Left Navigation

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

February 3, 1998

Senators present: Chair Wahl, Secretary Corbin, Provost Stiles, Parliamentarian Link, Senators Barr, Bernhard, Bizios, Brown, Carter, Daley, DeBuysscher, Fahmy, Gilbert, Griffin, Hamouda, Klenin, Lewis, Lilley, Magill, Monahan, Middleton, Murty, Nagel, Patty, Rushing, Schwab, Serow, Siderelis, Suh, Tetro, Wall, Wehner, Wilson

Senators absent: Past Chair Smith, Senators Bottcher, Strenkowski, Wessels

Visitors: Larry K. Monteith, Chancellor; Everette M. Prorise, Coordinator - Ask NC State; Frank Abrams, Senior Associate Provost; Bruce Mallette, Assistant Provost; Andrew Payne, Student Senate; Clare Kristofco, Assistant to the Chancellor; Paul Cousins, Director, Office of Student Conduct; Josh Justin, Technician; Pam Smith, News Services; Susan Kohlhausen, Student Senate President Pro-Tem ; Sondra Kirsch, Associate Vice Chancellor, Outreach, Extension and Continuing Studies

1. Call to Order
The eleventh meeting of the forty fourth session of the NC State Faculty Senate was called to order at 3:00 P.M. by Chair George Wahl.

2. Welcome and Announcements
Chair Wahl reminded the Senators of the Emerging Issues Forum on February 26-27. Senators interested in attending should contact Vernice Stevenson at 515-2279.

Chair Wahl announced that the next Board of Trustees meeting will be held February 20, 1998 at 9:45 a.m. in the Nelson Hall Board Room - B25.

The General Faculty Meeting for the Spring Semester will be held on April 2, 1998 in the Erdahl Cloyd Theater.

Chair Wahl thanked Senator Tetro for providing refreshments for the meeting today.

Senator Griffin announced that the seventeenth annual Susan B. Anthony Dinner will be Wednesday, February 18 at 5:30 p.m. in the Ballroom of the University Student Center. The Keynote speaker this year is Dr. Brenda Summers, President and Executive Director of NC Equity. Tickets are $15 for faculty and staff and there is also an opportunity to sponsor a student. Student tickets are $7.50.

Senator Wall announced that the University Honors Council will soon have application materials for the Holladay Medals in the hands of Deans, Directors, and Department Heads. This is the highest award that the Board of Trustees gives to faculty. The deadline for nominations is the first week of March.

3. Approval of the Minutes, Meeting No. 10, January 20, 1998
The minutes were approved as corrected.

4. Remarks from the Chancellor
Chancellor Monteith reported that he is proud of the way the Chancellor Search is going. He shared the complexities, issues and strategies talked about this time of year as we interact publicly. He stated that this is once in his tenure as Chancellor that the enrollment problem is going in the right direction. There is going to be an enrollment increase and for the first time it is significant. It has significant implications if fully funded by the Legislature. He attended a meeting of the higher education subcommittee in which they projected that they were going to have to find $35M of new money to fund enrollment increases from K -12, Community Colleges and Universities. He stated that NC State is part of the universities and we are one of those that have a significant enrollment increase. It is also important because if things go as planned, this will be the base year on which future decisions are made that are going to be funded by a formula.

Chancellor Monteith stated that this year we have an enrollment increase and he believes that it will be funded as it has in the past. All future enrollment increases will be formula funded. It is going to be a very important change in the way the university responds, chooses to build its enrollment and expects to get funded for it. He thinks that rethinking it will be important and redirect energies toward the enrollment plan.

Chancellor Monteith reported that this would be the time of year for discussions about whether salary increases will be recommended. He has no idea what they will be. He noted that sometimes funding provided for teaching creates an enormous problem because there are some faculty in various programs on campus who have split appointments. He stated that in the past we were formula funded around function. We have accumulated this internal way of doing business over our history which is penalizing some faculty because they cannot control when they are going to be doing certain things. We have accumulated a problem in the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, and one of our initiatives will be to try to address this for some of our split appointment faculty and some of our faculty in the extension division.

