JANUARY 24, 2006
Regular Meeting No. 10 of the 52nd Session
Present: Chair Allen, Secretary Bruck, Past Chair Daley, Parliamentarian Corbin; Provost Nielsen; Senators Baynes, Blair, Branoff, Brownie, Clark, Culbreth, Dawes, Fahmy, Fauntleroy, Fikry, Gustke, Hanley-Bowdoin, Hudson, Kellner, Khosla, Kinsella, Lindbo, Martin, Moore, Robarge, Schultheis, Scotford, B. Smith, R. Smith, Tetro, Williams, Wessels
Excused: Krotee, Yencho
Absent: Senators Banks-Lee, Blank, Hooper, Johnson, Overton, Young
Visitors: Katie Perry, Senior Vice Provost; P.J. Teal, Charles Leffler, Vice Chancellor for Finance and Business; Kevin McNaughton, Associate Vice Chancellor for Facilities; Suzanne Weiner, Head, Collection Management; Tom Kendig, Director of Transportation; John Mickey, Student Media; Zachary Moser-Katz, Student Media; David Rainer, Associate Vice Chancellor, Environmental Health and Public Safety; Barbara Carroll, Associate Vice Chancellor for Human Resources; Benny Benton, Editor of the Bulletin; Zach Adams, Student Senate President ProTempore; Thomas Conway, Dean of Undergraduate Academic Program; Melissa Watkin, Chair of the Staff Senate
1. Call to Order
Chair Nina Strömgren Allen called the tenth meeting of the fifty-second session of the North Carolina State University Faculty Senate to order at 3:00 p.m.
2. Welcome and Announcements from the Chair
Chair Allen welcomed Senators and Guests.
3. Approval of the Minutes, Meeting No. 9, January 10, 2006
The motion passed unanimously to approve the minutes.
4. Remarks from Michael Harwood, University Architect
My responsibilities are to assist the university with a master plan process. Every four to six years we go through this cycle because we know a lot from the preceding plan that worked and didn’t work and the things that have changed in the environment such as new teaching pedigogies, new departments begin to appear, etc. There are a lot of things that have changed therefore we continue to plan for a master plan. We have an update underway. Chair Allen represents the faculty and she has been a tireless supporter of our master plan efforts.
When we talk about master plan we are talking about a tool, not a document, not something that is on the web it is really meant to be something that helps frame decisions and begins to integrate many of the facets of the university, from our physical planning, academic planning and our finance. Looking back very briefly at the 2000 master plan process we had the series of workshops. We had advisory teams. We had a number of task forces focused on different issues and we had broad participation from the campus community. We developed a vision statement and we called it campus of neighborhoods and paths. We are not talking about the neighborhoods that some of us live in today or perhaps grew up in but a little more generic in the sense of a collection of communities focused around open space. We see the campus as being this tapestry of the special spaces that help folks begin to relate to the university on a more intimate level than the larger 30,000 students. It is sort of a hierarchy of ways to move through the campus and that is what we think are the unique features of NC State and what we want to continue to make all of our physical developments begin to help us implement.
The 2000 effort developed a series of guiding principles. These are value statements, metrics to use which we then evaluate the efficacy of each of our building projects. Admittedly I think we set the bar pretty high and you can point to many projects that don’t quite reach some of this criteria but we would much rather be in that situation than to set the criteria so low, therefore it doesn’t really mean anything. Now is an opportunity for us to weigh back in on these guided principles in our 2006 update. What do we need to change? What do we need to update? What is still relevant? There are a number of guidelines that we developed based around some architectural standards looking at the way we want to arrange doors and windows. We also have some landscape guidelines in the natural systems. You recall the first phase of the rocky branch stream restoration was somewhat concurrent with the development of the 2000 plan so there is intention there that we will be getting that stewardship of areas that have long been neglected on campus and continues until this day, from those guidelines and standards within a number of impact issues and you will recognize some of these still are relevant today. One thing I would like to point out is our master plan set the objective for university housing to reach 30% of our student total enrollment having that number of beds on campus. We think that a residential based institution is better for our students than a commuter situation. Transportation has a lot to do with that.
