Program that I think we are on an up tick in our ability to get student athletes at this institution who do have a reasonably good likelihood of graduating. We just need to keep them here."

Senator Fikry wants to know how many of the athletes continue on to graduate school.

Ward stated that he has never really researched that but feels that there are a number of athletes who do matriculate into a graduate program somewhere. It is not an uncommon thing but he does not have any data for that.

Phil Moses stated that looking at the number of ACC post-graduate scholarships for the last seven years, out of our 23 nominees, twenty of them have won post-graduate scholarships.

Senator Jasper suggested that incentives that were being discussed above, factor in whether the school or the academic program is accredited.

Ward stated that he knows an individual who is on this particular committee and he can take that suggestion to him. He is Jack Davis who is the Faculty Athletics Representative at Chapel Hill.

Senator Jasper stated that he would propose that he would. It would not hurt our institution.

Ward stated that having not been involved at establishing any of this he is not sure what obstacles that would establish with a group in trying to deal with it. "On the surface there seems to be some merit to it but I will talk with Jack."

9. Memorial Statement in Honor of Dr. Thomas N. Blumer, Professor Emeritus of Food Science
Dr. Donn Ward, Professor and Associate Head of Food Science presented a memorial statement to honor Professor Emeritus Thomas N. Blumer.

10. Memorial Statement in Honor of Dr. Dan Guerstel, Professor of Genetics
Dr. Fred Corbin, Professor of Crop Science presented a memorial statement to honor Professor Dan Guerstel..

11. Committee Reports
Senator Scott McRae, Chair of the Personnel Policy Committee stated that the committee has met briefly and decided on two or three issues to work on. One is diversity and they also plan to continue looking at the RPT process regulations and implementations and also the new report of the University RPT Committee. They will also consider the final version of the special faculty ranks regulation. He would like input from the Senators on diversity. As far as RPT he would like ideas based on the senators’ reservations of the process in things that they see and do not see happening. He noted that he is not looking for grievances since that is another process.

12. Adjournment
Chair Daley adjourned the meeting at 4:45 p.m.


Footer Nav