Chancellor Monteith reported several faculty initiatives. He stated that the faculty were doing these things so well that they received much attention and the attention brought interest.

Chancellor Monteith reported that the College of Physical and Mathematical Sciences and the Department of Marine Earth and Atmospheric Sciences were working very aggressively to become involved and were asked to join with Carteret Community College and Chapel Hill to increase our presence in the Morehead City area. We are working with them to build one of the first buildings to be built on a Community College campus in which a four-year institution is a cohabitator with them. He noted that as always when you build a building, sometimes your cost ends up being more than what you have in it. In this legislative session we face a need for more money because the building will be finished, but we cannot occupy it because we have not done all the things to provide the finish for occupying it.

Faculty Initiatives
Chancellor Monteith stated that the faculty have been recently invited to the Legislature to tell about one time funded environmental projects that they were working on last year. The big issue is that it is important to make the case about the progress made and the need to make more progress. He stated that we have some new initiatives. There is a growing interest in forest biotechnology. Another is the manufacturing/engineering partnership. It had one time funding plus a state wide initiative to support small businesses. One out of CHASS was the training of police officers. Chancellor Monteith stated that there is a long list of faculty who have been asked to undertake special research projects in the general interest of our state. They were asked to do this and he was proud to be there to hear them report to the Legislature.

Institution Initiatives
Chancellor Monteith reported that there is a budget to get the last 10% of our indirect cost on contracts and grants returned to the university. We should not take that for granted. We have to continue to justify why that is important and have to spend it in a way that it can undergo audits and the people understand that in fact, the way you said that its justified is how you spend it. He stated that it is very important to continue to track the expenditure of indirect costs. It is not a fund to be returned for the purpose of doing research. It is a fund to pay the cost of doing research.

Reversion Funds
Chancellor Monteith reported that there will be a review of the expenditures and programs in the short session on how the 1% was spent for technology. The way it was spent may determine if we get to spend it again. Chancellor Monteith stated that he had the pleasure of meeting with the UNC President and all the Chancellors, and President Broad has clearly stated that she believes that we need to do more with new technology. He is convinced that she will make this a priority for the UNC system and everyone will benefit from her leadership in seeing the role that technology plays in education and the advancement of our program.

Chancellor Monteith reported that we are being asked to provide more distance education at UNC Asheville. It is likely to be something that we endorse, but not something we spend. It is to help them to organize an education center there to receive all the programing that would be initiated from our campus.

Chancellor Monteith stated that the Special Olympics will be held at NC State in 1999. We agreed to do it with the understanding that we will get some help to make sure that our campus is accessible to all those athletes who come here. The cost is estimated to be $1.5M. We are going to advocate publicly and will need help to do that because we are serving in the public interest. He stated that we will advocate it whether we win or lose because we see that as a necessary cost. It will accrue to our benefit because we have students who will come needing that same accessibility. We will also have faculty and administrators who need that accessibility. We think that having to do it in such a concentrated period of time will require some assistance.

Capital Projects
Chancellor Monteith reported that the first two projects in priority order are the toxicology building which is designed and ready to be built on Centennial Campus, and the undergraduate science laboratory building. We have a number of priorities for which we would like to have design money. One would be for the Veterinary School addition and the other would be for designing the relocation of the College of Engineering to the Centennial Campus. Lastly, in capital budgets, we have tried to make our case to the President and Board of Governors. NC State and a number of other campuses have one disadvantage in these capital projects. We have a lot of buildings, that are older than some of the campuses, that have never been renovated. Chancellor Monteith stated that it is very difficult to compete with new buildings but we have to renovate old buildings that can still function, but may be outdated in almost every way. We think we are making some progress in getting attention to that need. NC State has thirty five buildings over fifty years of age. A high percentage of space is still not centrally air conditioned and some is not air conditioned at all. We are being asked to have better utilization of our buildings in the summer, but that would be very risky for laboratories. In fact, you are under hot roofs with absolutely no air conditioning at all and expecting students to be alert and working in environments that may not be hazardous, necessarily, but certainly would be less than desirable for them to achieve much. He stated that all of those issues are on the agenda. It is clear that expecting to get all of those done is not reasonable. All of them are important, but the real challenge is to try to find the opportunity to do as much as possible.

