November 13, 2001
Present: Chair Carter, Secretary Banks, Chair Emeritus Corbin, Provost Cooper, Parliamentarian Gilbert; Senators Ash, Bernhard, Blanchard, Braunbeck, Brothers, Cassidy, Daley, Elmaghraby, Funderlic, Garval, Havner, Kimler, Kirby, Levine, Lytle, Marshall, Sawyers, Smoak, Tucker, Tyler, Weiner, Wilkerson
Absent: Senators El-Masry, Grainger, Grimes, Istook, Vickery
Excused: Senators Allen, Headen, Hodge, Hooper, Misra, Rolle
Visitors: Benny Benton, Assistant Editor, Bulletin; Donn Ward, Faculty Athletics Representative
1. Call to Order
The fifth meeting of the forty-eighth session of the North Carolina State University Faculty Senate was called to order at 3:00 p.m. by Chair Philip B. Carter.
2. Welcome and Announcements
Chair Carter welcomed Senators and Guests.
Chair Carter announced that Professor Keith Peterson, Chair of the Faculty Senate from 1971-72, passed away. A wake will be held November 13 from 7- 9 p. m. at Brown & Wynne Funeral Home on St. Mary’s Street. The memorial service will be held at 2:00 p.m. tomorrow at Community United Church of Christ, 814 Dixie Trail.
Chair Carter stated that a former NC State student, Commander Cranford who was killed in the attack on the Pentagon was recognized yesterday at the Bell Tower Ceremony.
3. Approval of the Minutes, Meeting No. 4, October 30, 2001
The minutes were approved as amended.
4. Remarks from the Provost
"As you know, most state agencies are under an obligation to draw up a 4% reduction expenditure for this year. Indeed our cash flow is reflecting that. We are getting 96% of our budget every month. President Broad seemed to negotiate an agreement with the governor that the academic programs in the university systems would be cut only 2.7%. She also said in the same letter of instructions to us that, in order to prepare for any kind of contingency for the end of the year, we should be prepared to have a reduction of 4%. We have to proceed on that basis. It turns out that we are able to proceed in a way that holds harmless in a way the academic programs of the campus. I discussed this at the Friends of the Library lunch. It turns out because of carryover that we ultimately received late, with respect to the funds in enrollment funding and funds that we received in the campus base from the tuition increase, we are able to absorb the 4% cut so that the colleges and departments will not have to go through another exercise to extract money from unfilled positions. As it stands now, there will be no further budget cutting. In fact, there is some money in which we can go ahead with things like the compact planning initiatives. Once we received the final directions from the office of the president, we proceeded very directly to go through a process by which first we met with the deans of all the colleges to examine the microscopic components of the budget. We then charged the deans to come back with modified plans in light of the reality of how much money there was with respect to what they would like to have funded. There are certain things we have already agreed to. That has to be taken off of the table. There are things in the compact plan and there are other things that come up in the ordinary course of events. Indeed over the next two weeks each dean is coming in with a revision of their list of priorities. Shortly after the Thanksgiving weekend I will be making decisions about what can be funded in the compact plan and other obligations that we have in the colleges. This is good news indeed. We will be able to implement a few initiatives beyond what was going on in the previous year. I view that as fairly positive.
With respect to salaries, we should soon be able to get a word from President Broad’s office to release the information. There were promotion increases for sixty-seven faculty. There was approximately $700,000 in gender equity. Beyond that, from tuition increase $1.55M went into faculty salaries in a very prescribed way. We were charged to provide faculty salary amendments wherever we could find issues in salary compression, inversion, depression and unrecognized merit, according to our correspondence with President Broad’s office. Every case that department heads and deans brought forward had to have rationalization on the basis of one of these issues with respect to faculty salary. That review process is almost complete. There will be some increases this year and we are pleased with that.