Since then we have made minor updates to the plan. They are categorized by a number of things and the ongoing dialog that we had with the City of Raleigh about our spring hill precinct and a number of faculty members helped challenge us and make some of the expectations and agreements that we have reached much better than what we had started out. The Physical Environment Committee is also a very important part of the process, of reviewing our master plan and considering updates.
This is what the master plan covers. There are twenty two hundred acres called the core campus. Main campus means so many different things but stretches from the RBC Center and Carter Finley Stadium down to the Farmers Market and approximately one half of that acreage is on Centennial Campus.
Today we have the same set of advisory team participants, workshops and task forces. We have completed five workshops in the fall semester. We tried to publicize that as much as possible but I think the most highly attended session was on Centennial Campus where there were approximately seventy-five people. Our goal is to use task forces to broaden the reach and to come and talk to folks like the faculty, student, and staff senates to discuss where we are and to receive input. We would be glad to do a workshop for the Faculty Senate.
We want to know about how we can make the campus more attractive. We understand that the students are making their choices not only on the academic credentials that you all bring to your various departments but what does it look like and how do they feel or do their parents feel that this is a safe and attractive place to come to school.
Sustainability is something that has been very important to the campus and it has been uneven over the years but I think that is continuing to climb as an issue as something that is very important to the campus or capital planning. I don’t have the answers for you today but I have an invitation for you to share what you think about where transportation should be dealing with our vehicles, our pedestrians, our service, all of those things need to get integrated in a way that really enhances campus appearance but we have to make sure that the university can function.
The activities on Hillsborough Street are heating up again. I look forward to having a seminar on the urban university. We had urban land institute conduct a round table last week that was very useful in getting some new ideas and some new participants in that process.
Rocky Branch is beginning to grow in and is beginning to look like what we envisioned.
On South Campus we have the courtyard and McKimmon Center and the new Welcome and Visitor Center that has now been occupied, working on the displays in the visitor center component and beginning to create a connection in the new neighborhood there.
On Centennial Campus the Biomanufacturing Training Education Center is going to continue the development there by Engineering II and Engineering I creating a new neighborhood.
Incremental growth is the area between Sullivan and Lee Hall. We are partnering between University Housing and our Facilities folks in putting in new sidewalks. It is an accessible space now and we have enhanced the landscaping and made that a much nicer area for the students.
The free expression tunnel will be accessible for the first time in April and I think this is going to be a wonderful opportunity for us to begin to connect our campuses that have been vibracated by that railroad track for a number of years.
We want you to be involved. We want you to be engaged in this process. We want your questions and concerns. I think the thing that distinguishes NC State is that we have a culture of people that expect their voice to be heard and we recognize and respect that. We want to hear your voice so that together we can make this master plan as good as it can be.
Questions and Answers
Senator Culbreth: I reside in Park Shops. What is in the current plan for that building?
Harwood: We are planning on supplementing the budget that we already had because as the market places eroded our purchasing power we have recognized that we need to be trying to shore up these projects that are at the tail end. The scope of that is to complete the Daniels Hall renovation so you can move into a new work facility and then we can go about the business of renovating Park Shops, as it is vacant. As we move into that building we are going to find a temporary home for the Delta classrooms. They will have first-rate facilities when we move them back into the buildings. Undergraduate Academic Programs will have a significant presence in that building.
Kevin McNaughton: This is a summary of the total bond. At the passage of the bond in 2001 the budget for Park Shops was $6.3M and now we have augmented that project by $4.0M in total budget that we have assigned to this $10.4M. In recognition of that increase of inflation we have moved money to that project and we were very careful at the front end to try to save our savings so that we would be able to take shortfalls at the back end. In fact we have augmented that project almost by about seventy percent.
Senator Kinsella: You talked about environmental sustainability as an operating principle. Could you break that down and tell us what some of the goals are that we are seeking?
Harwood: When we made that a guiding principle we didn’t go very deep and now the question is, what does sustainability mean at NC State? As I break it down to answer your question we are talking about what are we doing on the building side on the things that we do but what are we also doing on the environmental side, the things that are already there. How are we responding to those features that currently exist in the undeveloped or lesser-developed parts of our campus? There are really two components there. One of the things that we have been doing since the 2000 update is beginning to find what happened on the building side and many folks are familiar with the lead as a leadership in environmental education development but that is a criteria for evaluating, so what buildings really are being green. High performance buildings are another name for that. We have a task force dealing with sustainability to more accurately answer your question. My role is more to facilitate the campus creating the master plan rather than me coming down from some place and laying it all out for everyone. We have a listserv set up. We have ten or eleven task forces focused on things from sustainability to campus appearance to weight finding and campus edges. There are a lot of places to get plugged in to this development. It is our goal to get as broad of participation as possible. That is the success I believe of our 2000 plan.