Chancellor Monteith reported that he attended the hearing on promoting those four projects with the faculty. He shared what he said and asked the Senate to consider it for some of their dialog. He stated that the big question always comes out concerning why we have research universities. What does this have to do with the education program? His comment to them was that in an institution like ours, research is the professional practice. If we do not do research and especially if we do not do applied research, everything is theoretical. It is never tested against an accepted practice in many things that we do. He is proud of the people who were there. He pointed out that students being in disciplines where their faculty actually practice, enriches the curriculum. It informs them about what they are going to expect. A lot of our students leave here going to do precisely what they have just studied. He stated that the chances are very high if you are a student in the College of Textiles, that you will work in a Textiles Industry. Therefore, practicing before you go is absolutely important. A lot of things the faculty do over there enriches the opportunities and experiences of their students. Chancellor Monteith stated that he represents all the campus. He thinks that we often forget that 60% of all the experience of undergraduates occurs in what we would traditionally call an arts and science environment. Almost every student at NC State leaves with a common anticipated experience. Until we are proud of that experience, then we are not really fully thinking about the value that the university brings. He stated that 55% of the experience at NC State is intended to be shared experience. If we are not proud of it and cannot tell our students how good it is and cannot make them feel good, we need to throw it out and start over again. It only took twenty four years to change it before. He stated that we have to have the common pride about this core and it has to be an integral part of what we say and how we behave at NC State.

Chancellor Monteith stated that he has added to the list of things that he plans to do between now and the time he leaves. Approximately $70M has been raised for student scholarships and financial aid. There is an outside chance that it might be $80M.

Chancellor Monteith reported that Engineering and Extension have completed their statewide tour. They are beginning to compile all that they know about what their experiences have been among their citizens who look at them as the peoples university and see them through their vast extension network.

He stated that enrollment has never been more important and it is important to know how much we are going to grow if we are going to grow. Our Trustees have taken an interest in this. We have sent forward an aggressive enrollment plan coupled entirely to building resources. He is assured by the people who have studied the data that by any national peer group that our indicators are that we really do not have a lot of space left. The bottleneck happens to be those early courses in the first two years.

Chancellor Monteith reported that the matter of diversity has never been more important. If you stay in contact with what is happening, read the press and understand the dynamics of it, it is important that we have a plan to try to maintain and encourage the growth of the diverse character of our campus in the broadest context that we possibly can think of. Nevertheless, differences have to be celebrated. It has to be a part of our plan to accommodate the growth of the individual so they can be successful.

The Centennial Campus is important. We are beginning to try to analyze the Klein report and have a response to it and ask about what do we do given no more than we did ten years ago with that vast resource. He brought some of his colleague Chancellors from other UNC institutions here and they are saying this is an important experience and we hope you will share it with us because maybe we can learn from it and see how to do things in our local community. He thinks it is a great compliment and one that should be followed up because it is not something to be selfish about. He stated that we must be willing to share and to try to help others engage in what we are engaging in on Centennial Campus.

Chancellor Monteith reported that we have refocused our attention on student services since last year. We did not receive high marks from our students. Therefore, a task force has been put together to take a look at that and try to put in place the kinds of response that will serve our students and that they will respect and understand and appreciate and tell us that we are doing a better job.

Chancellor Monteith stated that NC State has to face realities of whether it wants to be more attractive to out-of- state students. There is a lot of pressure growing. There are some campuses in the state that have so much for out of state enrollment, they want to go beyond 18%. There are some campuses that have not made 18% in a long time. This one happens to be one of them. We have to decide upon a strategy to address that and decide whether we value that as part of our diversity, and if so, what are we going to do to try to attract more students to attend here from other parts of our country. The Deans felt that it was so important that they asked him to give some attention to this matter. They would like to keep open the chance to increase the out-of-state enrollment and to have higher demand for being here. In his remaining time, he plans to work with the admissions office and the various colleges to look for alternatives for things that can be done for next year, beginning now. He welcomed input from the Senate. He stated that one of the important parts of diversity is to be involved in your growing years with different kinds of ideas and experiences that you share with one another that influence your own personal growth.

