Left Navigation

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

October 29, 2002

Present: Chair Carter, Chair-Elect Daley, Provost Cooper, Parliamentarian Gilbert; Senators Allen, Ash, Atkin, Beasley, Bernhard, Carter, DeLuca, Garval, Hammerberg, Havner, Headen, Hodge, Honeycutt, Istook, Jasper, Krotee, McRae, Rice, Smoak, Stoddard, Tyler, Weiner

Absent: Senators Fahmy, Griffin, Peacock, Tetro

Excused: Secretary Banks; Senators Brothers, Fikry, Lytle, Matthews, Misra, Sawyers

Visitors: Frank Abrams, Sr. Vice Provost, Academic Affairs; Benny Benton, Bulletin Online Editor; Donn Ward, Professor, Food Science; Lee Fowler, Athletics Director; Erich Fabricius, President Pro Tem, Student Senate; Peter Kilpatrick, Chemical Engineering; Hal Hopfenberg, Chemical Engineering; Sandy Connolly, Assistant Vice Provost, Academic Administration; Dr. Liudmila Rychkova, Grodno State University, Belarus; Dr. Marina Martynova, Mordovian State University, Russia

1. Call to Order
The fifth meeting of the forty-ninth 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 introduced guests from Belarus and Russia.

Chair Carter announced that Chancellor Fox has been elected to serve on the Board of Trustees at Notre Dame.

3. Approval of the Minutes, Meeting No. 4, October 15, 2002
The minutes were approved without dissent.

4.    Remarks from the Provost
"Salary Administration is currently very active in the colleges and departments. While there is not any increase overall from the state for faculty or staff salaries, there is $300 in campus- initiated tuition increase that all the students have had to pay this year which made available approximately $7.0M for the academic programs and a little more for management and the College of Veterinary Medicine. In that $7.0M that is for the core operations, approximately one half of that is for need-based financial aid. Approximately one million dollars is set aside for the graduate students’ support plan, leaving more than $2.5M for faculty salary increases. We are administering them as I speak. That equates to approximately 1.9% on average and is only able to be applied in situations where there are market issues or equity issues in an individual salary, which means in most cases people are not getting increases. In the stated cases the raises range from increases are finite, and in some cases several percent all the way up to the 15% level. That 1.9% applies to faculty positions (1310 positions) in the university. A little more money is available and allowable for use if the college has endowment funds.

Due to the performance in the stock market, the amount of new money for faculty salaries that could be added to the campus-initiated tuition increase was minimal to non existent. It is also possible in a given situation if you were to cannibalize 1310 positions to take some of that money and put into faculty salaries. Very few department heads and deans chose that route. In addition, the non-faculty EPA (1110 lines in colleges) were also allowed with no money to apply up to a 1.9% on the average increase. In that situation the only way raises could be awarded was by cannibalizing existing lines. In both cases, for faculty and nonfaculty EPA, the only factors that could be used in making the recommendations were for market and equity; in all of these cases merit is assumed. You have to show with statistics that it is a market based situation.

The other issue is that we also have, for distribution to the colleges and to the offices of the Vice Provost, enrollment funding. We received full enrollment funding which is on the order of approximately fifteen million dollars. Eleven to twelve million can be distributed after certain mandated items. We are about to engage in that process. There are four components to the distribution that we are going to use.

1) The compact plan for 2002-03.

2) A component for enrollment growth over the period from 1996-present to correct some budget inequities that have arisen from enrollment growth.

3) money for infrastructure

4) A "one time" category where the money will be the reserve for next year’s compact plan. We already know that next year, instead of getting fifteen million, we may get 1.5 million or an order of magnitude less in enrollment funding.

It has already dictated our plans for enrollment at the university. I think for enrollment funding dollars will be rather small for the next two or three years."

Provost Cooper thanked the dean and faculty of the College of Veterinary Medicine for a very professionally done college leadership assessment and program review. He noted that this was Dean Fletcher’s second five-year review as Dean of the College of Veterinary Medicine.

Provost Cooper noted that nominations are being received for University Teaching Awards for faculty. Nominations are due by Friday, November 1, 2002.

A senator wanted to know if any available endowment funds would be restricted to increases based on market or equity issues as well.