Senator Kinsella commented that it is in the university’s interest to look for energy efficiency and be green in that sense but he thinks as a land grant and a science and technology university we have an opportunity to demonstrate leadership in that area so he hopes we are working toward that.
Harwood stated that we need to find a way to press at where we can.
Senator Martin: I recognize that a master plan can’t have the level of details that says we are going to spend “X” million dollars on this certain projects. One of the things that I think needs to be addressed in master planning is a level of facilities that gets out some of this sustainability and energy issues. When we walk across campus, how many windows do we see that are rusting out? How many window air conditioners do we see when we look at HVAC systems in most buildings? No way would they come up to standards. Even when we renovate new laboratories for new faculty to come in we end up having to do a lot of piece meal band-aid kind of things to appropriately outfit the building and so we are doing a lot of this piece mill stuff instead of the more comprehensive look. Could we in a master plan have a target that says by 2010 or 2015 we would have gotten rid of all window air conditioners? We will make sure that all HVACs are up to modern energy standards, all ventilation is up to modern safety standards. I think we really need to move toward making that kind of commitment for us to move forward otherwise we are just going to do a lot of piece milling patching sidewalks instead of actually restructuring what goes on. Is there any way we can get that kind of commitment into our master plan?
Harwood: Some of these are in our master plan. There are a lot of details. If you go to the web the whole master plan is there. You will see that we talk about more operable windows. We talk about energy efficiency. Some of those things are exactly the kind of feedback that we want to make that master plan even more effective and though I see it as an opportunity in that there is intention to do many of those things.
Vice Chancellor Leffler: When we started this bond program we had 1200 window air conditions and when we finish this phase of the bond we will be down to just under seven hundred which is about half. It is very important to remember that the bond program that we are currently in the middle of only addressed about forty projects across the campus. In terms of the number of buildings on this campus that it affected, it impacted less than 25% of our inventory. There is a lot of stuff that the bond program is not touching. I think sometimes there is often the perspective that the bond program is supposed to fix everything. It clearly is not going to fix every thing because if you look at our updated list of building repair needs as we begin to think about Bond II this past year we have about $1.6 billion dollars needed to do additional renovations. We have just scratched the surface of what we need and that does not take care of the things that are ongoing maintenance such as the re-roofing and things that have to happen. There is an awful lot of need that is unmet. We are going to see for some years single pain windows. We are going to see for some years some stand alone units sitting outside because it will be incrementally that we attack those things. I think that as you look at the current plan and you look at the next version that is coming along I think there is a great chance that we begin to peel back this onion a little bit more and talk about what does these guiding principles mean whether sustainability or whether its city context or whether it’s a host of those other things because there are paragraphs on those if you look at the master plan that kind of describes what they mean. I think that we have to make sure that we get to the right level of the right thing and the right point in time. There are some things we can drill down to right now and there are some things that we can wait to drill down to because we simply aren’t going to get to from a funding standpoint. We get on average for repairs to this campus in a good year approximately $10M. Our ability to go in and do window replacements is largely related to major bond programs. I think your comments about what we see on the campus and what we set as our priorities aren’t going to always necessarily appear in the right relationship with each other.
Senator Martin: I would like to see a little bit more specific detail and commitment instead of quite as much broad rush stroke. Like energy commitments for buildings. What are our big problems? To a degree our master plan has done more to articulate the brush strokes at where we would like to be. What are our problems? Let’s lay them out. I think we tend to be a little bit afraid to air our dirty laundry and in being afraid to air our dirty laundry people assume that we don’t need to address these problems. Everything is just visionary and we are going to get all of this wonderful stuff here on campus. We need to not be as hesitant to show them the lecture hall, the library that you can’t even sit in. We have these places on campus and I think we need to be a little bit more public about them even in our master plan. Let’s not be afraid to show some of our dirty laundry because I think that will help us in the long run.