Senator Tetro commented that when classes are out, the in-state students leave and there is a huge population of students left here during the week-end feeling very lost.

Chancellor Monteith stated that with the out-of-state enrollment, a lot of studying internally will have to be done. We may have to go to other parts out of state and bring in focus groups of high school students who may have some interest but have not applied, and find out what it is that needs to be done.

5. Unfinished Business
A. Academy of Outstanding Extension Faculty and Professionals
Senator Monahan, Chair of the Governance Committee reported that the purpose of this academy is to recognize the awardees for outstanding extension outreach work of the university on a status similar to the Academy of Outstanding Teachers. The framework for the operation is establishing an Executive Council to run it and determine if there are needs for its activities from time to time.

Senator Monahan moved that the Senate approve the establishment of the Academy of Outstanding Extension Faculty and Professionals and its proposed bylaws, and that the Associate Vice Chancellor for Outreach and Extension together with the Chair of the Faculty appoint the first Executive Council and that this Council revise nomination procedures to include more faculty input, review each college's selection procedure, and determine an equitable distribution of awards across the university.

The motion was seconded.

Associate Vice Chancellor Kirsch noted that it has taken four years to get the motion to the Faculty Senate and she will be very pleased if the Senate would act on it today.

Senator Rushing wanted to know the numeration of people considered extension faculty in terms of

Associate Vice Chancellor Kirsch responded that the Outstanding Extension Awards recognize anyone who has teaching and research assignments whether they have formal extension assignments or not. In any one year if a particular project is undertaken, a group of peers in respective colleges will nominate and recognize you at the College level for those accomplishments.

Provost Stiles stated that one should not only look at people with just official appointments. In the same sense, the recognition that is given to the outstanding teachers are given at times to the same people for outstanding research awards and recognition. The answer is except, in a few colleges that people have assignments in which they have to carry out all three functions of the university and this is looking at one of the three.

Associate Vice Chancellor Kirsch reported that once they get the Academy established, the Executive Committee, in concert with the Academy, will work out the details. She noted that faculty from any of the colleges can be involved in some sort of outreach endeavor. If it is exemplary and meets the criteria for a scholarship or for identifying a particular society need, they could become very eligible for this recognition.

Senator Monahan observed that an unusual awardee is the former chair of the Faculty Senate, Gilbert Smith, who won an award for his television course. He stated that to date the distribution formula of the Academy for Outstanding Teachers had been tied to the formula for the number of representation in the Faculty Senate. Last year it was brought up as an issue of concern and has gone under some changes recently. He stated that the group most responsible for the Academy should do the fine tuning of the distribution of the number of awards.

Senator Carter commented that he is not excited by the proposal. He does not understand why there should be an Academy. He is not excited by this proposal but strongly supports recognition.

Everette Prorise, Coordinator of "Ask NC State", stated that they are trying to promote recognition of excellence, also, stimulating and developing faculty and staff to address critical issues. He stated that there is not an Academy at this time for the researchers. At the same time that is something that may need to be considered in the future because with the land grant system that we have, we have extension, teaching and research missions. He stated that they are trying to show that they value and respect excellence in all three of the missions. This is a faculty developed initiative for faculty.

Senator Tetro wanted to know if this is for extension faculty and EPA Professionals who would either be in Extension, Teaching or University Outreach.

Mr. Prorise responded that it is for faculty and EPA Professionals who are engaged in outreach and extension work.

Provost Stiles stated that an academy at this institution would be getting people elected to that academy on the basis of their performance in that particular area. He stated that the academy part plays two roles. It is a sense of recognition by being elected to that academy and secondarily the group that they represent can take issues and take stands on things that they are recognized experts in and not administrators or general faculty, but people who are experts in that particular field. He thinks it is a good idea.

The motion was voted on and passed without dissent.

B. Resolution on Plus/Minus Grading
Senator Griffin, Chair of the Academic Policy Committee read the resolution for its fourth reading and moved that the resolution be adopted. Senator Wall seconded the motion.

