AUGUST 26, 2003
Present: Chair Daley, Secretary Weiner, Past Chair Carter, Parliamentarian Corbin, Provost Oblinger; Senators Atkin, Batra, Beasley, Bernhard, Bitting, Branson, Brothers, Brownie, Bruck, DeLuca, Fahmy, Fikry, Griffin, Hammerberg, Headen, Honeycutt, Hooper, Jasper, Kasal, Khosla, Krotee, Matthews, McRae, Middleton, Misra, Smith, Tyler, Warren
Excused: Senators Peacock, Tetro
Absent: Senators Allen, Estes, Lucovsky, Rice, Stoddard
Visitors: Daniel Bunce, Bulletin Editor, NCSU News Services; Duane Lorick, Associate Dean, Graduate School; Judy Peel, Associate Vice Provost; Cynthia Rider, Graduate Student Association; Gail O’Brien, Associate Dean, CHASS; Mark Matthews, Student Senate President ProTempore; Ashley Black, Student Senate; Mary E. Kurz, Vice Chancellor & General Counsel; Clare Kristofco, Executive Assistant to the Chancellor; Marye Anne Fox, Chancellor
1. Call to Order
The first meeting of the fiftieth session of the North Carolina State University Faculty Senate was called to order by Chair Dennis Daley.
2. Welcome and Announcements
Chair Daley welcomed Senators and Guests.
Chair Daley announced that the Senate will be dispensing of the pink draft copies of the minutes. Minutes will be sent electronically in the future.
Chair Daley announced that the Chancellor has invited the senators to a pig picking on Friday, September 5, 2003 at her residence.
Chair Daley announced that faculty is needed to serve on various committees, and that more people are need to serve on the grievance panel.
Chair Daley announced that the General Faculty Meeting will be held on Tuesday, September 2, 2003 in the Ballroom of the Talley Student Center.
3. Approval of the Minutes, Meeting 14, April 22, 2003
The minutes were approved unanimously.
4. Remarks from Chancellor Fox
Chancellor Fox thanked the returning senators and the new senators for taking on the responsibility of the Faculty Senate.
I wanted to tell you the good news which is that the budget turned out to be far better than the picture that I was forced to paint for you in April. We were able to successfully argue the importance of some key financial components of our budget with the Legislature. That is, that overhead was retained fully, and the graduate student support plan that was threatened was retained at full funding. The super computing reduction which had been proposed was largely reversed, although not completely and we have come up with another proposal to provide the same services through networks that are set up on the NC State campus and the Chapel Hill campus. The bottom line is that the cuts we had were lower than any other state agency. It does show once again that the Legislators in North Carolina appreciate how important higher education is to the future of this state. We were disappointed of course, that there were essentially no raises available for faculty and staff apart from the $550 one-time bonus that we all will receive. Non-faculty, SPA and EPA staff will receive a two-week vacation. That helps a little bit with trying to compensate and recognize those who have twelve-month appointments in this budget. It is quite clear that the budget cuts are still very painful. Despite the fact that this is not nearly as dire as it was originally threatened, the decisions that were made with the Executive Officers, the Deans, and the Department Heads reflect the fact that the budgets are very tight and we all know that we are at a stage where there is very little fat left on the budget. Even without the cuts that were suggested early on, we know that it is very important that we continue to show how clearly relevant and important universities like North Carolina State and Chapel Hill are to the future of the state. By every indication, the discussions that we have had about enrollment and about budget suggest that our legislative representatives do really understand that. We are anxious to start the fall semester and to address some of the issues that were brought up last spring. I do plan to continue to have the faculty walk-in hours that we have had so successfully in the spring. I encourage those of you in the faculty to take advantage of those. Of course if it does not fit a faculty member’s schedule when those standard walk in hours are, just as with students, I have a door that is open and I am happy to talk with anyone individually. We also have a web site that provides information about when those hours are. We are continuing with the Provost Breakfast, roughly monthly, to allow different colleges to express different opinions about various things. This was a very important contribution that was initiated last spring because it allowed people who had issues to hear what others on other parts of the campus were saying. I am very pleased at the concerted effort that the entire administration has been making. To listen to the faculty has no stronger proponent than you could imagine in the Provost. We are working extremely well together. We are both delighted when we hear from the faculty and when we are able to address problems that affect how the education, teaching, learning, and the research mission of the university is conducted. This concerted effort that we have made to reach out to the faculty, I hope is going to continue in the fall semester and anything that I can do to facilitate that I am very happy to do so. I want to thank Dennis and Suzanne for the conversations that we have started having. We got an opportunity to meet a couple of times and to work together to build this university because that is what I think all of us want to do. Thank you very much for letting me speak with you today.
