Left Navigation

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

April 16, 2002

Present: Chair Carter, Chair Emeritus Corbin, Provost Cooper, Parliamentarian Gilbert; Senators Allen, Ash, Bernhard, Braunbeck, Cassidy, Daley, Funderlic, Garval, Grainger, Havner, Headen, Hooper, Hughes-Oliver, Istook, Kimler, Kirby, Marshall, Misra, Sawyers, Smoak, Tucker, Tyler, Weiner, Wilkerson

Absent: Senators Brothers, El-Masry, Grimes, Kirby, Lytle, McRae, Rolle, Vickery

Excused: Secretary Banks; Senators Blanchard, Hodge, Levine

Visitors: Marye Anne Fox, Chancellor; Clare Kristofco, Executive Assistant to the Chancellor; David Winwood, Director of Technology Transfer; Rosalind Thomas, Staff Senate Chair; Samara Fleming Burnette, Assistant to the Senior Vice Provost; Judy Peel, Associate Vice Provost for Faculty Development; Kathy Brown, Acting Associate Director, NCSU Libraries; Paul Cousins, Director Office of Student Conduct; Daniel Bunce, Editor of the Bulletin, News Services

1.    Call to Order
The thirteenth 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 referred to an article in the Chronicle on Higher Education titled "Hardest Hit Colleges and States with Records Deficits Face Sharp Cutbacks." He noted that interestingly NC State is not one of the institutions mentioned.

3. Approval of the Minutes, Meeting No. 12, April 2, 2002
The minutes were approved without dissent.

4. Remarks from the Chancellor
Chancellor Fox commented on the budget and Conference Center.

"Approximately three weeks ago the Chief Financial Officer of the system asked that the university put together a contingency plan that would retain the cuts that were proposed last year. In addition add further cuts for this year, i.e, that we were to provide scenarios that addressed 8% cuts on top of 3.5% cuts from last year. This is such a draconian measure that there really will have to be significant changes in how we think about funding the university. If we are at the other end, say 1 or 2%, I think we can still manage to keep things functioning without dramatically affecting either hiring into current positions or having major reductions in faculty. The likelihood is that it is going to be somewhere in between. The exercising and the planning were done in the way that the system asked us to do things. That is with very little notice and very little time to do anything except to cross the budget cuts. I think we are in a stage now where without additional information we cannot do very much more than that except to look realistically at the fact that you have been reading in the newspaper that there are significant problems in the state budget. Every month they seem to be getting worse. The reversal of that might follow when the income tax receipts are received. Unless there is some relief, we really will be facing a significant cut. With a significant cut on top of a significant cut the headline that Chair Carter mentioned puts North Carolina in an odd situation that we were not mentioned among the hardest hit. There are institutions in the country who had increases in their budget last year. Texas for example had a 12.5% increase last year and although they are not doing well this year, they are looking only at a flat budget. With respect to quality we are making the argument as clearly as we can–that you cannot anticipate having cuts year after year without appropriate pools available to reward those who are doing extraordinary work at an institution, and still remain among the top institutions in the country. I ask that you both join with us in thinking about how ultimately we can respond as good public servants and as people who serve the interest of North Carolina, but at the same time maintain quality. It is going to call on us to do more things, more efficiently and less expensively. Being able to identify those things is going to be an important responsibility for all of us. It is a bad budget situation that we are going to have this year. It is likely to be not positive next year. We would hope that by the next year that things will be recovered and we can get back on track.