Leffler: That is exactly what we have to do to show that we still have a need because the general public of North Carolina as you can guess thinks that they have taken care of the universities for many years with the vote they made in 2000. They truly believe that and it is going to take a tremendous sell job to convince the state that there are still needs out there if we want to keep top rated universities in the game. That is the challenge that we face, it is not just the Legislature. I don’t think the legislature will ever act on a bond program now that they have set the course of taking it to the voters each time. That is going to take a statewide campaign to convince them of something that we need and until we finish this one I don’t think they are even going to hear that. Of course we won’t really rap up this one until 2008 when we finish the final project so we have some work to do and we have to think about in ways that we probably haven’t in this state how things are funded and what it takes to run the enterprise called the state of North Carolina. We aren’t going to get there playing the game that we have been playing and I think our new President understands that, and I know for a fact that our new Chancellor understands.
Secretary Bruck: This being a research university, the enterprise of research necessitates access to buildings whether it is the delivery of goods and services from vendors, whether it’s the transfer of materials from the fields to a lab or whether its moving between campuses that it seems that we keep putting band aids on a problem. Is there a strategic plan? Where are we going to be in five years or ten years if we are going to maintain the availability of our facility for the enterprise of research and putting aside the individual problems that we all have?
Senator Robarge: I’m not hearing necessarily a clear message of how your plan is taking you to a capital research mission of the university and while transportation and human flow across campus is critical and certainly sustainability is nice there are practical issues that tend to compound. For example, the other day I was trying to get service on an instrument, which supports numerous research projects on this campus. To have a service man come was $275 an hour. He drove around this campus for two hours because he could not find a service space because it now appears that service permits are no longer available and therefore left. It brought forth the question, how are you soliciting and incorporating information about the research mission of this university into your plans and it has to be not only buildings where you can breathe the area and not be afraid of getting mold but also the mere fact that you have technicians coming back from three hours away who need to get access to the facility to bring their samples in and that is getting to be extremely difficult as well. There is that concern among the diversity of the research community here that there are no plans being made to accommodate them.
Harwood: One of the things that I think answers that is this area where we have now undergraduate science education was a research area and it was really in conflict with the people moving through there the delivery of the materials needed to support that research and so we have relocated those out to what we call west research annex to the Dearstyne Complex and those I think are functioning much better. We talk about Centennial Campus being largely an opportunity for us to remedy some of the very unique research activities and research needs beginning to biconcave the campus into the teaching and the research. I think that is a piece of what you are asking and that is what we have been doing with Engineering and with other research programs to look at ways that we can build new facilities rather than try to put band-aids on the old ones and put them in places where we have provision for those kind of special service needs.
Secretary Bruck: Whether we like it or not there are entire colleges that are not going to be on Centennial Campus, which are here and are research intensive and are going to be, and that is the perception that a lot of people have is that is what the strategic plan is, that we are going to worry about doing research over there. This is going to be a walking campus. It creates the same problem of the haves and have-nots, which is a perception of an awful lot of us on this campus.
Senator Martin: A research extensive university cannot be a walking campus. Either we are going to be a research extensive university or we are going to be a walking campus but you cannot have a walking campus and be a research extensive university. You have got to have access.
Tom Kendig: With regard to the lack of service vehicle spaces we have not changed the number of service vehicle spaces on North Campus. The service vehicles can park once they gain access to the campus. They can park anywhere in “B” zone. We have had this situation in the “B” zone that I never thought we would experience. We finally had enough folks move out that we have been able to sell some “B” permits for the first time in five or six years. There is space in the “B” zone. I am not sure why our technicians drive around for two hours unless they are looking for that very precise spot in front of the building. They can park in the “B” zone but if they are looking for that space right outside the door that may not be there.
Senator Robarge: I’m disturbed that the first words on your slides are not saying how the master plan impacts the teaching extension and research mission of this university so there is going to have to be priorities driven by that in my mind. We will never have enough spaces. We are looking at a campus that may have 38,000 students on it in less than ten years so the question of parking spaces as they physically exists had to be reprioritized along the lines of supporting our current mission which is extension, research and teaching and so there has to be the realization that we are going to have to give up the fact that a space may actually look empty for a while because its serving that higher mission. We have in our perception a disconnect between what we as faculty view as the primary mission of this university and impacts our daily lives versus the planning process and what is being done on that side of the fence.