5. Remarks from Provost Oblinger
I became your Provost and Executive Vice Chancellor on 19 May and I thought about how I would approach the first opportunity that I had to meet and talk with the Senate. In a somewhat formal, but I hope not that formal fashion and I started to jot bullets and notes down. I have four major areas that I would like to touch base with you on.
Relationships and Communication Building
Much of the interactions that I have had with groups and individuals has been very much in the listening mode. I have attended several of those faculty breakfasts. I would classify them very much as listening sessions, very valuable sessions with a variety of issues raised; faculty issues, concerns about the budget, pointed concerns about infrastructure on this campus, questions about procedures, an emphasis on the need for more communication and better communication, and then some institutional issues that are not going to be solvable overnight but that we all need to work on together. I met with the department heads and chairs at their request in June. I have met several times with the Associate Deans for academic programs. I want to particularly thank Dennis for his willingness to entertain and allow four Associate Deans; one each to serve with on an ad hoc basis, your committee structure in the Senate. I think that is going to do much to foster some very needed communication. I see all of you and the Associate Deans as real implementers and that is an important dimension to communicate on and about.
I have met individually with all the Vice Chancellors, the Executive Officers, my Vice Provosts, the Deans individually: aspirational goals, their challenges, things that they see as real problems and how I can help them. I met with the Board of Trustees a couple of times. The Board of Trustees is more than a figure head organization. The Board of Trustees is very much involved in the life-blood of this great institution. They want to be involved with us as it relates to NC State.
I have met on a regular basis with the Provost of two other institutions in the Triangle. Peter Lang at Duke and Robert Shelton at UNC Chapel Hill. We compare notes at least on a monthly basis. It has been very useful to me and I would say to them particularly on an issue that the Chancellor has already mentioned, high performance computing. I think you know that at one time, less than three months ago it appeared that MCNC was literally going to allow the state to pull the plug. I would say a special thanks to Sam Averitt and John Gilligan and their counterparts on those two campuses because I think we did not miss a beat as it relates to the research dimensions of having HDC available and the teaching dimensions of that technology and what it affords our students. Those are very important discussions that we have and particularly important as it relates to the way Carolina and NC State are going to develop and mature a joint Department of Biomedical Engineering or working together as it relates to other things that deal with faculty governance, and student affairs. Seeing how other people do business is very valuable I think.
As it relates to Student Government, we are in transition with Michael Anthony leaving and I would like to thank Tony Caravano, Erick Fabricius and Amanda Devore. They are going to be a very important connection for the administrative element of the campus, for the faculty element and certainly the students. I think they are very much aware of the issues that face NC State.
The Chancellor and I met with the Diversity Advisory Committee. I have tried to keep communication channels open. The Chancellor and I met with the Athletics Council last Friday. The Chancellor and I met with the Staff Senate, the African American Community Advising Council, and I have met with your Senate Executive Committee. I enjoyed a good relationship with Phil Carter your outgoing chair. I hope to enjoy a fine relationship with Dennis Daley. I would say as the Chancellor closed with, Marye Anne Fox and I have an excellent relationship. That relationship goes well back before May 19, 2003. As Dean of Agriculture and Life Sciences we called upon the Chancellor a lot as it related to our activities on the campus, but in particular off the campus.
