Left Navigation

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

 November 9, 1999

Senators present: Chair Corbin, Secretary Carter, Provost Hall, Parliamentarian Link, Chair Emeritus Wahl; Senators Ash, Banks, Bottcher, Brown, Brownie, Elmaghraby, El-Masry, Fisher, Fitzgerald, Funderlic, Gilbert, Grainger, Griffin, Kimler, Malinowski, Markham, Misra, Peel, Robinson, Sawyers, Smoak, Toplikar, Willits, Wilson

Senators absent: Senators Grimes, Hamouda, Kelley, Knowles, Werner, Wilkerson

Excused: Senators Havner, Hodge, Lytle

Visitors: Marye Anne Fox, Chancellor; Clare Kristofco, Executive Assistant to the Chancellor; Raj Mirchandani, Student Body President; Daniel Bunce, Assistant Editor, Bulletin; Stephanie D. Cao, Photographer, Technician; Ashley B. Perry, Senior Staff Writer, Technician; Frank Abrams, Senior Vice Provost; Bruce Mallette, Vice Provost; Gary Palin, Student Senate; Jeff Mann, Human Resources & Business Division; Karin Wolfe, Director, Academic Personnel

1.   Call to Order
The sixth meeting of the forty-sixth session of the North Carolina State University Faculty Senate was called to order at 3:00 p.m. by Chair Frederick Corbin.

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

Chair Corbin announced that the Executive Committee will meet Thursday, November 11, 1999; the Board of Trustees will meet November 18-19, 1999; the Faculty Assembly will meet Friday, November 19, 1999.

Raj Mirchandani, President of the Student Body, announced that there will be a Town Hall Meeting, Wednesday, November 10, 1999 in 240 Nelson Hall at 8:00 p.m. He encouraged all faculty and students to attend. The format of the meeting is a way for Chancellor Fox to provide the university with information and at the same time receive input about a tuition increase at NC State University. President Mirchandani stated that the meeting is not meant to be a debate. It is to clear up rumors or stereotypes anyone may have for the tuition increase at NC State.

President Mirchandani stated that he would like to know if the Administration, Board of Trustees or the Board of Governors are getting into the habit of turning to students first for a source of income. He would like to know if other sources are being reviewed.

Chair Emeritus Wahl commented that approximately five years ago is the only other time he remembers there being an optional tuition increase. At that time, the General Assembly singled out UNC Chapel Hill and N C State and said that a tuition increase could be passed by the Board of Trustees and that the money could only be used for library enhancement, students’ financial aid, and faculty salaries. He noted that all three issues needed attention at the time.

Chair Emeritus Wahl stated that the faculty felt that it was not in the best interest of higher education to increase salaries on the backs of tuition increase from students. The Trustees agreed with the faculty and the money went to students’ financial aid, and to enhance the libraries. Chair Emeritus Wahl feels that someone, presumably the Trustees, owe the faculty some additional assistance in faculty salary support. He thinks it is overdue.

3.   Approval of the Minutes Meeting No 5, October 26, 1999
The minutes of the fifth meeting of the forty-sixth session of the North Carolina State University Faculty Senate were approved as corrected.

4.   Remarks from the Provost
Provost Hall thanked the Senators for visiting with Phil Moses, Director of Athletics Support Program for Student Athletes, and touring the Athletic Support Program. He noted that Phil was very pleased to have them come by. Provost Hall stated that he feels that it is important to keep this part of the program which uniquely reports to Academic Affairs in a position of real strength. He is grateful to the Senators for taking the time to tour it.

Comments from Chair Emeritus Wahl
Chair Emeritus Wahl reported that faculty have heard a lot about what is available for academic support for student athletes. He stated that he was very disappointed to find that the program has approximately fifty computers, and of those, only two are connected to the Internet. He said the three buildings that were visited, Weissinger Brown, the Coliseum, and the Stroud Center are not on the standard system for wiring. Chair Emeritus Wahl hopes that the athletics department will make sure that those three buildings are wired.

Provost Hall noted that the Stroud Center is essentially private property owned by the Wolf Pack Club. The administration has worked with Phil Moses to get more equipment over there. Provost Hall feels that the wiring is an issue that the Wolf Pack Club appropriately needs to handle.

Chair Emeritus Wahl stated that it is to the Athletics Department’s advantage to have the athletes up to date academically. If they are going to invest as much money as they have, they need to invest what ever else it takes to get those computers on line. He observed that the two computers that are connected are connected through modems. Chair Emeritus Wahl stated that he is pleased to see the dedication and time that Phil Moses has put into this program.

Chair Corbin stated that it was noted in Les Robinson’s report to the University Council that NC State’s athletes have celebrated a decade of not being on probation by NCAA.