The other item that is worthwhile to bring forward is that there has been an issue with respect to salary equity in the College of Humanities and Social Sciences in the area of the non tenure track faculty. Dean Brady and I met with twelve to fifteen of the faculty to hear their concerns and also to reassure them that steps were being taken to address the problem. The steps that are being taken began with Dean Zahn, who put it as a very high priority in her compact plan. Specifically the three-year plan to improve the salary condition of the non tenure track faculty in CHASS. Of course Dean Brady has been even more aggressive to move that plan along, accelerating the progress. As it stands, it should be possible to fund a good portion, if not all, of the initiative for this year’s compact plan that benefits the non tenure track faculty in CHASS. They have other issues beyond raw salary that I think are problems that we have to deal with eventually. Beyond salary is teaching load, space, and the role that they play in the college."
Senator Sawyers stated that the Department Head in Accounting mentioned that the number of faculty that could receive raises in excess of the $625 was limited regardless of these other issues. " Is that true? If so, what is the rationale for that?"
Provost Cooper stated that he does not know if there was a numeric limit. There certainly was a limit with respect to the reasons that could be employed by a department head or dean to make a recommendation. It was owing to limited resources. He supported those department heads and deans who focused and tried to solve the most serious problems that were arising because of things like compression of salaries.
Senator Kimler wanted to know the Provost’s prognosis on searches this year in light of a possible worsening economy.
Provost Cooper responded, "We are going to be doing some searches. I cannot say what will happen in a given department or college. Now that the deans have a much better handle on what the budget will be, there will be opportunities to do searches. Indeed some of the compact initiatives involve new faculty lines. The reality is that you have the money now and it is December 1. It is not realistic to bring a person here until probably next summer or next fall. If the money is in the college, I have a feeling that those dollars in faculty lines for searches that can not be completed will likely be shifted over to cover pressing expenses."
Senator Kimler stated that his college is most worried about critical areas where they have retirees that they are trying to replace. He wanted to know if there is a chance that those might be suspended.
Provost Cooper stated that he has not put a restraint on the deans that would prohibit searches from taking place if they have the budget for them. Many of them will have budget because the positions are not being taken away when someone retires, leaves, etc. He stated, "There are other kinds of issues such that we have enough startup in certain departments, and that goes beyond my control because a lot of the startup comes from the Vice Chancellor for Research."
5. Remarks from Donn Ward, Faculty Athletics Representative
Dr. Ward stated that one item that the Chancellor has charged the Council to deal with are the issues associated with the Knight Commission Report. He would like feedback from the Senate as to our response to the issues that the report has raised.
"At the last meeting I became convinced that I was either over optimistic or naive. We will continue to discuss this report to reveal a variety of different thoughts relative to the overall issues that the commission has raised and perhaps even some of the sub-issues of how they propose to resolve those larger issues. To a great extent that is where most of the contention lies. Most of the faculty would look at the larger issues raised (e.g. those associated with academic performance, de-escalation of the arms race, emphasis on commercialization). There are really no problems with that. It is how you achieve those. The way I plan to operate is that we will continue to discuss the report. I plan to draft sometime in December, a response to the Knight Commission Report. During the January meeting, I will provide this to the Council and solicit all sorts of comments, corrections, input, etc. In February, I will present the revised document to the committee and those of the council who care to sign on with that particular response to the Chancellor can choose to do so.
The prime reason I am here today is to talk with you about the Academic Report Card. I gave this to the Council, the Chancellor, and the Provost earlier this fall. The data that I am reporting to you is for 2000-2001. The data is a year behind."
Dr. Ward reported that there were no special admits in athletics for 2000-2001 and there have been no special athletic admits since 1995. There was no change in the NCAA’s initial eligibility standards during that 2000-2001 year. Changes have been on hold for several years because of a court challenge to the previous changes that the NCAA made. That has since been resolved in court in favor of the NCAA. There is some possibility that that resolution could trigger modifications to initial eligibility standards.