Provost Cooper stated that, as an example, if you have an endowed professor, chances are that individual is someone who is capable of receiving offers from other universities. That would be a market-related issue.

Provost Cooper noted that the only way an SPA employee could receive an increase is through a position upgrade.

5. Remarks from Sam Averitt, Vice Provost for Information Technology
Sam Averitt, Vice Provost for Information Technology, stated, "One of the major items on the docket is the coming of SACS Accreditation. As you know SACS has changed the format and we are being asked to launch a major programmatic initiative to show that we can execute and deliver results. The one that was chosen is Learning in a Technology Rich Environment (LITRE). I am trying to figure out what a technology rich environment is. If I could define it today, would that same definition be valid tomorrow? I could use all the help that I can get in helping to define what that is, understanding what it is that you want to do, deciding how you want to push teaching, learning and research forward, and determining the kinds of tools and environment you need to make that successfully happen. I invite all of you to share ideas with me.

One of the things about information technology, I think, is that we have maybe a year or two ago passed a major transition point, and it was not a dot com crash. It was, in fact, that we passed the end of the beginning in this technology revolution. We have achieved what I would consider a critical mass in technology. Translated, that means that the questions we are having to answer have not so much to do about how we do things as what it is that we want to do. Let me give you some idea of what we mean when we have critical mass. Moore’s Law has been active in the benchmark standard for technology advance for the past twenty years. To translate that, in the early 1980's I could buy a hard drive in the size of approximately 4MB. A year or so ago I could search the internet and get a hard drive for my laptop of 48GB (gigabytes). If I extrapolate that out another ten years, I will be able to get on the internet, and order for my laptop a 3.2 terabyte hard drive. That means that I have the capacity to store libraries. I think the real benchmark of where the technology has come with regard to that is a new product launched in 2001. That product had a chip in it that would out perform all of the computing power in 1974. It was a chip that would perform seventy-five million vector calculations per second. That chip was found in a new product called the Sony PlayStation II that you could buy at Toys-R-Us for approximately three hundred dollars. We are now talking about a technology that we live with. We are talking about a social technology, a technology that is transforming our culture, that is transforming our society, that is permeating everything that we do. Interestingly enough, if you have looked at the curves despite the dot com bust, the level of participation and adoption in the use of technology has climbed steadily. Now we also have a critical mass of people who can actually get on line and get information. The goal here at NC State is to graduate citizens who are competitive in the twenty-first century world. The LITRE team has come up with some characteristics of this citizen of the twenty-first century. They are saying that the environment that we provide has to have and demonstrate sustained innovation. To me that says we can never stop. We bring out a new capability, a new functionality, a new service today, and tomorrow we are going to have to bring out another. We are going to have to constantly modify the services. We are going to have to constantly evolve the services.

Interaction is going to be the key. Ubiquitous access is changing the way we live, work, and think. That has to be true of the environment on campus as well. We have to match the environment that the students are experiencing at home and in their lives as they prepare to come to college. The environment that we build has to be flexible, customizable, and individualizable. People want it to do what they want it to do, when they want it to do it, and how they want it to do. It also has to have value and quality. We are going to buy technology because it adds value to what we do. We are going to implement it, because it has a very high quality return on our investments. What are we thinking about in ITD right now that matches up against these guidelines and the environment which I have described? The first thing on the campus I think we are going to have to do is to look at efficiency and effectiveness. We are going to have to be concerned about the return on investment and how we measure return on investment. One of the things that I have been impressed with is the fact that every administrator at Duke seems to know how to talk about return on investment first, and second whatever specific area of expertise they deal with. We too in the university and the public sector are going to have to be much more concerned about getting value out of the dollars that we invest. We also are going to have to change our business paradigm. We are going to have to rely much more on partnerships, alliances, and collaboration, not only with external peers but also within ourselves. We are going to have to look at places where we have duplication and figure out how we can work together so that we are not doing things in a redundant or overlapping fashion. With that in mind we are looking at several things in IT where we are scratching our heads and trying to figure out what to do. One is mobile technology. Mobile technology includes cell phones as well as wireless networks. We are in the process of deploying wireless networks to the entire campus. We are obviously going to deploy that over time because there is not the financial resources to do it all at once. We will do that in much the same way that we did the wired outlets. We are also very concerned about security. Security and wireless do not go together. There is no such thing as a secure wireless network. There is some security, but everything that we have currently that is a standard can be cracked.