Senator Wehner stated that most universities that we exchange students and grade point averages with do not have a grade point average scale that goes beyond a 4.0. He is against an A+ equaling more than four.

Senator Tetro wanted to know if it has been discussed with Registration and Records as to how this is going to translate into the entire calculated system.

Senior Associate Provost Abram stated that if a change like this was made, there would probably be some reprogramming that will have to be done.

Senator Carter commented that the College of Veterinary Medicine is heavily against the resolution and he does not see where this changes that very much.

Senator Middleton commented that the plus/minus system is not part of his experience and personally he is against it. He wanted to know if this is a trend.

Senator Griffin responded that it is not a trend.

Senator Serow commented that he is opposed to the idea of NC State doing something that no one else is doing. His concern is the effect it will have on the value of NC State's transcripts and degrees. He thinks that the cap of 4.0 is likely to be a temporary cap if this system is adopted because he feels there will be pressure from students to recognize a 4 1/3 in the GPA. He thinks that there should be a pilot study before implementing it on a university wide basis.

Senator Nagel feels that the resolution should be voted on. He is convinced that the committee will not be able to make everyone happy. He stated that what exists now is a situation that we will go back to if we do not pass something or change it. That situation is where the faculty have discretion in deciding when they use plus/minus. From the student point of view, it is different. The students are looking at a situation where they are going to be judged one way in section A and one way in section B. If we are going to try to serve the students better, we should at least consider it. There are some aspects of the system that he thinks are unfair. Senator Nagel thinks it is time to stop wasting time on this. He feels that the resolution is a reasonable compromise and should be adopted.

Senator Bizios commented that she thinks it is time to pass the resolution and urged the Senate to do so.

Senator Wehner commented that if you make the new ceiling 4 1/3, then students will complain that if they get anything other than all A+s, their grade point average will once again not be the very highest grade.

Senator Griffin stated that the purpose of valuing the A+ at 4 1/3 is to eliminate the situation where a student has seven A+s and one A- and does not have a 4.0.

Senator Monahan applauded the committee for its work. He stated that from a statistician's point of view, plus/minus is a great idea. The use of 1/3 will not cause any arithmetic problems and he applauded the committee's use of thirds and likes the maximum of 4.0.

Senator Magill commented that she thinks there will be less problems if A+ equals 4.0 and D- equals 1/3 than to have A+ equaling 4 1/3 and D- equaling 2/3.

Provost Stiles stated that if you look at the top three lines, they are all an A(s). The fact that a modifier is put on it does not change it from an A. We use to say that people who got an A on every course were at the top of the line. This motion says that people who get an A on every course and even some that get an A- on every course still are at the top of the line. The perspective is what would you like to say at the top of the line and be fair.

Senator Barr feels that this makes a lot of sense. He feels that the Senate should be careful in terms of mandating the uses of pluses and minus.

Senator Fahmy stated that he likes the system of plus and minus. The only objection he has is that a straight A student is being equated with a straight A+ student. He feels that can be fixed by eliminating the A+.

The motion was voted on and passed. The count was fifteen for, eleven against, and two abstentions.

6. Reports
A. Teacher Evaluation On-line In November 1997, the Center for Urban Affairs and Community Services at NC State University mailed over three thousand packets containing Teacher Evaluation Online (TEOL) survey forms developed by NC State Student Government, in consultation with Faculty Senate and the Associate Provost for Academic Affairs. TEOL is slated to be an ongoing evaluation, conducted each Fall and Spring semester to assist students at NC State in selecting from among the several instructors who sometimes teach the same course. Eleven questions of a general nature comprise the current survey form.

Jenny Chang, Student Government reported that packets were sent to be completed by the students in every regular non-laboratory undergraduate and graduate course taught on campus. The total response rate for the past semester was 23%. Of the sections responding, 65% of all the students enrolled in these sections completed an evaluation.

Jenny reported that funding has also been secured for the upcoming semester. The cost will be approximately $5500. They are going to be allocated $15,000 to operate in the 1999-98 year. She reported that beginning next semester, it will be a student run process, and the Center for Urban Affairs will always be used to process the forms.