The overall GPA for the eighteen squads was 2.87 for the spring of 2001, up slightly from the previous year of 2.86. This has been edging upward for the last few years, a very positive sign. There were seven teams including the gymnastics team which is all women, women’s cross country and track, the rifle team which is co-ed, volleyball, women’s soccer, and women’s tennis. Women’s golf had an overall GPA of 3.0. The women’s tennis team and the football team achieved their highest teams’ GPA ever. Ninety-one students made the Dean’s List and 200 had semester GPAs over 3.0. For the most part, he thinks NC State has excellent student athletes.
Dr. Ward pointed out that the men’s basketball team has not graduated anyone in the last few years. Coach Herb Sendek’s tenure started in April 1996. While recruits have not made it into the data base yet, he graduated four seniors last year. Starting with the spring of 1996 the men’s basketball team does seem to reflect some level of improvement.
At the end of the spring semester 96% of the student athletes were either fully eligible for the next year or could easily become eligible in summer school--78% were fully eligible, 7% needed to declare a major, and there were a number of athletes who became eligible after summer.
At the end of the spring semester 8.7% of the student athletes were on academic warning and 6.4% were suspended.
There has been no change in the continuing eligibility requirements for 2000-2001. However, the NCAA governing bodies are giving considerations to instituting a grade point requirement change beginning in the third semester. Currently at the beginning of the fifth semester, a student athlete is only required to have a 1.8 GPA to be able to continue. Most of the athletes do not have a problem with that.
Dr. Ward stated that, when looking at student athletes, they have for the first time in a while graduated at the six-year level on par with the overall student body. Male student athletes do not do as well as the females and some of their more high profile teams do not do as well as they would like. Football being at 53%, men’s basket ball 0%. Women’s basketball does very well at 75%. A running four-year average for the athletic teams is 59%.
Dr. Ward stated, " If we have a cohort of recruited student athletes coming in who leave the university and transfer in good academic standing into another school and ultimately graduate from that institution, they still count against us."
Senator Kimler suggested that there might be something that Dr. Ward could do for internal use on campus as a sense of the types of students that we have, for reassurance that they are not just gone.
Dr. Ward stated that currently the NCAA has a limitation. "In basketball, you can recruit, over a two-year period, eight athletes, with no more than five in any one year. If you bring in five one year, you have to bring in three the next year. If you lose one of those three, then your graduation rate is going to be at best 67%. There is discussion among the presidents of the athletic conferences and even within our own ACC to try to get the NCAA to refigure their graduation formula. It does not seem fair if someone leaves here in good academic standing, that the university would be held accountable for them in a graduation. Early on there was concern that coaches were running people off. If you run them off you are going to be penalized for some reason. I suspect that there have been coaches in the past who have run people off, not necessarily here at NC State. From folks who have been around for a while, we hear that that is relatively rare and it is certainly rarer today than it was a few years ago.
The graduation percentage of student athletes that have received aid and who have exhausted their eligibility is approximately 82% in a ten year running average. Of those student athletes that receive aid and have exhausted their eligibility while here, most of them stay on to get their degree.
As the academic standing for the freshmen students in our general population increases, if we do not have an increasing proportional standard for increasing the preparedness of our student athletes, it becomes increasingly difficult for those kids to compete in the classroom. It is really an increasing challenge to Phil Moses’ group to keep our athletes on track for graduation.
Senator Tucker stated that the data seems to contradict that premise. There is no correlation between academic performance and SATs.
Dr. Ward stated that there were two special admits that will show up in next year’s data. That means that those students are below the 1.8 academic index. They are going to be challenged when they come to this institution. It is going to be a real challenge to Phil Moses’ group.
Senator Levine commented that there was a time when freshmen were not eligible to play. He wanted to know if anyone has contrasted GPAs and graduation rates and the success of those students during their tenure at NCAA universities.
Dr. Ward stated that, if you look at the Knight Commission Report, one of the potential suggestions, in the context of academic reform, that is suggested is academic freshmen ineligibility. Even when this was debated in the council, there was a number of people who supported that. There were also those who said that there are freshmen who come in that are truly capable of performing well in the classroom and can compete. Why penalize them? "I do not know where to fall on this. There are good arguments in both directions, but as far as actual data I do not have it."