One of the questions that has arisen over the many years is why we do not have a laptop computer requirement. The next generation is a device that students can afford without changing our tuition by a factor of 100%. PDAs are also crossing a benchmark and they are becoming much more powerful. I think it will not be long until everyone has to have some type of mobile device, and that mobile device is going to be probably a cell phone and a PDA. There have been a lot of attempts to integrate it with limited success so far. Both cell phones and PDAs are becoming very dominant in the market place. PDAs are becoming extremely powerful.

We need to be moving away from the lab model. Student computer labs have served us very well. We need to be redirecting those resources to a new type of environment. The lab environment suffers two great failures. One, it is location dependent. You have to go to a location to take advantage of that resource. The other is that it is capability bound. I can only run certain applications on the commodities or desktops that we present in the labs. We have a few special labs with higher end desktops, but ultimately computing is going to be a very pervasive requirement. A lot of that computing is going to be higher end than what you run just on your desktop. One of the things we are going to have to do is to move to a virtual computing environment. I can sit down on any kind of device, be it a PDA, laptop, or desktop computer, and attach computing resources. I do not care where they are. All I care about is that I can get my work done and get my results. Those need to be time and place independent. I need to be able to acquire the capability at the level that I need it regardless of what that is, all the way from a powerful desktop to a supercomputing capability. We are in the process of trying to build resilient systems. As the entire operation becomes critically dependent on the information technology infrastructure, we literally cannot afford failure. It has to be self diagnosing, self healing, and basically bullet proof against the everyday things that occur. The environment has to be resilient against those mishaps. They are, in fact, frequent and occur with some regularity.

We are also looking to see what we do in high performance computing. The problem with high performance computing is that it is a very expensive endeavor. The flip side of that is that it is hard to imagine that we can be a top twenty-five university without a credible high performance computing plan. Everything we do is becoming more computationally intensive. If we are going to compete against our peers, we have to have a good plan. This is coming in to focus because the state has decided that they are not going to fund the resources out at MCNC at the same level that they have in the past. We no longer have our free good there. We are going to have to examine what we do on this campus to provide the resources that we need. Hopefully we are going to do that in collaboration with our partners at Chapel Hill, Duke and in GA. It is still a burden that we have to bear and a problem that we have to solve.

We are looking at help desks. We are looking at portals. One of the things we want to do is avoid a proliferation of similar but limited products and services. We want to figure out how to aggregate together, maybe not all in one place, but to make them synergistic so that they work like a whole.

We are looking at classroom technology. What do we need in the classroom? How does the changing technology environment change what is required, change the way we are going to teach and learn, and change what is needed?

We are also looking at IT fluency. We are going to embrace technology in a very big way. Seventy or eighty percent of our students are coming to school wanting to know why we are not doing more. We also have to worry about the 15 or 20% who could be left behind by this leap to embrace technology.

There are a lot of issues on the table. There are a lot of things with which we are struggling and any help, assistance, or advice that you could give us would be greatly appreciated."

Chair Carter wanted to know if there are specific points where the faculty can be of assistance.

Averitt’s advice was that the faculty need to be involved. He stated, "There are a number of committees that are very time consuming or demanding. We need the input. From people who are at the point of teaching and learning, it is very easy to sit into an office and convince yourself that you have come up with some solution or plan that will work. We looked at the cost of running video classrooms and said we can reduce that cost because we can automate them, and we did. The problem is that it added just enough burden on the person trying to do the instruction to become a nightmare rather than a pleasure. You can sit in an office, sit in a planning session, and come up with all kinds of ideas that seem to make sense. The question is, ‘Do they work in practice?’ For that we need people who will not have to use the technology, who have the everyday experience, and who say ‘Yes this is going to work or it is not going to work.’ It involves feedback."

Senator Warren commented that they were told in a Dean’s Council Meeting in the College of Textiles that, from a budgetary point of view, spending state appropriated money on any kind of cellular technology would be frowned upon and was considered a huge negative. "Yet I hear you saying that the use of cell phones and mobile computing was a high initiative. It seems a contradiction to me from what I just heard yesterday. Could you expound on that a little bit?"