With that kind of budget news you might be asking why it is that, in this climate, we are thinking about a Conference Center and a golf course. The answer is that our competitive advantage is the fact that we have been able to move up in national rankings because of very strong collaborations with our industrial partners, many of whom are present on the Centennial campus. The first time that this project was approved was 1986, as part of the physical master plan for the Centennial campus. It was approved again in 1994, and it was voted on for the first time by our Board of Trustees in 1996, which is two years prior to my coming. What has happened since then is that we have had study after study. All of which say this is a Conference Center that is critical to our mission and not only is it critical to the mission but it is one that is going to pay for itself. We can argue about whether it will pay for itself, whether times have changed, etc. When we contacted a hotel/motel industry representative who makes these kinds of projections, the argument that he made was that, although he would be delighted to take our money to do yet another study, the recovery from September 11 is faster than any industry analyst had expected. Looking into our economy, one of the fastest recovering segments of our economy is tourism, hotels and motels. With respect to our projections, the advice that we are getting from the best experts in the country is that this project will pay for itself. "What is it going to pay for? Why an eighteen hole golf course?" One reason is that we have recently obtained permission from the Professional Golf Association for a management degree that is unique in North Carolina in our Parks Recreation and Tourism Department. That department believes it is critical for their PhD program. The accreditation for that program requires access to a golf course which can be managed. It is also vital for our Turf Grass Management Program, which is one of the strongest in the nation. So with respect to those two programs, we must have a golf course. All the analyses are that unless we have funds set aside or private donations for a golf course, what we have to do is have a revenue stream associated with it that will assume the costs that are relevant to those laboratories. A Conference Center would do that, and at the same time it will build our representation internationally. It will bring people onto this campus so that they can see the measures by which we are excelling. Every indicator that we have is that the private sector understands that we will be successful. In fact, if you think about it, the opposition that we have had recently is the strongest indicator that we will be successful in this venture. I can tell you that during the period between 1994-1996 this project went out for bids. There were a very large number of bids that were received (over twenty). It was reduced to three bids for the final bid round. One came from Marriott, one was from the Morelock Group, and one from BenchMark and Hines with whom we are associated. After very aggressive bids by all three of these professional organizations, they too said that this is something that makes sense for North Carolina State and that it will be profitable. So we are at a stage where we need to go forward. Once the contract was let to BenchMark and Hines we were asked for a guarantee for use of the Conference Center. That is, we need to have faculty here saying they will bring conferences to use the Conference Center effectively. That will be in addition to the uses for our executive education and our continuing education programs, which provide financial support for our distance education degree programs. To the extent that all of that happens, then what we have to do is to have a revenue stream that will allow us to access that Conference Center. When we looked at the number of nights that were guaranteed, approximately 40% of capacity, the guarantee was essentially a financial risk that we were taking. Financial risk for guaranteeing nights in the hotel would allow us to give money to BenchMark and Hines, but it would not allow us to share as effectively in an equitable position and the potential profits. So another analysis was made by a professional organization, presented, and validated by the Board of Trustees and the Board of Governors that we would take ownership. This would have the possibility not only for a level of risk which was no greater than that required by guaranteeing the nights but also provide the potential for upside profit. In that sense we are the ones that moved away from the private sector. The private sector did not move away from us, and in fact they were quite willing to go ahead with the project. This latter plan allows us to have a possibility for revenue to come back. As we go forward, what we are doing is essentially taking at face value the commitments that have been made by many of the college deans to encourage the faculty to have conferences at this center. We have done market projections about what is a reasonable level. We have assumed risks for this loan. Part of the loan is taxable, because only part of the center use will be related to our academic programs. We anticipate that the Alumni Center, for example, and some for-profit organizations such as our partners on the Centennial Campus will also be using the Conference Center for their communication needs. In fact, when we recruited every one of those sixty five companies on the Centennial Campus, it was with a promise that this village, a part of which is this Conference Center and golf course, would be available as part of the entire package. To move away from constructing a hotel and Conference Center would be inappropriate with respect to the commitments we have made to our partners. So for all these reasons we are very enthusiastic about the Conference Center. We have no money for it. Some of you who might ask why, if we are talking about a loan of $65M in order to build a center and pay it off over the next twenty years, we are not investing that money in faculty salaries or in infrastructures for the main campus. The reality is that we do not have that money. The only reason we are able to borrow that money is because of these reasonable professional recommendations that have said that the Conference Center will operate on its own dime. We are going forward because we believe in the mission and because we have promised our Centennial Campus partners that we would do so. With the Centennial Campus is the future of this university, and it is our competitive advantage. We truly believe that it will provide a positive cash flow that will allow us to have these facilities for the use of our faculty, students and staff in a way that will be beneficial for everyone.

Senator Smoak wanted to know what size conference the center would accommodate?

Chancellor Fox responded 250 rooms.

Vice Chancellor Moreland stated that the building will be designed as a place for conferences.

Senator Daley wanted to know if NC State is also exploring the idea of doing a Hotel Management Program.

Chancellor Fox responded not right now, although that would be a possibility.

Senator Kimler asked Chancellor Fox for her reaction on the PhD proposals in history at UNC Greensboro.

Chancellor Fox stated that she has consistently opposed almost all PhD proposals at other institutions. "We need a critical mass of intellectual talent at this campus and at Chapel Hill."

Senator Funderlic wanted to know if there are any other ACC schools that do not have a golf course.

Chancellor Fox responded that she does not believe there are.

