Left Navigation

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

November 28, 2000

Senators present: Chair-Elect Carter, Secretary Brown, Parliamentarian Gilbert, Senators Ash, Banks, Bottcher, Braunbeck, Brothers, Cassidy, Elmaghraby, El-Masry, Funderlic, Havner, Headen, Hooper, Hughes-Oliver, Kimler, Kirby, Lytle, Malinowski, Marshall, McAllister, Robinson, Sawyers, Setzer, Smoak, Toplikar, Tucker, Tyler, Vickery, Wilkerson, Wilson

Senators absent: Senators El-Masry, Grainger, Grimes, Suh

Excused: Chair Corbin; Senators Hodge, Levine, Misra

Visitors: Jeffrey Hunter, President ProTempore, Student Senate; Frank Abrams, Senior Vice Provost; Bruce Mallette, Vice Provost; Kristen Stewart, Reporter; Gary Palin, Chair, Student Senate Committee of Academics; Joanne Woodard, Vice Provost for Equal Opportunity; James A. Anderson, Vice Provost for Undergraduate Affairs; Clare, Kristofco, Executive Assistant to the Chancellor

1.    Call to Order
The sixth meeting of the forty-seventh session of the North Carolina State University Faculty Senate was called to order at 3:00 p.m. by Secretary Kathleen R. Brown.

2.    Welcome and Announcements
Secretary Brown welcomed Senators and Guests.

Secretary Brown announced that the General Faculty Meeting will be held on Tuesday, January 9, 2001, in the Talley Student Center Ballroom at 3:00 p.m.

Chair-Elect Carter announced that the University Master Plan was approved at the Board of Trustees meeting.

3.    Approval of the Minutes, Meeting No. 5, November 14, 2000
The minutes were approved without dissent.

4.    Remarks from the Provost
Provost Hall introduced Gary Palin as Provost for a Day. Gary is a History major who will be graduating this fall. He plans to continue his studies through the spring, which will enable him to graduate again in May with a Political Science degree.

Provost Hall introduced Kirsten Stewart, a reporter on higher education with the Salt Lake Tribune.

Provost Hall reported that there are two dean searches in progress. Fourteen candidates have been identified for the position in the College of Humanities and Social Sciences. There is also a search under way for a Dean of Natural Resources. This search is chaired by Blanton Godfrey, the new dean in the College of Textiles. He noted that the committee has been composed and charged, and that the advertisements are in the process of being sent out.

Provost Hall reported that there is a third search under way for the Vice Provost for Distance Education and Technology Applications. That search has produced four candidates who will be coming to campus shortly. Sam Averitt, Chair of the Search Committee, has set up a number of opportunities for faculty colleagues to interact with the candidates.

Provost Hall reported that the Student Senate is considering a proposed honor code to be added to the constitution of the student body. If passed, it will be in the form of a referendum to the student population about whether or not the honor code should be added. Gary Palin is spear-heading this effort.

Provost Hall reminded the faculty that three undergraduate programs are being implemented that will have considerable consequences. One is the undergraduate research program. He stated that the amount of money available for undergraduate research at this institution has quintupled. It is up to approximately $230,000 a year. This is permanent funding to support undergraduate research. Also, some of the funds have been set aside to help faculty mentors. James Anderson, Vice Provost for Undergraduate Affairs, has sent out an announcement concerning it.

The second is an at-risk mentoring program which is brand new. Approximately $200,000 has been put into this program, which is designed to raise retention rates and especially raise graduation rates.

Third, a comprehensive first year seminar program for all incoming students is being introduced. It should be fully implemented in eight to ten months. When fully implemented, each student who enters the university will have an interdisciplinary seminar available in their freshmen year so that they will be able to get a sense of the university.

Provost Hall stated that the Honors Program is financed for the coming year to add 200 more students. There will be a total of approximately 300 students in the university’s first academic honors program.

"We should remember that the university is faced with an extraordinary challenge that comes in the way of a tremendous benefit. Chancellor Fox labored very hard with great intensity and commitment for the bond referendum. The result of that is not just $3.1 billion for North Carolina’s higher education, but one half billion dollars that is to be spent on this campus over the next several years. That is the good news.

Between the trenches and foundations being laid and buildings being renovated, significant logistical problems will exist for the academic side of the institution, because we are going to have to figure out where to have labs. Current lab space will no longer be available to us. We are going to have to find some ways to better utilize space. The beneficiaries of this are going to be the generation that succeeds us. I think that there is a high probability that we are going to see tremendous pressure to add more students, which is going to create additional space issues.