Senator Kimler wanted to know if there has been any movement in the ACC to move to more of an NC State standard.
Dr. Ward stated that when he says "special admits" those are by our own university standard. All of our athletes coming into ACC schools have to qualify from the context of NCAA. That is not true at other conferences. They will admit non qualifiers and then ultimately, if they stay at that institution and do well the first year or so, they may compete. We have a policy within the ACC, that, if a non qualifier is admitted to this institution, that player cannot play at this institution, and further he or she cannot transfer to any other ACC institution and compete.
6. Unfinished Business
Chair Carter noted that the Faculty and Trustees Committee on Honorary Degrees will meet on Thursday and will propose additional recipients of the Honorary Degree. There is still not very good input at faculty level, and he asked for more faculty nominations for the Honorary Degrees.
Senator Bernhard stated that he was on the committee for a number of years and that it might be more aggressively publicized that such nominations are wanted. He also noted that the library and others will give substantial help in documenting the case.
Senator Kimler commented that he does not think there has ever been an argument made to the faculty about what they get out of NC State granting Honorary Doctorates within the various fields. They probably think it is more work. He feels that this needs to be addressed with a short presentation at the next General Faculty Meeting.
Chair Carter stated that many of the recipients have come in early and given a departmental presentation. If those persons were asked to come in just for that purpose, it would cost a lot of money as opposed to getting them for the price of meals, hotel and travel. The degrees give exposure to the university. Many of these people have never been to NC State, and from comments that they have made at the dinner held the night prior to graduation, they are uniformly complimentary and even admit to having a very different view of the university. That is where it all plays to our benefit.
Chair Carter stated that the committee will receive nominations but they will not make a decision to actually bring forth specific names to the Board of Trustees. After Thursday’s meeting, it will be four months before anyone else can be considered. He encouraged the faculty to stimulate some interest within that time.
Senator Bernhard commented that the Chancellor is very enthusiastic about this. He feels that somehow the word is not coming down to the rank-and-file. If it were, there would be more nominations because there are clearly a lot of people eligible.
Chair Carter stated that it is the faculty’s responsibility to transmit information. "What you are as a faculty senator is a representative of your faculty and that means a two way voice."
Chair Carter asked the senior senators from each college to come up with some names from faculty within the next four months.
Personnel Policy Committee
Senator Marshall reported that the Personnel Policy Committee reviewed a draft of a proposal for changes in faculty titles. They have given some input on that and are waiting for the remainder of the document.
Resources and Environment Committee
Senator Wilkerson reported that, at their next meeting, they plan to compose a resolution relating to the new copyright policy and also to suggest some revised wording to that policy.
Academic Policy Committee
Senator Ash reported that the committee is continuing to review the university wide teaching instrument. They will be reporting on that issue at a later date.
Senator Ash made a motion that the faculty approve the Drop for Non-Attendance Policy that was presented at the last meeting.
The motion was seconded and passed without dissent.
Senator Havner, Chair of the Lifelong Faculty Involvement Committee stated that he asked Provost Cooper when the first appropriate administrative groups, including the Council on Deans, will review the document on Emeritus Faculty and Involvement prepared by the committee last year.
The committee is planning to send out material to approximately 145 emeriti faculty who responded in summer 2000 to a survey which was sent out to all emeritus faculty. That would include a summary report that Dr. Art Cooper prepared on some of the sessions in last March’s conference, "Lifelong Involvement of Retired Faculty and Staff in University Life," that the committee initiated.
8. Issues of Concern
Chair Carter stated that a faculty member from Physics wants to know who is eligible to rent space and have events in the McKimmon Center.
Chair Carter assigned the concern to the Resources and Environment Committee.
Senator Sawyers stated that some faculty members in the College of Management are concerned about the misuse of social security numbers as identification numbers in the university.
Chair Carter assigned the concern to the Academic Policy Committee.
Chair Carter adjourned the meeting at 4:30 p.m.