Senator Fikry: You as an architect, as a designer you must realize that within the given area that we have there must be a separation number. How far can we go? How many students do we have so we can plan on that? Do you have that figure in your head?
Harwood: No I do not have that figure in my head but that is something that we have gone through two iterations of in terms of trying to align our enrollment targets with the space that is needed to support those enrollment targets and it is larger than what drives our capital planning process so that one of the things I think is a mistake is for me to tell you this is what we are going to do and this is how we are going to do it and then we have a debate over who is right and who is wrong. I think that the comments that Senators Martin and Robarge are saying are part of what we want this master plan to wrestle with and without this dialog, without getting you engaged in the process its going to just be my opinion and your opinion. We need to help guide that process so that we can come to a consensus about if we are a research intensive university what does that mean to us and how are we different than another university in another state and another city and so how do we localize those issues for us. I don’t agree with Senator Martin’s statement although I would like to think that there is a way to be both pedestrian friendly and a research campus it is just that we have to get created on how we think and plan for those crossings. As an architect I am always trying to think about the possibilities in how one can put things together in a way that maybe we did not think about and is different than what we have done before and that is what the master plan is really going to try to do is to make some decorative statements and that might be one of our guiding principles. It’s about the role of research within the activities that the university engages in and how do we appropriately deal with that. This is something that really invigorates me. The discussion of the idea and the concept is something that I think is really at the heart of our master plan, it is something I really embrace and want to get engaged in.
Senator Hanley-Bowdoin – The thing that I have been hearing is kind of a departmentalization and having now gone back and forth between campuses I think that we are really doing everybody a disservice because in reality a lot of things are always going to be on North Campus and you don’t want the faculty and students in the other campuses to be isolated from this campus or have barriers for them to come back and forth. There are lots of barriers right now. When it comes to people, book bags, and brief cases the bus works. When you get beyond that then the bus is not a viable option. I have students now that have learned not to tell the person at the gate at Pullen that they are a student because they need to get to Poe Hall to pick up or make a drop off and as soon as they tell that person that they are a student they are denied access. It is not simply facilities and how this place works it is the policies that are in place to facilitate the interactions across these campuses and this is going to become more and more of an issue as more people move to these outline locations and have to come back here on a regular basis which we want to do and which we should do if the processes are going to have so many obstacles in place. The master plan is not just buildings and pathways. It is also how you put policies in place to facilitate these processes.
Senator Fahmy: There should be something in the master plan to deal with connectivity so that the people who are working at the Vet School feel that they belong to the same university as us. Is there anything that facilitates movement of people around this campus and are there enough common areas that people get together in to feel that they are one university.
Harwood: I don’t know how interesting this is to the rest of you but this is really the kind of decor of what I feel really fascinating about our master plan because we are talking about how do we find community for NC State University. How do we really feel a sense of community? To me that is what I really want to hear when I see my role as trying to facilitate is answering that question. There are lots of examples and we can look at them in other campuses but some of them may not work well. What are the other things that we need to do? A word that does not appear in our master plan but was behind a lot of our thinking was the notion of hierarchy, that there is a hierarchy in the way that we make these connections. There are some big strokes but there are also a lot of smaller finer grain details. There is always going to be this tension between compartmentalization and connectivity and I think in some cases some things need to be compartmentalized. This is what I want our master plan to begin to answer and that the 2006 version is far superior to the 2000 version because it is touching on these issues that are the concern. I want to know what the students are saying. I want to know what the staff is saying. I want to know what our surrounding neighbors are saying because I think it is all those layers that get to the heart of this community, and how do we answer those. What are the specific things that we need to do at NC State? I come before you without any preconceived notion but a commitment that we need to find those together, that it is in finding them together that we build those connections and we build that community.
Senator Fahmy: Is there a way for somebody who doesn’t have a car and is not willing to walk for miles to go from one place to another place on this campus.
Tom Kendig: We have bus service out there now. We have twenty- three vehicles on the road at any given hour every day and we are providing all kinds of bus service every day between the campuses.