My point about communication and relationships developing would be that I hope you have seen a visible and proactive proponent advancing the academic agenda of this great institution. I would like to think that I am very capable and very willing to listen to concerns whether they are from our staff, or from our students, or from our faculty.
Administrative Processes and Practices
The one that I have heard the most about is reappointment, promotion and tenure. Hopefully you have seen the July 30th memorandum that went to the web, along with some interpreted positive instructions for what we need to be doing as it relates to departmental criteria, to college criteria, and defining things that happen or don’t happen at the university level. I want to thank in particular Judy Peel for all of her hard work in this arena. We will be doing some things differently. I hope that you have read that July 30th memorandum. You should go to the second paragraph and realize that for the first time that I am aware of on this campus, the deans will have an opportunity to visit with the administrative group to discuss what is important back home relative to reappointment, promotion and tenure.
I hope you have seen that the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools accreditation criteria has been sent off. If you have not, go to the UPA web-site and look at the seventy-three compliance reports that are there and the tremendous wealth of information that documents our progress as an institution, documents our values as an institution and as individuals. I think it is very well done.
Thirdly the compact planning process has already resumed with several Vice Provosts having presented their compact plans. When compact planning started on this campus it was very driven by new initiatives only. In the transition we started to talk about not just new initiatives, but also ways to reinvest in already excellent programs, that by virtue of the budget cuts that the Chancellor referred to, have started to waste away. This is happening not because they have not been nurtured, but because the funding has not been there. Unfortunately that process was interrupted and I have added a third dimension to compact planning as it resumes, and that is a very conscious prioritization. I am going to say something more about that as it relates to the budget but I will also factor in that there is something that I am hoping you are aware of, and that is that there are two other Vice Chancellors actively engaged in the compact planning sessions with our deans and Vice Provosts. Those two Vice Chancellors are Jones and Gilligan, Extension and Engagement and Research and Graduate Studies are critical because the fabric of this institution is not just the Provost’s Office and the Vice Chancellor’s as it relates to academic affairs. It, in fact, has at least those elements present and some others. I am trying to infuse in that planning a greater understanding across the board of how things fit together where you live.
The NCAA re-certification process is under way. We are making good progress on that. We have every intention of forming two new departments on this campus. I have already eluded to the Biomedical Engineering Program. The one that will come, in fact, before the University Council on Tuesday is the Department of Social Work. I want you to hear this "No New Resources Required", and that is why we are doing it. Obvious quality program, accreditation renewed it for seven years unheard of, usually it is five for a top-notch program. We will enable them to do some things that they cannot currently do when they attain departmental status.
Thanks to Judy Peel we have reshaped the new faculty orientation, and the department head and chair orientation. I hope that you have heard a little bit about the late May release of the task force that recommended some things as it relates to undergraduate retention and graduation rates. The Associate Deans and a lot of others are going to be engaged in implementing those recommendations. They will require time and effort. Some of them will require resources, but some of them have already been put in place and all we need to do is make them action items instead of things we talk about. It still continues to amaze me that as we cite our incoming freshmen statistics, we tend to peak out as it relates to the mid sixties graduation rate after six years and that we tend to still have 4.0s leaving us for a variety of reasons. There are some things that we need to do better and I think that this report points us in the right direction. I know that the Faculty Senate in particular and the faculty in general have some interests that relate to copyrights. I will tell you that we left about a year ago with the understanding that we would come back and visit on copyright after a year’s experience of what was talked about back then. That year has lapsed and I have on my calendar in a session with the Copyright Committee to come back and listen to where you think we are on copyright and I will share with you what I think we ought to be doing and could do.