B. Student Grievance Procedures
Clare Kristofco reported that the Chancellor's Liaison committee is composed of leaders of Student Organizations that meet monthly with the Chancellor to discuss topics of interest. One of the items on the agenda was a request by the Chancellor for suggested steps that students could take if they felt that they had been treated unfairly by a professor or instructor. The students were referred to the grievance procedures that is in the 1997-98 Student Guide Book. The procedures encourage students to discuss the problem directly with the professor or instructor. If those discussions are not successful, the Guide Book refers the student to the College or School's Grievance Council or Committee to follow-up. The student then receives the procedures and follows the procedures that are in effect for that College or School. Chad Meyers, President of the Student Body, was supplied with a copy of each of the College or School's Grievance Procedures. The Academic Policy Committee of the Faculty Senate also has a copy of the procedures. Ms. Kristofco noted that they are planning to respond to the student's request for making the procedures available online.

C. Judicial Board
Paul Cousins, Director of the Office of Student Conduct, reported that his office confronts issues of both academic and nonacademic misconduct. The overwhelming majority deals with beer drinking more so than any other matter on campus. They see approximately 700 -1000 students per year for a variety of issues of misconduct. The Faculty Senate was a partner, prior to 1990, in the last major revision of the
university code of student conduct. The most important change is that the Faculty become partners in a very real and valuable way. For example, a review of nonacademic charge would consist of a review of four students and one faculty member. One of the students would be non voting. The Academic Integrity Review Board meets with two faculty and two students voting and a non voting Student Chief Justice. The Statistics would indicate that they do not demonstrate any favoritism toward faculty or students. Those cases that come before the Board are very carefully thought out by the instructors.

In referring to the Perry case, Mr. Cousin stated that the notion of due process in any judicial system, whether an administrative one or a criminal or civil one downtown, there is always the element of appeal. Like any behavioral review process, they also have an appeal process. He stated that as a practitioner in this area, it is his opinion that four levels of appeals for one given set of facts, that do not change from one level of appeal to the next, is excessive. He stated that they may explore that and the Faculty Senate may assist in compelling the community to take a closer look. The system is not broken. They will always have the possibility of someone at another level reviewing a given set of facts and interpreting those differently. Therefore, this places a premium on orientation and training and some sense of what is happening here. He stated that a Board of Trustees Group is an external group that has perhaps a different vision or a different set of tasks for the university will not examine the evidence in the case with the same eyes and ears that our faculty board or the thirty plus students that they work with in the judicial process. There is an orientation and training program consistent with the work of first semester students that is in excess of fifteen hours involving observations and apprenticeships in at least no fewer than two hearings as well as some offline discussions about the questioning and quality of the work. He is not confident that, that level of energy has been expended for our Board of Trustees members and he thinks that is an area where he can help.

Mr. Cousin stated that since he begin to work here in 1990, the Perry Case is the only case in that category. It is the only time that group has reversed a decision made by the Student Faculty Hearing Board which reviews non academic charges or the Academic Integrity Review Board which reviews academic charges. There have been modifications, but never a case at that level. The case involving Dr. Perry is absolutely unique. He cautioned people that the system is not broken. There is an opportunity to do some fine tuning.

Senator Nagel observed in the handout that the number of guilty students does not add up to the total students penalized. He wants to know what the other penalties are.

Mr. Cousin responded that the other penalties are a variety of things. In the academic arena, the baseline sanction is academic integrity probation for the remainder of that student's career. That is characterized as a behavior insurance policy. The university community is saying to that student that if she/he is found guilty of this charge again during your tenure here, we will do no less than suspend you for at least one semester.

Senator Nagel wanted to know the average length of time for suspension.

Mr. Cousin responded that the longest suspension that he has seen since he has been here is three years. He stated that for academic misconduct, it would probably be a semester and three quarters.

Senator Fahmy wanted to know what the numbers under the heading Faculty indicated on the handout.