We went through a planning exercise similar to what Mike is going through and some of the solutions that were suggested by the folks who were involved in that process to address some of those needs. We are proposing a demand response type of service that would address that kind of need. You could call in the day before saying that you have to get from point A to point B at 10 a.m. and we would have a vehicle there to provide that service. We are moving toward that.
Chair Allen: Where might we put more parking decks and how many more cars could it handle?
Harwood: Tom Kendig and I have been having this conversation for a couple of months now because we thought that the remainder of the Riddick Stadium area would be the great place for some parking structures. As we went through that process and trying to decide how big and how many and started off with about 800 cars, 600 and bidding 400, we still have some issues about how you get in and out of there primarily for students that are going to be looking at this thing out of Syme Hall. That is still on the table but there are two other locations that we think are possibilities. One is the West Lot, which we think would take some of the strain off of Dan Allen and perhaps make that parking lot more preferable certainly to a lot of students. The third is one that we have talked about for a long time but we don’t have anything specific yet but would be the service lot next to the North Hall residence lot, which could be expanded and would provide some much needed parking.
Senator Williams: These are problems that we can’t solve. We don’t control Western Boulevard and Hillsborough Street; other governmental units control those. To what extent are we engaged with the people that have control over those areas? Western Boulevard is a big problem for NC State and there are things that need to be done. You risk your life trying to cross that street. When I was at Florida State we had the same situation and we had tunnels and over-paths for pedestrians to get across rather than risking your life trying to cross four lanes of traffic. Those solutions are going to require participation by other parties. We are a big citizen in this community and we need to make it known that we are a big citizen in this community and we have these problems that you have to help us solve.
Leffler: There was the effort in 1999 when the round about concept was put on the table, which was a community planning effort, which we co-funded with the city and then we did the pilot roundabout on Pullen Road to test that. Our efforts to get funding through the state were non responsive and as you may have heard in the last bond vote $3.0M is for Hillsborough Street and we have a planning effort right now with the city and with the community in the area talking about the priority for the street and redevelopment concepts. Some of these spots like North Hall have great redevelopment potential and we have to think about this street in a redevelopment way not just a fix. The Chancellor has met twice with the Mayor on this topic and so there is a lot of interest in this. I have assigned a person out of my office to work with Mike. Mike is a member of the Hillsborough Street partnership board, which is a collection of the neighborhood people, business people, the city and the university so we have a lot going on in that regard. The city has a little less involvement on Western Boulevard but it’s the same kind of interest that we have in trying to tame the street. We did actually fund some improvements to the cross walk three years ago and we funded some additional lighting on the street for safety. I think our Visitor Center on Western Boulevard is going to change the way we view that front door of the campus. There are a lot of things going on and all of those things are going to ripple to the edges of the master plan.
Senator Tetro: The brickyard is so huge that it is not friendly at all. I think that if we are going to remove Harrelson that it would really be nice to rethink how we make this a place for people to congregate. When that is done I would suggest that you put benches out there that have backs.
Senator Baynes: The comment was made earlier that we were ranked seventeenth. I think when people refer to us they may be referring to the landscape architecture or the need for some of it especially to the west side where I come from on the Centennial Biomedical Campus.
Harwood: I would love to come back and talk to you about this whole notion of the Princeton review and their methodology. That is a real hot button for me. We are not anywhere near the ugliest campus. I would be glad to engage in debate with anyone on the particular merits of that.
Senator Tetro: When I drive around UNC Chapel Hill campus at every crosswalk there is a sign that says it is a state law to stop with pedestrians. Is that because they are state streets and not university streets or is that a state law that applies on a campus as well like Hillsborough Street?
Tom Kendig: We have been requested to look into that and you are right they are doing that over there. There is a state law that applies universally in those types of areas and we just haven’t investigated. How they keep them there is an interest to me since we have signs that disappear nightly on this campus.
5. Remarks from Provost Nielsen
We completed the combined charitable campaign for this year. I thank you and everybody for an extraordinary effort. Our goal was $475,000 and we raised $505,000 but more important than that is our participation rate. Statewide the participation rate is twenty-eight percent and on our campus it is thirty-six percent.