Comments from Chancellor Fox
Chancellor Fox is impressed with the leadership that Provost Hall has offered in trying to formalize procedures for tenure. She stated that the proposal coming forward is much more in alignment with the peer institutions that have been assigned/chosen. It is important, not only because of salary increases, but because these are aspirational peers from whom NC State’s reputation is assigned. Chancellor Fox noted that she attended the Faculty Senate meeting today to listen to the discussion, and emphasized that this is an evolving idea and how it will ultimately come into play is something that will take discussion over a very long period. She feels that this is just the start of trying to get faculty input on a very important process.

5.   Remarks from Cathy Reeve, Director of Transportation
Cathy Reeve reported that the Department of Transportation is totally receipt supported. It receives no appropriated receipts. The money comes from parking fees, fines, meters and pay lot revenues and is put back into running the parking operations and maintaining the facilities. In addition, transportation does receive some student fees to operate the Wolf Line System that is also funded by Transportation revenues.

Cathy stated that Transportation tries to create opportunities and incentives that will enable people to get to campus other than by driving their cars. Recently, the department won a Governor’s Award for its incentive program for the van and car pool programs. It was recognized by NC Air. With this program, transportation subsidized van pools to lower travel cost. She noted that there is a very reduced rate of $2.00 per month on parking in the car pools. The department also subsidizes those who choose to take Triangle Transit Authority or the City Cat Service. It is their hope that these are alternatives for those who choose not to drive their cars.

The largest issue Transportation continues to face is a way to get people around campus to take care of their business. She said it is one thing to get them to campus, and another to get them around campus. She stated that the University’s Master Plan has two elements in it that really affect the Department of Transportation: (1) The campus should be pedestrian oriented; (2) numbers of single occupancy vehicles should be reduced. She noted that another is compact planning. Cathy stated that the department is working hard to try to create opportunities for people to get around campus in many different ways.

The vision for Transportation is for it to meet these diverse needs to enable employees and students to get around to do their respective businesses. This must be done in a way to help the university meet its goals. This is being done in a number of ways such as: (1) Talking with people and listening to what they have to say about what their needs and issues are; (2) she has sent letters to the Deans of the Schools and Colleges asking them to name a representative to work with her, i.e., an ad hoc committee to help her understand what the schools and colleges need for their faculty, staff, and students. She stated that she has received good responses; and (3) they have worked with Student Body President, Raj Mirchandani and his staff on the Werewolf and were very successful in getting night service operational.

Cathy stated that they are very glad that the students supported a $10 fee increase for transit for 2000-2001. She noted that there is a condition that states that if the Werewolf is deemed successful, they will fund an additional $6.00 to help keep the service going at night.

Cathy stated that Transportation has also worked with the Centennial Campus Corporate Clients so they can do their jobs as well.

Cathy stated that they plan to review the parking system next year. They plan to look at it in terms of the travel needs, not only on campus but between the campuses. They also plan to look at the issue of service and department vehicle access.

The NCSU Department of Transportation has received approval from NCDOT to have a bike path feasibility study done on Western Boulevard. This is the second such bike path partnership it has with NCDOT. Approximately five years ago they constructed the bike path along Avent Ferry and Fraternity Court.

Cathy feels that the NCSU Department of Transportation needs to set the pace to look at things differently. There are a number of technologies out there today. For the next few months they will be working with the groups that she mentioned. She stated that they are reviewed by the Physical Environment Committee and the changes for 2000-2001 will be presented to the Board of Trustees in the Spring. She stated that as they get closer to what they think they need to do, she will be glad to come back and share with the Senate to receive some feed back.

Senator Sawyers stated that although he supports efforts of the universities to partner with Hillsborough Street merchants and communities, he finds it inappropriate to close down a university parking lot paid for by fees from faculty and staff during business hours.

Cathy responded that it is normal practice for Transportation, and their policy is to close parking lots if needed for special events on campus.

Senator Wilson asked Cathy to address the concern of safety for night parking.

Cathy stated that Transportation works very closely with Public Safety. Recently they have worked very hard to beef up their staff. She stated that Transportation can handle the parking and lighting issues and work with Public Safety on the escort issue.

Senator Gilbert asked Cathy to address an issue that was presented before the Traffic Appeals Board at its last meeting concerning a contractor being cited for blocking most of the parking facility in front of Nelson Hall. The contractor appealed the decision on the basis that he owns that property through the contract between his company and NC State University.

Cathy stated that she is familiar with the case and Transportation assured the contractor that he did not own the property.

6.   Unfinished Business
Second Reading: Resolution on Modifications to Reappointment, Promotion & Tenure
Senator Bottcher presented the resolution for its second reading.