Challenges and Opportunities
I don’t think the state-appropriated budget will ever be higher than it is. For twelve of the last thirteen years it has been decreased. If the faculty had not stepped up in their entrepreneurial fashion as it relates to outside grants and contracts or extra mural funding, we would not be the institution that we are today. I will tell you, those days are not going away. Those days are becoming more and more important and we need everyone to think about that because it relates to funding and how it impacts this institution. Grants and contracts have been a bright spot in declining state appropriations and so has the area of development in foundations activity. Gifts are essentially at an all time high, but that is through hard work on the part of the faculty and the development officers and the administration. That is something that we ought to be very proud of because we are building a representation in that arena that is very positive. There is no possible way that this last round of budget cuts, smaller than other state agencies received can avoid impacting the classroom and laboratory activities. You have seen that, each in your own ways back in your college and in your departments. I am working with your deans to try and ease that as much as possible and it is, in many respects as I see it, our ultimate challenge. I am working very closely with George Worsley on this. That is another relationship that, at least during the interview, was questioned quite a bit. I have a good relationship with George Worsley. I have had a great relationship with George Worsley for over a decade because of where I came from and the fact that a lot of that operation is away from this campus and the larger budgets are in fact, research and extension engaged away from the campus. I am trying to facilitate that communication, trying to understand more about the budget than ever before.
Another great concern that I have deals with the faculty, the recruitment and the retention of our faculty. We have already talked about the lack of rewards as it relates to any state appropriation that would address a reasonable increase for the past several years, but we have no intention of recruiting new faculty here without supporting them and helping them be successful. That is why we hire them in the first place, and we have not forgotten the faculty who is already here. My fear is that by virtue of this yet another year of dismal to nonexistent raises is that we will as we use to do become the raider as oppose to the raided. We have already had to step up to the plate several times as it relates to counteroffers. The Provosts Office has participated in counteroffers and that office will continue to do that as much as possible. We will continue our Spousal Hiring Program that has brought dynamic couples to this campus.
Fringe leaves a lot to be desired. That is a very high priority of Chancellor Fox and she has talked at length about salaries and fringe benefits with our president.
There are important academic policies and practices, things that we will be bringing to you such as Progress toward Degree, how it helps students, faculty, and how it helps departmental course planning when you have got to be able to anticipate what the pressures going to be, and therefore, where you might be lacking resources.
Assessment is with us. When I listened to the department heads and chairs in June, they were very concerned about all the assessments. Please look at the SACS accreditation criteria and how they mandate assessment at both the undergraduate and graduate level. This is not a choice. This is something that we actually in Undergraduate Affairs do very well and the Graduate School is building their expertise. We are going to do very well at this because we have to do well at it.
The suspension regulation is coming your way as is the special consideration admissions issue. I know that has been a hot topic. That is a topic that has involved faculty discussion as recently as a couple of Fridays ago with the Admissions Committee as they were meeting on re-admissions. Thomas Conway and Tommy Griffith have been working very diligently in this arena.
Diversity is a continuing priority. I hope you are aware that University Planning and Analysis is preparing follow-up surveys to follow the climate survey, the focus groups, and the limited student and faculty input that was taken last spring. They are now involved in conversations with a variety of groups flushing out a stronger instrument that will be administered to students and to faculty. I hope you met Jose Picart when he visited this campus and I hope you realize that Dr. Picart will be joining us as the Vice-Provost for Diversity and African American Affairs on October 1st. He will play a lead role in diversity and African American Affairs as it relates to this climate study, an absolute central role, but he won’t do it alone. He will have a lot of help.
In development and foundations we are still in the silent phase doing very well there. Those particular programs that we are seeking funding for were built from the unit up. Chancellor Fox and I have talked at length about some university initiatives that build beyond bricks and mortar, things perhaps like the Chancellor’s Fellows competed for across the campus. Money off of an endowment that is set up to do that for either faculty or for outstanding graduate students or undergraduates. I think we need to think about some funding initiatives that permeate the entire campus and are competed for.
Internationalization. This is a logical one for me as it relates to an endowment at the campus level that would help fuel the internationalization of our people and our programs. A favorite of mine has always been research experiences for undergraduate students. Undergraduate Affairs is moving along those lines and we are going to see more as relates to that. I think there is a real opportunity for us again, at the campus level as it relates to the capital campaign, to build an endowment that helps students undertake either on-campus or off-campus internship learning experiences that speak to the research extensive institution that we are. We are missing the boat if we don’t push that opportunity of students interacting with faculty as mentors because we are one of only two research extensive institutions in this state and all the others want to be like us.