Barbara Carroll, Associate Vice Chancellor for Human Resources is preparing an RFP for us to send out to daycares to place students for the next few years. We are still working on the plan to figure out how we can raise $5.0M to have our own day care center on campus. We are moving forward and hope to have some of that implemented by the fall semester. Our intention is to reserve spaces in two of the highest quality day care centers. When we started looking at the constraints on daycare facilities not associated with religious organizations with a high rating that were large enough to take twenty or thirty people, not having a waiting list and being in a location that would make sense for us the solution space got very small.
I would like to announce that Louis Hunt who has been the interim Vice Provost for Enrollment Management Services has accepted the position.
On behalf of the Chancellor we have hired David Jolley as the Associate Vice Chancellor for Development for a limited period of time. David is a retired banker from Charlotte who has been very active as a volunteer on the NC State endowment and other things. He is going to be there to see us through the end of the billion-dollar campaign.
The university has a new set of peers. These are peers against which we are benchmarked for lots of things such as salaries, student quality, etc. The peers are much better than they were before. The decision was made at the university system level to have no private peers, which we think is a good move. It includes some aspirational peers this time, which in our case are Wisconsin, Cornell, and Georgia Tech. We don’t consider Georgia Tech to be an aspirational peer for Engineering but it is a great peer for engineering to compare but it doesn’t match up well with the university as a whole so we had to put it in this other category.
We had a mini retreat of the university council yesterday to talk about the Strategic Plan. We received sixty-five comments, most of them significant comments. We have incorporated as much of that as possible into the next draft. I think we are at the point of saying with this next draft that it is done to that extent. Under a set of investment priorities we will have a number of documents that inform those investment priorities so if it says for example one of them is to create a great undergraduate experience the GER task force recommendations on what we would exchange would be a document that starts to inform that simple statement. A lot of comments that some of you and others had is not specific enough and the idea that these informing documents that are either out there or being commissioned by a task force will become the next level of specificity that then allows that to feed into the compact planning process. Thank you for your participation and your good words on that.
Senator Fikry wanted to know the status of the dean searches.
Provost Nielsen stated that we are currently searching for four deans. The dean of Natural Resources search is in the process of looking. They have past the deadline for saying that they would look at candidates. The committee has been formed for the search for the dean of engineering. That committee has been charged and has met at least once. The search for Humanities and Social Sciences, Warrick Arden will chair that committee. Last week I got back the recommendations from the faculty about what faculty members should be on it. I hope to get that committee formed this week. The dean of the graduate school is being chaired by Dan Solomon. The goal is to get the new people in place this summer.
6. Issues of Concern
Senator Bruck: Are we going to forgo the tradition of a baccalaureate liberal arts education required of all of our students regardless to whether it gets them the better job or not to make them better human beings?
Senator Martin stated that the Academic Policy Committee met with John Ambrose last week to get an update on the general requirements. I was pleased with the discussion. I did not get the sense that this was trying to in any way cut out a broader education when focused toward job training but in fact was looking the means to ruling against the education that we would like to see. In our discussion he outlined several different plans that were before the committee. None in any kind of final form, still very much under discussion. They are working trying to get something draftable to send out to the faculty this semester. John agreed to come to the Senate and give an update on what is going on and his recommendation would at the end of February give their committee more time to process the several items that are before them. These are some of the concerns that are before the task force.
Senator Martin stated that there is no easy answer. He thinks it will be helpful to have John come to the Senate and give an update on what is happening with the GER task force.
Dean Conway stated that the committee is going to probably report out with more than one option. There will be an opportunity for faculty and broad based university comments at that point. Ultimately it is going to come down to a discussion of what the investment strategies are going to be that the Provost talked about.
Provost Nielsen stated that in the latest version of the strategic plan we talk about strengthening the comprehensive nature of the institution by adding programming in humanities, social sciences, and fine arts to make the institution what we need it to be. I think there is a lot more. It is not about getting rid of this, it is about trying to figure out how to do it as well as we can within our means.
Student: I think it will be worthwhile to look at the success of the Ben Franklin scholars. Those students have a degree in CHASS and Engineering and all of the graduates that I know have done extremely well and have no problem finding a job. It would be a good target point if you do want to sell that issue.
Dean Conway stated that he would be surprised if it was different. “It is because of what society does to prepare students before we get them as much as what they get when they get here. It is really something that we have to develop strategies to articulate.”