Averitt stated that the first budget cut, which was approximately one and one half years ago, targeted certain items. One of those items was PDAs and cell phones. " I told all of my directors that they had to give back their state cell phones. Then I told them they had to buy one because we needed the communications. In fact, all of them bought one. I believe that it is that important. It is essential in doing business. I do not think the Legislature fully understands, but also understand that we are currently spending a fair amount of money on wired phones. It is possible to redirect some of that money. A lot of it is not going to be new money. We are going to have to retarget funds from one type of activity to another. I think we need to start moving in that direction. I believe it is critical to being efficient in the way you do business."

Senator Atkin stated that there is often money for hardware and software but no money for people.

Averitt stated that they spend a fair amount of money on staff in ITD. "We consult with people on campus. We provide a lot of help desk services. It is never enough. The colleges also spend a lot of money. We have as our greatest need and the greatest payback people who go out and help people to use the services and capabilities we have in place, but we will never have enough of them. What we have to do is leverage what we have as far as possible to make the systems simpler to use. Part of that occurs as the general population adopts to technology. You will intuitively know how to do certain things. You could walk up to any VCR or DVD and figure out how it works just because you are familiar with the basic concept of how it is laid out."

Senator Atkin stated that what follows up is something that has come up here before which is the source of funding for those bodies. "Does that mean that colleges with more money will have more resources?"

Averitt responded, "We cannot do that. The question is, how do we get enough support capability? That is a struggle. Quite honestly I do not know how we get enough, but we are going to try to do the best that we can. We are going to try to make sure that the support services that your college has and the support services that we have are synchronized to the greatest degree possible. One of the things that we do is to provide training opportunities. We have a LAN Administrators Group. We meet frequently. We try to provide information about what we are doing centrally and get information from them as to the problems and issues of how we might make changes that would help them. We are trying to make a lot of our tools accessible. There is no simple or single answer. Do we know it is a problem? Yes. We are struggling with that issue. We are looking at some more innovative ways that we can do business."

Senator McRae stated that one issue which bears on the student computing is the fact that students will be required to buy computers. The faculty will not have equivalent computers to prepare lesson plans, etc.

Averitt stated that they have a host of problems. That is another very challenging problem. If we are going to push students to use this technology rich environment, what about the faculty usage?

Senator Beasley stated that the faculty, staff and students spend a huge amount of time on this campus deleting junk that comes to them in the email. "Why can we not as a campus do spam filtering at the highest level?"

Averitt responded, "We can not. The best solution that we have, which has not been implemented yet, is to provide two categories of support. One is what I would call the managed care environment, in which we decide what to filter and you get the results. On the other hand, we have a lot of people who do not want anything filtered. The issue of spam is a game between the administrators of our system and the marketers who are out there commercializing. They are very sophisticated now. There are almost no identifiable patterns to what they do that we can easily say, drop this or drop that. It is a challenging problem. If we do that, we are going to need to do two groups: people who do not want us to be filtering what they see, and people who do. That is probably the best strategy we could ever make because there are a large number of people who feel passionately about not having anything filtered out."

Senator Beasley stated that there are people on campus who bounce spam if their accounts are turned off. "We are trying to do something about it. This is a massive problem and the "do nothing" attitude is not the way to go at it."

Averitt stated that you can easily get a filter that runs only on your laptop machines. Then you have to manage it.

Senator McRae wanted to know if the email lists are available outside the campus.

Averitt responded yes. If you request that your information not be released, then your information is private and will not be released. Otherwise it is part of the public domain.

Senator Ash stated that she hopes they will keep the concept of implementing technology if it adds value, and not simply because we can. She worries that every time some new technology comes out there is constant upgrading. "Every time you upgrade, there is this ripple effect where all of the problems have to be worked out through the system. We need to have support staff who knows how to deal with all of this. In my college there are quite a few faculty members who have gone back to using overhead projectors because when you walk into that class room you never know if you are going to be able to log on. If you can log on, will you be able to access your power point presentation? You always have to come in with a backup plan. I sit in the office where people with problems come in to tell the secretary, and it gets to be pretty chronic sometimes."