We do have the making now for our first enrollment plan. The Chancellor created an enrollment management steering committee that has developed a very workable plan. I would encourage the Faculty Senate to get Karen Helm, George Dixon and Bob Sowell here to explain this enrollment management plan. I think the implications of it are very significant for the colleges and the university as a whole."

Provost Hall thinks the most significant challenge for this university is that it is going to have to adopt a budget system that is far more open, far more supple, and far more responsive to the academic needs of the institution. "I would encourage all of you to press for openness in budgeting, openness in the allocation of resources and in creating a kind of climate where those matters can be discussed. I think we have gone a long way in the academic side of the institution to open all the budgets, and I would encourage all of you as representatives of the Faculty Senate to do as much as you can to understand the way the university spends its money.

"This has been a great university. It was a great university to have the opportunity to come and be the Provost. Indeed, I would say that it has been an honor to be the Provost. I leave because there is something that pulls me to Utah, not because there is anything here that prompts me to leave. Indeed, the future that I see for your university, for our university, is extraordinarily bright. The leadership in the university is excellent. The one half billion dollars really puts this institution in the place where it can appropriately aspire to be a member of the Association of American Universities. I think with the leadership of Chancellor Fox and her national presence, that is entirely reachable. It is also the case, however, that this campus is going to transform in the next few years. That transformation can only be good for the morale of the colleagues. It can only be good in terms of attracting the very best and brightest students. It can only be good in continuing the history of the university, which is serving the people of North Carolina. Ultimately I think it will put the institution in a place where every time you look to Chapel Hill, it will be a matter of reflection, not a matter of circumspection. I thank you for the opportunity to have been a member of this body. I wish each and every one of you sincerely, the very best."

Secretary Brown wanted to know if there are things Provost Hall thinks the Faculty Senate can do to increase its visibility and its role.

Provost Hall suggested that the Senate read the agenda of issues that is presented to the Faculty Senate at Utah State University. "If you would compare that agenda of issues to the agenda of issues that you are pursuing here, I think you will see that Utah State University’s Faculty Senate is far more engaged in the intellectual and administrative life of the institution than I believe this body to be. You can reach your own conclusions about whether that is a good thing or a bad thing, but I do think that there is no great university that does not have a great active faculty, especially in public institutions. I think your challenge is to make sure that the agenda of issues with which you are dealing is of sufficient gravity, that when you speak, others will listen."

5.    Unfinished Business
Report on Mediation
Senator Elmaghraby, Chair of the Governance Committee, presented two documents from the committee.

He stated that the intention of the first document is to have a very brief statement in the bylaws of the Board of Trustees which says that there shall be a mediation procedure and leave it to the Chancellor to organize it.

The second document is the mediation procedure for faculty and staff. Once approved by the faculty and the Chancellor, this document will be included in the Faculty Handbook. Basically, this is what will govern the faculty and EPA professionals at this institution. Senator Elmaghraby stated that a draft document was presented to the Senate last spring for first reading, and this document is also being presented for first reading. The previous draft was modified in a significant way by the Office of Employment. The committee worked very hard with the University Counsel to create a document that is agreeable to all parties.

The committee would like the document to be voted on at the next Faculty Senate meeting.

6.    New Business
Resolution of Commendation to Provost Kermit L. Hall
Senator Kimler presented the resolution for its first reading and moved that the resolution be adopted.

The motion to adopt the resolution was seconded and passed without dissent.

7.    Reports
Academic Policy Committee
Senator Banks, Chair of the Academic Policy Committee, reported that the committee met jointly with the Personnel Policy Committee on two separate occasions to discuss the issue of department heads versus department chairs. He noted that they have been in a data-gathering mode. At their last meeting, former Senator John Riddle from the Department of History reviewed previous histories with respect to this issue as well as some materials. Senator Banks feels that the discussion was very helpful and obviously one that garnered a lot of interest. The committees decided that this issue is going to be one that is worthy of further study. There were a number of interested parties in attendance who thought that it might be best to assemble a committee specifically designed to explore the issue and present a white paper in much the same fashion that the Faculty Senate assembled the Special Select Committee on Promotion and Tenure last year. Senator Banks stated that they have not gone into the detail of exactly how many people should be on the committee or the composition of that committee. He would like anyone who is interested in serving on the committee or has thoughts about the composition of the committee to contact members of the Academic Policy or Personnel Policy Committees.

