NCSU's chief structure for faculty governance is the Faculty Senate. The entire voting faculty, by college and school constituencies, is involved in electing this body, which, along with its committees and the University Standing Committees, plays an active role in advising the chancellor, provost and other administrators on any and all matters involving academic affairs and other topics that are if interest and concern to the faculty. The administrators may or may not accept the advice of the Faculty Senate.
Most of NCSU's system of faculty governance has been in place since 1954, since which time the University has grown from a relatively small, technically oriented college to a premier, world-class, general research university. The extensive institutional evolution of the University has prompted some to call for changes in the faculty-governance system. The April 1991 report of the Burniston Committee, the September 1991 Faculty Governance at NCSU: Why and for What Purpose? report of the Watauga Seminar, and the 1992 report of the Faculty Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Faculty Governance all call for very extensive restructuring of the committee system, a renaming of the Faculty Senate, and a large increase in the senate's size. Central themes of these reports are that there is too much duplication and lack of communication in the existing committee structure, and that most faculty members are not knowledgeable about the role of the Faculty Senate and perceive it as ineffective and powerless.
Although it acknowledges the other reports' identification of problems, a January 1993 rejoinder from the University Government Committee points out that it is not evident that the proposed revised system would cure the problems, and that, indeed, it might make them worse. It is difficult to get even the existing number of required candidates to run for Faculty Senate; doubling the required number might be impossible in some colleges and schools. Also, it might be more difficult for members of a larger deliberative body to discuss matters and to know one another as well as members of the existing Faculty Senate do. The University Government Committee recommends that better rationale be developed for changes in the existing faculty governance system before any such changes are actually implemented.
The committee notes in its report that service in faculty governance and elsewhere at NCSU is not adequately rewarded in faculty salary, tenure, and promotion decisions as compared with equivalent time and effort spent on research and teaching. Ample anecdotal evidence exists that such service is, in fact, actively discouraged by some department heads and administrators as well as by some senior faculty. The need to improve communication between the senate and the faculty was also identified.
Recommendation 8.39: NCSU should encourage administrators and senior faculty members who influence the distribution of faculty rewards (salary, tenure and promotion) to commit to the idea that effective participation in faculty governance and other service activities is expected of faculty and will be rewarded.
Recommendation 8.40: NCSU should develop more abundant and effective ways of communicating news of the activities of the Faculty Senate and of the University standing and ad hoc committees. Such communication should be made both by print media, such as the Official Bulletin and newsletters, and by the newly emerging electronic-communication technology.
During spring 1993 the Faculty Senate Constitution and Bylaws Committee studied the conflicting reports on faculty governance and held two extensively publicized, open hearings on the matter. A measure of the relative lack of general faculty interest in this topic is that only thirty-six people attended the first hearing, and only twenty-four attended the other. Furthermore, several of those attending were present at both hearings, and several were there as members of the Faculty Senate Constitution and Bylaws Committee.
Full transcripts of both hearings are available in the Faculty Senate Office. For the most part, participants articulated the same ideas found in the above-described reportssome arguing for dramatic change and some for the status quo with modest, incremental change. The May 1993 final report of the Faculty Senate Constitution and Bylaws Committee states that "it is premature to draft revisions in the General Faculty and Faculty Senate Bylaws" and calls for further study. The 1993-94 Constitution and Bylaws Committee is undertaking that study and developing draft revisions to the bylaws. At its October 18, 1993, meeting, the full Faculty Senate voted to instruct the Constitution and Bylaws Committee to bring the draft bylaws to the senate for floor debate at its next meeting.
Meanwhile, a July 1993 memorandum, Study of University Standing and Ad Hoc Committees, from Chancellor Monteith to Provost Stiles, reads, in part, as follows:
I am asking that the Provost, in consultation with the other members of the Committee on Committees, initiate a study of the current structure and operation of University standing and ad hoc committees on which there is significant faculty participation or whose charge involves matters of faculty concern.The provost has indicated that he intends to have the study called for by the chancellor completed in spring 1994.The purpose of this study would be: (1) to describe how the present committees are structured and how they function in order to improve the campus community's understanding of the processes involved; (2) to strengthen the relationships between the standing and ad hoc committees, on the one hand, and the Faculty Senate, on the other, as provided for in the General Faculty Bylaws, Article VII, Section 5; and (3) to identify issues of concern and make recommendations for improvements in cases in which a committee or a group of committees might be modified to function more effectively.
We have agreed that, early in the fall semester, in consultation with the Faculty Senate leadership, we will convene a meeting of all University standing committee chairs, the administrators who assist those committees, and the Faculty Senate liaison representatives to those committees. One purpose of that meeting will be to provide the chairs, the administrators, and the representatives with a general sense of their various responsibilities. In addition, these persons will be invited to participate in the study of the University committee structure.
While applauding the work of the various groups who have studied the faculty governance system at NCSU, and while not judging the merits of the proposals for changes, the faculty committee of the self-study feels that it is appropriate to seize the opportunity of the chancellor's charge to the provost for real improvement of the present system before the Faculty Senate adopts changes in its bylaws.
Recommendation 8.41: NCSU's provost should undertake the chancellor's requested study of University standing and ad hoc committees with full cooperation by all faculty and others involved.
Recommendation 8.42: NCSU's Faculty Senate should undertake a study of its structure, operations, and relationships with other University committees, as recommended in the May 1993 final report of the Faculty Senate Constitution and Bylaws Committee.