Discussion on the Resolution
Senator Kimler, Co-chair of the Academic Policy Committee reported that the Academic Policy and Personnel Policy Committees continued to meet on the issue and tried to balance the whereas statements for the two strong feelings on campus of the inappropriateness of the procedures. The committees are presenting a new "whereas" in an attempt to strengthen one of the points of view to get some balance on those statements. He stated that they also realized that the Provost had called for a continued faculty involvement and they wanted to propose an additional resolve.

Senator Kimler read the additional resolve as an amendment to the resolution.

The motion passed unanimously to amend the resolution by adding the additional resolve.

Senator Elmaghraby proposed an amendment from the College of Engineering Senators, to replace the first resolve with one that proposes delaying implementation of the procedures for one year.

Senator Wilson wanted to know what happens for those people who have already submitted dossiers and for those people whose dossiers have already been considered under the guidelines set forth by the Provost’s office in the September 7, 1999 memo.

Senator Elmaghraby responded that their thinking is that for those who are following those procedures, that is fine by them, but those who have not would like to have the chance for input and discussion. He does not think there is conflict between what is going on. They are proposing to let things go on the way they are going.

Senator Robinson wanted to know what has allowed the College of Engineering not to form a college-wide committee given the September 7, 1999 memo that stated that one was needed. She wanted to know how is it that the college did not respond to the memo by creating a college-wide committee when that is what it was asked to do.

Senator Grainger stated that the point that is being made is a point of principle, not of detail. The Faculty in the College of Engineering are taking the view point that the new procedures, whatever they may be, are not debatable by them. Senator Grainger stated that the faculty’s concern is with the fact that the procedures were not brought to the faculty before being imposed. The principle is that we as Faculty Senators have input into the new procedures before they are imposed. He stated that the procedures then being followed were put together by faculty committees. Yet, those procedures were removed by the Provost’s statement that was issued on September 7, 1999. The question is, "is this assembly of faculty elected by the faculty on this campus going to be bypassed in this fashion, if it is, then why"? It is a point of principle. It has nothing to do with personalities or details. It is a question of is the Faculty Senate to be bypassed. Senator Grainger assured the faculty that there is no strong university in this country with a Faculty Senate that allows itself to be bypassed in this manner. He stated that a strong campus needs a strong Faculty Senate. He stated that this is one of the efforts he and his colleagues are trying to induce interest in the Senate.

Senator Grainger stated that the Faculty Senate cannot get faculty on this campus to be interested in what it is doing. He said there is a point of principle involved in the issue being discussed which represents a test to them as College of Engineering Senators. He stated that the attitude and principle that the Engineering Senators are trying to bring forward for consideration is that if nothing can be done about this, then the same thing is being done that they thought would happen. He stated that the College of Engineering Senators are very sincere about what they are doing because they are trying to get a strong Faculty Senate with interest in it.

Senator Brownie stated that it is the Dean’s responsibility for faculty members to comply with rules and regulations. He said the faculty may not like the way they go initially, but he thinks they are intelligent enough to work with what they have.

Senator Elmaghraby stated that he believes that the Engineering Senators are trying to clarify the first "Resolve". He stated that in the College of Engineering some departments have already started the process according to the old rules. In order to avoid any conflicts, he suggested amending the resolve to ask for a delay of one year.

Senator Grainger wanted to know what is unreasonable about having a clause so that the committee that is actually being proposed by the subcommittees could actually have an influence for the benefit of the new procedures.

Senator Robinson responded that the College of Engineering deliberately failed to do what it was asked to do when the other colleges did . She stated that the other colleges received the memo and did what they were asked to do. The College of Engineering decided that it did not have enough time. She feels that it is arrogant and disrespectful. Senator Robinson noted that the faculty is in the process of trying to respond to the documents that they have been given by having some faculty input.

Senator Grainger stated that he would like to ask why it is that the Faculty Senate meets if it is not to discuss the important issues affecting the faculty.

Senator Sawyer pointed out that the College of Management is in the process of putting together some recommendations on how a college level committee would work. The college is meeting tomorrow to discuss and vote on these procedures. However, two weeks ago he sent email to all of the faculty in the College of Management asking for their input concerning the resolution and amendments that were likely to be made. The feed back that he received strongly supported the amendment to ask for a delay of one year.

Senator Elmaghraby stated that the first "Resolve" essentially asks the Provost to accept dossiers this year the way the colleges present them. The argument for that is the amendment which has just been approved that requests the Chair of the Faculty to establish a committee to study the matter. He stated that what they thought is coming out in the open, with no disrespect intended at all. Senator Elmaghraby stated that he wanted to make it clear to everyone that there is no inquisition of anything. Everyone goes in his own way. He stated that the ones who have not started implementing the new procedures because of the time limitation would like to have the chance to do so.