Personnel Policy Committee
Senator Bottcher, Chair of the Personnel Policy Committee, reported that his committee has addressed the issue of departmental leadership this semester. The committee has had very productive meetings with a wide range of discussions. They decided not to go into technical details about the merits of one system versus the other. Last Tuesday, Dr. Riddle passed out a report dated March 17, 1972, on departmental headships and departmental chairships. The report does a good job of summarizing what they determined at that time to be the advantages and disadvantages of the different systems. Senator Bottcher stated that based on the committee’s discussions, it appears that a lot of the very same concerns and issues were considered at that time.

Senator Funderlic asked Provost Hall for his views on the issue.

Provost Hall commented that he thinks the prevailing mode around the country is for chairships as opposed to headships. "I think this is an important issue and I am delighted that the Faculty Senate has addressed this. I tend to sound strongly in favor of chairship. The reason is that first, it tends to spread the collegial responsibility for the operation of the department. Second, it tends to open up from my experience, the budgeting process. The third is that really good departments ultimately develop their own leadership, and it needs to be viewed as a collegial responsibility.

The headship system has always struck me as being perhaps a little on the military side. It is a practice, I know, that is followed by colleagues out in Utah, and I applaud you for putting it on the table and addressing it. My experience at Ohio State, where chairs had fixed terms reviewed by the dean and reviewed by the faculty, is that the number of chairs who came from the outside was very small. Most of the recruiting was done within the faculty and built a degree of respect for the position and for the responsibility of administering."

Senator Tucker asked Provost Hall to distinguish between the two terms.

Provost Hall responded that the chair presides over and offers some direction to the assembly. The head, on the other hand, is in the position of being effectively an administrator, and secondarily a faculty member.

Senator Headen wanted to know if it changes the relationships between heads and deans or chairs and deans.

Provost Hall stated that the biggest relationship change that occurs is between the dean and the department. The head is effectively an administrative auxiliary of the dean. A chair is, however, a representative of the faculty of the department. He feels that it creates a different tension.

Provost Hall stated that he is struck by how weary many of our heads are. It increasingly demands an administrative job where they do not have sufficient access information. They do not have sufficient control over research, no matter what the faculty thinks. In the end, they do not have sufficient faculty backing as their representative to really press the system for the kinds of academic needs that can be much more effectively met through a chairship system.

Senator Sawyers stated that it seems to him that heads have allowed the departments in the university to perhaps be stronger than they would have otherwise. He asked, whether moving to chairs would consolidate the administrative power in the colleges rather than the departments.

Provost Hall responded no. "A couple of years ago we had a system that effectively prevented many cases from even getting out of departments on the RPT process into the colleges. The effective voice in that was the voice of the head. I think that the changes we have made in the RPT process, of which you all are a big part, have migrated the system much more toward faculty governance and faculty involvement, and with it greater openness in the process. I think you are headed toward a chairship operation in the RPT process, even if it is not described as such."

Senator Kimler asked Provost Hall if speaking as a voice of the faculty gives more pressure.

Provost Hall said one thing he has learned is that judges who were selected on a popular basis, end up having a far greater constituent authority behind them than someone who is merely pointed by higher authority. He thinks you can have both a decentralized system of administration and a good collegial environment, but the key to this is the person sitting either as the head or the chair. He stated that all of his experience teaches him that chairs are far more likely to engage both of those.

Senator Elmaghraby wants to know what the legality of the situation is if the university goes to chairmanship.

Senator Bottcher stated that at the joint meeting a couple of weeks ago, Vice Provost Abrams pointed out that at the university level, there are policies dealing with searching for heads. Because the College of Design now has a system of chairs, that wording may be changed for that college. He believes that is specified in the university policies as far as procedures for departmental leaders.

Senior Vice Provost Abrams said there is a procedure that requires that there be faculty involvement for selection of department heads but it does not require that it be an outside search. There is nothing legally that requires that there be an outside search for any particular position. He stated that there is an issue of how to go about searching, but he does not think it is anything specific.

Vice Provost Woodard stated that it is usually left to the discretion of the college to determine if they want to search internally or externally, and they will typically ask for permission to do one or the other. Permission is usually needed only if the search is internal.

Senator Bottcher pointed out that one of the items that was distributed by Dr. Riddle at their last meeting was two pages from the memoirs of Provost Nash Winstead. Senator Bottcher read the following that pertains to affirmative action and inside versus outside searches.