7. Recommended Parking Changes for 2006-07
Senator Kellner: What is the ratio of tags issued to spaces available and how does that work in the transportation business?
Tom Kendig: Zone “B” has approximately 1200 parking spaces and there are probably fourteen to fifteen hundred permits issued. Overall we have about eighteen thousand plus parking spaces across campus and we sell about seventeen thousand six hundred permits per year.
Kellner: Is this an entirely self-financing operation?
Kellner: Are you in the hole?
Kendig responded approximately $4.0M in the hole. Behind that one page recommendation is probably thirty different scenarios that we put together to try to figure out a way to get us out of this. The worse case scenario $4.0M in retroactive fines and we have to pay all the way back to 1995. In order to get us through next year we definitely need the 9% increase. Subsequent years are worse case scenario.
Kellner: Are you talking about further increases in later years or not?
Kendig: We do show some increases in the subsequent years. We came up with a plan that has us borrowing an internal loan from the university and paying it back over ten years and that’s how we were able to keep those rates.
David Rainer: We have been trying to educate the legislature about the impact that their decision have had on our parking meters and the fact that our law abiding parkers are subsidizing the system for those who have the same parking privileges. We think the legislature does have the message. It has been impacting all the institutions across the state of North Carolina.
Senator Kellner: Are you saying that there are no longer any parking fines on campus?
Kendig: The constitution says the clear proceeds of any fines have to go to the county schools. What they leave up to the legislature is the definition of clear proceeds and that is what we are asking the legislature to take another look at right now is to find that 10% so I can have cost up to 90% I’m only able to keep 10%. We are asking them to take another look at that and have a more realistic definition of clear proceeds.
Senator Baynes: Could you explain to me why faculty with a “C” permit park in areas where its common use for students and faculty like the gym for example.
Kendig: We have “C” areas all around the gym. The area behind the gym is all “C” but the area in front on Cates Avenue is our residential student parking. That zone is “DE” and we do reserve that for them until 12 midnight. There are “C” zones all around there.
Senator Hanley-Bowdoin: A number of people hang on to their “B” permits not because of parking spaces but because of the access card since that is the only easy way to get on North Campus if you are coming from another campus. There should be a mechanism where you can get an access card to get on the campus to be able to get to the building that you need to get to and take care of your business and leave and not have it be a “B” permit. Has there been any consideration on coupling that access card from the parking permit and making it available to those people that have to go back and forth between the two campuses for things like that.
Kendig: At some degree yes. We have another permit out there called the “U” permit and that is designed for the folks that are not residing on North Campus. It has the same access. You maintain your card but it allows us to better understand the issue of how many people are actually on North Campus on a regular basis.
The “U” permit gives you more ability to park than the “B” permit.
Senator B. Smith: Faculty are blocked out of the “B” areas between five and midnight but students can park in the “C” areas between five and midnight so immediately at five o’clock the “C” areas are filled up with students and faculty can’t park in “D”. What is the logic of abandoning faculty from parking in “D” between five and midnight when the students have used up all of the faculty spaces?
Chair Allen moved that the meeting be extended beyond five o’clock.
The motion was seconded and passed unanimously.
Kendig: Those are our residential student spaces. We sell those one for one. If they go off campus they need to have a place to come back between five and midnight to park. The logic is we are trying to provide some protection for those residential students in that area. They don’t have any other place where that permit is good. They cannot park in the “C” zone and be there the next morning at seven o’clock and not get a ticket.
Senator B. Smith: The concern is that after five o’clock all faculty spaces are used up and the faculty that want to go to the gym after five can’t do it because the lot is full and they can’t park in the “D” spots. It is a senseless policy.
Senator Moore: If you are going to increase the “AS” spaces by 13% what are you going to decrease?
Kendig: Those are reserved spaces and there is only one permit sold for each one of those spaces.
Senator Tetro: How many “B” spaces are there next to the gym? Is the “AD” administrative in the same category as the assigned space meaning that they are for administrative staff members?
Kendig: There are no “B” spaces near the gym; that is a “C” zone over there. There are probably 200 spaces in that lot behind the gym.
A motion was made and seconded to adjourn the meeting.
The motion passed unanimously to adjourn the meeting at 5:10 p.m.