Averitt invited Senator Ash to join the Classroom Improvement Committee. He stated that they need faculty members who have experience, who understand what the problems are, what the value is and who can help the committee address some of these issues.

6. Remarks from Lee Fowler, Director of Athletics
"We have many challenges in athletics. We are presently working very hard to bring our facilities up to the standards of ACC and also the standards of a lot of other universities. We are in a massive campaign of not only raising money to improve our facilities but also working very hard to get all of our athletes with locker rooms. One of our best teams on campus, the Cross Country and Track Team, does not have a locker room to change in, but they have won nineteen cross-country championships. That is my biggest challenge. The Wolfpack Club has done a great job of raising money to meet those challenges. We are trying to compete athletically at the level of the type university that we are academically. We have to raise approximately another $75M to get these facilities up to a satisfactory level. The baseball and tennis center is completely torn down. We are rebuilding a baseball field and will put an indoor tennis facility over where the tennis courts are. That project will be complete by August of next year.

We finally have a new President in the NCAA. The person who fired Bobby Knight is the head of the NCAA. There are a lot of academic things that are going forward in the NCAA. There is a push nationally to lower academic entrance standards because of some lawsuits. There are initial eligibility issues that have moved from the management council and the new NCAA structure to be voted on at the end of this year. One issue is the increased emphasis on highschool grade points over the SAT and ACT scores.

Another thing that is moving through the system at this point is a student’s progress-to-degree after two years in college. That issue is something that they are saying now that we think may pass. After two years in college you have to have completed forty percent. It was formerly twenty-five percent. They did a study of all universities and the number of hours a person would have towards a degree after two years. They found out that people that fit the mold of someone graduating had 40% after two years. They are looking at inserting that requirement. That is something that, across the board, seems great and is probably wonderful for most students, but as you know at NC State we require 130 hours to graduate, whereas Duke requires ninety-six. Forty percent of 130 is a lot more than 40% of ninety-six. At the NCAA, we are committed to graduating people.

We had sort of a low graduation rate in football this year. As soon as that happened we started to meet once a month. One of the big factors occurred when Chuck Amato came in and seven kids left the program. When you have 23 kids signed six years ago and seven of them leave to play for someone else, it greatly affects your graduation rate. Next year we are predicting a graduation rate of 48% for football at this point. Our overall graduation rate dropped to 55% because of those seven leaving. Next year we already know the overall rate is going to be around 65%, about the same graduation rate of the university.

We are one of the few schools in which, in the past four or five years, our athletes have graduated at a higher rate than the student body. Our student body graduation rate is lower than other schools in the ACC. As we look around the Purdues, Georgia Tech, and other engineering type schools they are in the sixty-five to sixty-six range also. So we are comparable to similar schools around the country that have the curricula much like ours.

The third quarter of this year is the second largest ever in paraphernalia sales for NC State, which tells you what a football team can do. I think this next year admissions will be up because of the athletic teams and positive publicity that we have had. I think athletics mix in well with academia. I think that if we do it right, win, and graduate players, we can be a great asset to this great university.

Senator Allen wanted to know the difference in graduation rates of the women athletes versus the men.

Fowler responded that nationwide and at this university, women athletes’ graduation rates are much higher than the men.

Senator Ash asked, "If the NCAA changes its minimum eligibility, does the university automatically go along with that and what is the much higher GPA?"

Fowler stated that it is a core GPA which means that the academic course is not the overall average. The Management Council pushed 620 on the SAT and a three point core. "They talked about going to all SAT of 400 and 3.5. This is mostly about a couple of lawsuits. In other words, for many years the NCAA voted to put a restriction on it and the restrictions are creating a lot of problems legally, so they are removing it nationally. Our theory is that we do not want any kid in here that we do not think can graduate. It is hard to tell what is inside a young man or young woman but it does produce a hardship. If you are dealing with Duke who is taking those kids and graduating them, then all of a sudden you do not get to recruit kids because you recruit them and sign them before they get in. First of all we will let the national legislation take place and then we will have to deal with it at the conference level and try to deal with it here also. We will assure you that we all agree that we are not going to take kids that we do not think have any chance of graduating from this university, and that is what we have always done."

Chair Carter stated that he reported to the Executive Committee about faculty concerns, "that we have more exceptions this year and there was the fear that this was all in one sport. You had indicated that it was broadly based. Maybe you could clarify that for the Faculty Senate."