Senator Funderlic stated that the issue of some colleges having proceeded with consideration of the principles of procedures that were given on September 7, 1999 is not a problem. Under the old rule prior to September 7, 1999, all the things that they have done that are in the new procedures could have been done. There are numerous issues that need to be discussed. He stated that there are procedures that are completely logically and practically unworkable.

Secretary Carter stated that those who have come from other universities where there is a history and a tradition of considerable faculty input into governance and tenure decisions, etc. welcomes what the Provost proposed. He stated that he personally would not support a delay of one year because he thinks the faculty have been waiting decades at this university for this. He finds the proposal by the administration extremely faculty friendly. Secretary Carter stated that there have been some glitches and he thinks the resolution that is being considered addresses those. He feels that it will be inappropriate to delay it for a year. He thinks the faculty need to vote on the proposal and then work out the problems they might see with it.

Secretary Carter stated that with regard to the first resolved as it was presented in writing today, he is sure the Provost would be very considerate in acknowledging that this is a new way of doing things and the forms probably will not be done in the way ultimately the faculty would like to have them.

Senator Elmaghraby stated that Senator Carter is addressing the content of the September 7, 1999 memo. He said the thrust of the faculty’s motivation here is not the content. He stated that he has privately indicated that he agrees with 98% of what is in the document. His colleagues from Engineering objective is to emphasize the process by which the new rules have come to be. They would like to have more faculty input. He stated that their motivation is an opportunity for faculty to have input. He asked that they be given a couple of months so that the Chair will constitute a committee which has been approved, report to the Senate, work on it and submit their support to the Provost with any amendment that might result.

Senator Kimler stated that he hopes the Senators will not take at face value that to vote against the proposed amendment to replace the resolve is to vote against the Faculty Senate.

Senator Wilson stated that during the times that the Academic Policy and Personnel Policy committees met, they engaged in long, serious, time consuming discussion. Out of that discussion, came a resolution that she felt really tried to capture a consensus of what they thought this was about and where they could go. Unfortunately what she hears today is the same thing that she has heard every single time they have met. She wonders why everyone on the committee except the College of Engineering were about to make compromises, but the same statement was always consistent out of the College of Engineering representatives. She thinks that is true.

Senator Funderlic stated that the proposed amendment is not an Engineering issue. He said that he talked with four pass Faculty Senate Chairs who are strongly in support of the amendment. Senator Funderlic stated that it is an issue of whether the faculty should have input or not. To vote against it is to say that you do not think the faculty should have input.

Senator Bottcher stated that an excellent point was made at the joint meeting last week that this Reappointment, Promotion and Tenure study committee has the potential to identify numerous problems with either the current procedures or other possible procedures, and he thinks that if this year’s Promotion and Tenure process is conducted as it has been stipulated, that should provide them with additional data that could be useful to the study committee this year in identifying those problems. He feels that following this procedure this year would allow them to obtain additional data that will be valuable in optimizing the process for future years.

Senator Griffin wanted to know if the real concern is due to the fact that the initiative was not taken by the faculty, but by the administration. His concern is the extent to which the procedures directive advances the interest of the faculty and the university as a whole.

Senator Grainger stated that the faculty and administration are linking to bring this institution to the place where it really should be. The faculty were not questioned about this. There was no input from the faculty.

Senator Elmaghraby stated that the issue is not who initiates anything. He said they welcome anybody initiating any change. It never crossed their minds that they opposed the procedures because they did not come from the faculty. He said they would be totally stupid to think something like that. The motivation for this proposal and amendment is a French philosopher who said "I am fighting for your right to be considered as an individual who has a voice". It has nothing to do with anything else.

Senator Carter called the question.

The motion passed to call the question with one opposing vote.

Senator Funderlic requested a roll call vote on the amendment. Subsequently a roll call was conducted, and the votes are recorded as follows:

Senators voting in favor of the amendment were Elmaghraby, El-Masry, Fisher, Funderlic, Gilbert, Grainger, Markham, Peel, Sawyers, and Toplikar.

Senators voting to oppose the amendment were Carter, Ash, Banks, Bottcher, Brown, Brownie, Fitzgerald, Griffin, Kimler, Malinowski, Misra, Robinson, Smoak, Willits, and Wilson.

The motion failed with a count of fifteen to ten.

Senator Gilbert moved to extend the meeting ten minutes, and the motion to extend the meeting was voted on and passed.

The resolution will be presented for a third reading at the next meeting.

7.    Adjournment
Senator Wilson made a motion to adjourn the meeting.

The motion was seconded and passed unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 5:05 p.m.

Footer Nav