Mr. Cousin responded that the number refers to cases that faculty resolve themselves that do not result in a hearing. He noted that, 76% of the time, that is how the cases are resolved.

Senator Bizios would like to know if it is true that a student can still have a full academic life such as qualifying for awards, qualifying to run for student body president, etc. She would like to know what the penalty is.

Mr. Cousin responded that the students' files are confidential and protected under the Buckley Amendment. There are three ways that third party persons might get access to the judicial files. They are a court subpoena, an educational need to know, or the student's written permission. The most often used way to release the information is the student's written permission. He stated that if a group chooses, as part of the application packet, they can include a form where you ask a student to waive their rights to privacy so that you can do that background check. Some student groups and offices have begun to do that. He stated that he is very much concerned because he is aware of situations where students received those honors and have files in his office.

Senator Bizios expressed this as an issue of concern. She does not think students on academic probation should have rights for academic honors, running for student body president, etc.

Mr. Cousin stated that it is a question of uniformity. He stated that Student Government was one of the first groups that began to make those checks. A student under an active sanction cannot run for a Student Government position.

Senior Associate Provost Abrams wanted to know if a scholastic society made up of faculty or a faculty committee of that group would be able to get that information under the educational need.

Mr. Cousin responded that they could probably make a pretty good argument to the University Counsel's Office if the criteria for entrance into the group, spoke specifically about the notion of demonstrated integrity.

Chair Wahl thanked Mr. Cousin for his report.

Chair Wahl assigned the issue of concern expressed by Senator Bizios to the Academic Policy Committee.

Chair Wahl pointed out that if the university has a procedure that covers some action that you are supposed to take, and you choose to use a different procedure, then you are putting yourself in legal jeopardy.

C. Report from Richard Gilbert
Senator Gilbert reported that he attended the Safety Perception Committee meeting on January 27, 1998. This committee consists of Public Safety, Staff Senate, Students, Faculty and the Faculty Senate representatives. Ralph Harper, Director of Public Safety, initiated the formation of the committee. He stated that its purpose is to provide Public Safety with feedback from the various constituencies of the university regarding how the Public Safety performs and in particularly how it handles various situations in which it is involved. He told them that Public Safety had tried this procedure two years ago and that it did not go well. They decided to try it again.

Senator Gilbert stated that Public Safety has approximately 150 personnel. They inspect 4500 fire extinguishers monthly, and at the same time they also inspect building security. They conduct residence hall inspections and provide dorm watch which is surveying the dorms during holidays and semester breaks. They have 30 student patrols who provide escort service.

Chair Wahl thanked Senator Gilbert for his report.

Chair Wahl reported that Barbara Levinbrook from the Department of Philosophy and Religion is a faculty representative to this committee and the faculty is still entitled to a third member. Anyone interested in being on this committee should contact Chair Wahl.

Andrew Payne, Student Senate thanked the Faculty Senate for finally clarifying a grading system that the students really like. He stated that they do not want 4.3 to be the top GPA, but they like the fact that they get rewarded for an A+.

7. Issues of Concern

Chair Wahl stated an issue of concern on computer ownership of information.

Senator Gilbert raised an issue of concern about an ombudsman.

Chair Wahl stated that in terms of an ombudsman, if there is going to be such a person we, as faculty will have to support it which will mean funding such a person.

Senator Gilbert is concerned with an article in the News & Observer that indicated the Chancellor Search Committee has only accepted nominations from the consulting firm.

Chair Wahl stated that all the nominations were considered and the Search Firm is the one that handles nominations. They are the staff to the committee.

Chair Wahl stated that the statement of what his job is all about will be in the hands of the Executive Committee this time next week. It will also be published to all the Senators for comments. At the following meeting they will be asked to get unanimous acceptance of whatever the revised version of it might be. At the same time there will be a need to elect senators and members to the hearings and grievance panels. It is one of the most essential responsibilities that we all have. He encouraged the senators to spend some time looking for colleagues that they would like to see on such a board if they had to have a hearing or grievance.

Chair Wahl reported that he was invited to the Director's Council of the Library to talk about the Chancellor Search.

8. Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 5:10 p.m.

Footer Nav