Fowler stated that it was broadly based. "I know football had two, basketball, soccer and a couple of women’s sports. The AI of course is going up every year for our athletes. The same number of kids the year before that were not exceptions, became exceptions. We are still dealing with NCAA qualifiers and others. A lot of people have mentioned to me that they do not want to go back to the "Jimmy V days". They were taking kids who could not qualify and that should not have been in school."

The good news is that the NCAA has had a standard that would not let you do that. That could not happen even if you wanted to do that. Once again, we are dealing with a standard set by the NCAA. We are very much in tune with trying to make sure that anyone we admit above that standard can graduate, because we are doing a disservice to the university and to the young people if we do not."

Senator Allen wanted to know if there will be a lot of Thursday night football games. She noted that the students obviously are not going to study.

Fowler stated that Thursday night games will always be limited because the conference is only going to have two or three per year. There are some schools, like Chapel Hill, that are not able to have them because they have no parking and also have school going on. Therefore, there is no parking for anyone attending the game. "We are lucky that we can."

Fowler stated that the contract has approximately six more years on it with ESPN. "It is a lot of the money that we get to operate our programs and do the things that we are doing. It is a conference agreement with ESPN. When we negotiate it again, I think there will be some real hard negotiations on that. Any changes will have to be at the conference level. We will get most of the games at home because we do not want to affect our classes. It will only be one per year."

Fowler noted that they do not get any more money for playing at Clemson on Thursday night. The conference gets all the money and it is split equally. "It is not a fact that we are playing on Thursday night for money, because we do not get any more money. Everyone gets the same amount of money."

Fowler urged the faculty to have an open communication with him and the Council.

7. Memorial Statement in Honor of Dr. Vivian T. Stannett, Professor of Chemical Engineering
Professor Harold Hopfenberg commented on the life of Dr. Vivian T. Stannett, Professor of Chemical Engineering, and read a memorial statement in honor of him.

The Senators paused for a moment of silence.

8. Unfinished Business
Governance Committee
Second Reading:
Resolution on Modification to the Faculty and EPA Professional Grievance Procedure

Senator Nina Allen, Chair of the Governance Committee read the resolution for its second reading.

The resolution was voted on and passed without dissent.

Personnel Policy Committee
Second Reading:
Resolution on the Office of University Personnel

Senator Scott McRae, Chair of the Personnel Policy Committee, reported that the changes since the last meeting have occurred as a result of Senator Sawyers contacting the Office of the President, finding out that there is indeed a study in process about the feasibility of a separate personnel system.

Senator McRae read the resolution for its second reading.

The resolution was voted on and passed without dissent.

Senator McRae reported that the new Promotion and Tenure Regulations have been signed and the old ones on the website have been replaced.

Resources and Environment Committee
Senator Richard Bernhard, Chair of the Resources and Environment Committee reported that the committee will have Jacky Colby, Director of Facilities at the next meeting. Michael Harwood will report on the Master Plan at the next meeting.

9. Reports
Liaison Report from the University Research Committee
Chair Elect Daley, liaison to the University Research Committee, reported that John Gilligan, Vice Chancellor for Research and Graduate Studies, held a meeting at the beginning of the semester which the Research Operations Council, the Associate Deans, Research Services Staff and the University Research Committee attended. This is the first time that all three units have had a joint meeting. The faculty has now been included in the upper level processes that involve the other people who are responsible for engaging in research at this university. The hope is that this will continue in the future and will help speed up reforms that make the efforts of research more fruitful.

The sponsored programs website is including more information on how to engage in the research process. There are more training sessions being offered, and the committee is also seeing more faculty-friendly material being forwarded.

10. Issues of Concern
Chair Carter stated that thirty scholarships are being made available for students to attend the forum with General Hugh Shelton. He noted that the forum cannot be opened up because General Shelton has the same protection (Secret Service) as any other cabinet member.

Chair Carter stated that past Senator Jay Levine is concerned about the excessive billing delay (up to eight months) in the university motor pool.

Chair Carter assigned the issue to the Resources and Environment Committee.

11. Adjournment
Chair Carter adjourned the meeting at 5:00 p.m.

Footer Nav