In 1989 concern was expressed to the Chancellor and me by several faculty that were going outside for too many department heads. John Riddle expressed it in this way. "In the last six or so years, the process for the selection of Department Heads has undergone a number of changes, largely for the common good. The process is more open and the limit of five years before a review improves the faculty morale and the quality of leadership." He goes on to say that it seemed to him "that the ratio of heads who come from the outside appears to have increased against those who come from inside." This was a true assertion. He went on to say the personnel in many nomination committees, "feel that the administration prefers outsiders and secondly, a 'Savior' from beyond is easier for a search committee to sell because departmental groups do

not need to work out internal accommodations." He also discussed the fact that outside heads frequently soon returned to the faculty as a professor and thereby occupied a faculty position in their field which might not be in the area that would serve the best interest of the department. It is true that the turnover among heads had become more and more frequent. It was a tough job as John knew, and few persons wanted to stay in the head position until retirement. He said, "If there is a shortening of department heads' terms, many of those selected on criteria based on administration have most of their active careers back in the ranks for research and instruction." Perhaps some of the reasons that we were getting more from outside the university were those Riddle suggested. Another reason was that with affirmative action we forced most of the searches to be open so that all persons interested or nominated could be considered, especially minorities and women. Departments also frequently saw this as a means to get an additional faculty position in their department. The Chancellor had begun to require his approval before a search had begun if we were to limit it to internal candidates only. This was not intended as an administrative wish for outsiders but was to assure affirmative action. I know of many searches where I found the internal candidate to be very acceptable and even the best candidate to me, yet they were not chosen or recommended, or were not the first choice of the committee or the dean. In most cases we were looking at very good people and the external candidate had also appeared to be very good too. It did seem to me that there was a bias from the committees at times against internal candidates. There were a few times that I would not give the unit an extra position for I felt that they were overly enriched with faculty positions at that time, Hence an internal search was required. In others there were very acceptable minority and/or women candidates in the department for consideration by the committee. However, in the vast majority of cases we did open searches. John was correct in his assumption that we were selecting more department heads from the outside and that heads were staying in the position for shorter periods of time. In reality this was true for almost all administrative positions.

Chair-Elect Carter stated that several people in these discussions have come to similar conclusions as those voiced by Provost Winstead. "Bringing in people just to be administrators can offer no advantage to departments if the academic fields are redundant to their needs. Then if they do not work out or if they serve well but get tired of the job, we now have a tenured full professor and an additional person in that field. People remarked on the other side that unless we are searching for a department head, the university will not give us money for a full professor slot. Sometimes you want to hire a full professor who has a national or international reputation, and perhaps has funding that will really stimulate research in the department. I wonder if Provost Hall might want to comment on that."

Provost Hall commented that he does not remember during his time here when that particular argument has come to the floor. He does think that the future of the university depends very much on having an open and transparent budgeting process and that one of the ways to get at that is to have faculty who are more attuned to those issues. One of the ways to get them more attuned to those issues is to put them in the position of sharing the responsibility for leadership of the department and sharing knowledge about what goes on in the department. This means pressing for resources in a different way than merely pressing for resources on the basis of trying to recruit a head.

Resources and Environment Committee
Secretary Brown, Co-Chair of the Resources and Environment Committee, reported that Kathy Hart, University Treasurer, attended their last meeting to provide an overview of how the university handles its investments.

NC State’s endowment is fairly small compared to some of its sister institutions. The university’s endowment is approximately $300 million. This compares to approximately $1 billion for UNC-Chapel Hill and $3.5 billion for Duke. The size of the endowment determines how much risk can be taken.

The investments are currently going through a period of transition. Approximately one year ago, there was a new structure organized called the NC State Investment Fund pooled. The resources of several of the foundations. Not all of the foundations fall under that umbrella.

Reports are made quarterly to the Board of Trustees.

Senator Elmaghraby wanted to know what the management load is on the funds.

Senator Brown responded approximately 1%.

Senator Brown reported that the committee will be addressing the issue of concern pertaining to the lighting of the bell tower at a future meeting.

8.    Issues of Concern
Senator Ash stated that a faculty member in CALS is concerned about the State Health Insurance plan and the asynchrony of the coverage plan year versus deductible plan year.

Senator Brothers stated that a member of the Fee Appeals Committee is concerned about fees being charged to Lifelong Education Students for services that they do not use.

Chair-Elect Carter assigned the issue of concern to the Academic Policy Committee for them to address.

9.    Adjournment
Chair-Elect Carter adjourned the meeting at 4:30 p.m.

Footer Nav