5.    Remarks from Paul Cousins, Director of the Office of Student Conduct
Paul Cousins stated that the Office of Student Conduct has the obligation to operationalize and facilitate the code of student conduct which controls student behavior in and around campus. "One of the areas that brings me in closest contact with you is the notion of preserving integrity in the classroom and how the code of student conduct offers support and foundation for faculty efforts in those regards."

"The Faculty Senate was a primary partner in the creation of the version that we have that was completed in 1990. It is time for us to take a look at making more significant changes in that document. We have done smaller modifications. The code itself is in fact, policy and therefore would need to be changed by the Board of Trustees. The Procedures Manual is administrative regulation and can be changed here on campus. We are seeking comments now on the code portion that I hope will be submitted in the July meeting of the Board of Trustees.

The easiest way to access the document is through the web page for the Office of Student Conduct which is located at . There is a button on the web page that will give you a version of that document in Microsoft Word with the track changes function already activated so that you will be able to see the original document as well as the changes suggested by my staff and the students that we work with as well as the Office of Legal Affairs. Two elements that you will notice changes upon are:

Significant broadening of the definition of what constitutes a student. There were a couple of cases this past year that really pushed us to protect both the integrity of the degree as well as to protect the safety of students. One was a drug case where three young men were charged with distribution of felony level drugs downtown. Two of them were currently enrolled. The third had stepped out for a semester and therefore was not covered under the code of student conduct. The first two young men were expelled from the university and the third person is a student here now even though he engaged in the same behavior set. That causes me great personal concern about unleashing that kind of person.

Academic Misconduct Case. A young man who had been out of the university for a couple of years presented information to the university suggesting that he had tested out of a foreign language requirement when in truth that documentation was falsified. We were notified of the creation of these false documents by an off-campus copy center. We took a risk with that person even though he was not technically a student. Courts have consistently been very generous about giving universities authority to protect the integrity of degree. We processed that case and that young man was found guilty.

There are many areas of the code that call upon myself and my staff, Vice Chancellor Stafford on up to the Chancellor to make judgement calls about whether or not we are going to get involved. We currently have tests in place that we must use, and there are some oversight measures in place through Student Affairs and Legal Affairs to ensure that we are on track with those things. The goal is to protect the safety and integrity of this community. Those two cases illustrate that very well.

The second issue that I would draw your attention to is a refining of language associated with harassment. We were sued a couple of years ago, and as part of that settlement out of court the legal staff at General Administration at Chapel Hill determined that in that particular instance, harassment was defined very narrowly. The language as it existed in the code at that time was written too broadly to defend in some cases. Based on a directive from the General Administration at Chapel Hill, we are taking this opportunity to refine that language. Those are the two elements I think are substantive. Past that point there is a lot of language, punctuation, and some reorganization to try to make the document a little more user friendly. It is my hope to gather comments on that, and have it on the Board of Trustees agenda for July."

Rosalind Thomas, Chair of the Staff Senate wanted to know the definition of harassment.

Cousins responded that there had been language in the code that defined harassment as entirely user defined. "That will not pass the test. So what we did was bring the code more in line with the definitions of harassment that the university uses in other arenas such as general harassment, racial harassment, and sexual harassment as those would be applied and defined in OEO and through some legal things that we can define."

Chair Carter asked Cousins to comment on the responsibilities of a professor in accusations and harassment in a classroom.

Cousins responded that a faculty member is controlling in terms of the environment in a classroom. "Many times we have an academic environment that is controversial and volatile as many of ours are. It is probably in our best interest to be prepared to intervene in some way. The expectation that the university would have would be more conversation, a willingness and an openness to have more conversation, and to be very candid about those things. I think a faculty member has the authority and the ability to set standards in their classroom."

Cousins stated that a student who has a conflict with a student has the ability to use either the Office of Student Conduct or the Office of Equal Opportunity. A student who has a concern about a faculty member has the grievance procedure associated with that, and a student concerned about a full department’s response, as we have heard in the press, also enjoys the opportunity to file a grievance. If it is student-to-student conflict, there are at least two separate options. If the student is in disagreement with a faculty member or a department, that is reviewed in the context of a grievance.

Senator Funderlic wanted to know if a faculty member has the right to have a student removed from a classroom if he views the activity of the student as disruptive.

Cousins responded yes. There are some constraints upon that. If the student will not leave the faculty member can call the campus police.

6.    Satellite Shelving Facility
Kathy Brown, Acting Associate Director for Collection Mananagement, addressed concerns about the Satellite Shelving Facility.

"Over the past few years we have been taking out seating and putting in shelving where the old and the new towers intersect. We are now at the point where our shelves are full and we have reduced the amount of seating available for students.

We are in the process of renovating the old Central Stores Site, which is located on Sullivan Drive. The reason we went with a renovation, rather than building a totally new facility, is that a new facility takes a great deal of money and a long time to get approved. When this opportunity presented itself, we moved in the renovation route.

The facility will be up and running next fall. The main renovations that are necessary include new climate control, lighting, and tearing down walls. We will be installing shelving that runs on tracks, and eliminate the isle space, so that you can fit in more volumes. We estimate that, when this facility is totally outfitted, it will be able to house more than 800,000 volumes. It is going to relieve a lot of our stack space crunch.

In terms of special collections materials, we are not moving any rare books over there. Things from the special collections area will be primarily thesis, dissertations, manuscripts, etc.

We are currently working on processing journal titles that either ceased or have been canceled prior to 1995. What we are trying to target for moving over to the facility are things that are of relatively low use.

There are two ways that services will be provided. The facility will be opened by appointment between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. Monday through Friday. It will have a reading room. The other way would be to have documents or materials delivered to you. We have set a very aggressive service goal. We hope to be able to deliver materials within two hours of request for anything that is made before 4:00 p.m. General articles, could be delivered via fax machine, scanning to your desktop or hardcopy."

Some of the groups/committees on campus have suggested that not everyone needs two hour deliveries and that any request form should indicate when next day delivery is fine.

Senator Funderlic suggested that maybe they should have three levels of storage instead of two.

Brown thinks that is a good idea. She stated that they want the branches and DH Hill to have the materials that are used the heaviest. The facility is only expected to last six to ten years-- then another place for storage will be needed.

7.    Memorial Statement
Senator Hooper read a memorial statement in honor of Dr. John P. Reuer, Professor Emeritus, Department of Architecture in the College of Design.

8.    Unfinished Business
Patent Policy and Procedures
Vice Chancellor Moreland reviewed the changes that had been made in the document. He stated that the current policy is inconsistent with the guidelines. It is not up to date with the process that is being used now. He pointed out that the Intellectual Property Committee has the advisory role in examining disclosures from the faculty and making recommendations to the Office of Technology Transfer.

Vice Chancellor Moreland stated that they had made other changes with regard to royalty distribution. "We thought about the recommendation that came out of the Intellectual Property Committee to go to a distribution of 60/40 (60% university and 40% to inventors). It is the same percentage distribution that Chapel Hill uses. It is a generous one based on national standards. Our percentage, as opposed to Chapel Hill’s is based upon gross royalties. They take the percentage of net royalties. All the expenses for the Technology Transfer Office are paid out of the 60% that we are retaining. It is really ambiguous to try to explain what net is and how to document every single dollar that you might spend in actively pursuing patents.

Normally I would say that we are dealing with somewhere between 3-3.5M dollars of royalty income license and royalty income. If you take the expenditures for the staff and the office it is probably about three quarters of a million dollars. The legal expenses are running more than $1.5M. We are pressing very much with a 40% return to absorb $3.5M. That is a bit of an overestimate because we do recoup a lot of the charges that we have with regard to a patent. For example if we get a patent and license it to a dealing company, we would ask them to pay part or all of those costs.

The principle change that is occurring here is that, within the royalty section, we do not want to insert specific percentages. I would suggest that, if our royalty income was to increase, I think that you might want to revisit how the dollars are shared in different ways with different groups. The reason we went to having a regulation in the policy was to allow us to make changes with that distribution and other fine points without having to go back to the trustees every time."

Senator Wilkerson commented that if the goal is to give the inventors as much as possible then she would like to see a change in the minimum from 15% to the current 25% rather than sitting it at a minimum of 15%.

Vice Chancellor Moreland stated that the 15% number is the Board of Governors’ number. He agrees that the number is set too low.

Senator Wilkerson stated that it seems to be bad policy not to return anything to the program.

Vice Chancellor Moreland stated that right now they cannot do that with a 40% return. They think it is better to get it up to 40% and then take another look at that.

Senator Daley stated that the Intellectual Property Committee is not like our ordinary committees. Changes in royalties require their concurrence.

Senator Daley moved that the Faculty Senate accept the Patent Policy Procedures.

The motion was seconded, voted on, and passed without dissent.

Library Fines
Senator Ash, Chair of the Academic Policy Committee, stated that the committee reviewed the policy and did not have a problem with the spirit of the recommendation from the Library Committee. They felt that the proposal was reasonable. The committee recommends that the Faculty Senate endorse the proposal. The motion was voted on, and passed without dissent.

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

Footer Nav