Larry Blanton is Director of the Restructured Honors Program. His spouse is a professor in Botany and Crop Science in Agriculture and Life Sciences.
Dr. Alton Banks is Director of the Faculty Center for Teaching and Learning, and at his request he is teaching freshmen chemistry during the fall and spring semesters.
Janet Howard has stepped into the role as Interim-Director of the African American Cultural Center so that when Dr. Jose Picart joins us on October 1st as the Vice Provost for Diversity and African American Affairs, he will have an opportunity to, if he so chooses to do a search for that position as well.
As we speak we are in the process of interviewing three candidates for the position of Senior Vice Provost in the Provost’s Office, a very key position as I see, for both administration and faculty relationships. I am looking forward to landing any one of the three finalists. I think each of them bring unique strengths.
Leaving us, Dr. James Anderson, Vice Provost for Undergraduate Affairs. He is becoming the Vice President and Associate Provost for Institutional Assessment and Diversity at Texas A&M University. He will be leaving us in November. There are opportunities there as it relates to Undergraduate Affairs.
If you have not heard, Dr. Jon Bartley has announced that he is resigning as Dean of the College of Management, effective June 30, 2004. I have worked with him as a colleague, both as Associate Dean and Dean in two colleges that interacted a lot, for example in a joint graduate program in Economics, between Agriculture and Life Sciences and Management. He has done a lot for that college and we will miss him. There will be an organized search that we will conduct. I will meet with the faculty in the College of Management in early September to initiate that search.
A great deal is happening in the Provost’s Office. I am receiving strong support from Chancellor Fox. I very much need your help too, and I will appreciate that. I look forward to interacting with you. Thank you for your attention.
6. Issues of Concern
Senator Bob Bruck stated, "I made my own questionnaire on the web and sent it around to a number of departments in both the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences and the College of Natural Resources. Among other questions, I simply asked, "What are your greatest concerns?" One thing jumped out of the pack. This is indeed a Research I university. It goes without saying that a Research I university needs to procure grants, contracts, various types of outside funding regardless of where we are. It is a part of what we do. On the other hand it is a public land grant university and here is where the question is. Jim, in your presentation you used the words that in a number of circumstances, counter-offers have been made. Another question that came up from two department heads that I spoke with last year talked about retainment and retention packages for faculty members that exist. These are usually full professors on the younger side who have outstanding programs. Fortunately for them, they are in areas of tremendous interest right now, whether it be nano-technology, genomics, things of this nature in which they are again fortunate for all of us of receiving grants in the tens and twenty million dollar ranges in contracts. The question that came up very simply is that, and I’ll use myself as an example: I’m left out of the pack. I am a soybean pathologist with a lot of extension responsibility and I spend my neck breaking it out there while at 70 or 80 hours a week I will be lucky if I bring in twenty-five thousand dollars per year with commodity grants. Obviously you can forget about me getting this retainment package. I will go on to say that I did some home-work in the Faculty Senate Office and sometimes these counteroffers are not trivial amounts of money. These can be forty and fifty percent salary increases to people as retainment. There is comradery in despair. If all of us get nothing we can sit and moan about it, but the perception is that there are more than a handful of people on the faculty receiving huge raises by virtue of, primarily the grant money that they are bringing in, and very often little other reason. Over 50% of the more than 100 people that I spoke to brought that up, how bad they feel that they are not considered valuable by the administration of this university because they are not a mega-grant person. That is a concern that I found was raised among faculty.
Provost Oblinger stated that as a dean he has participated in those types of decisions. "I remember 25% increase in one case. For four or five years I think we have done more than wring our hands. When we had 4, 6, and 8% money that was available, and what I observed in a college, and what I observed from sharing across colleges as deans would talk. If a person has an offer from another institution and you do not want to loose him or her it is a decision that must be made at that point in time because of that reason. If, however, you have money at annual raise time, I know that conscious decisions were made in administrative units broadly defined that rewarded every activity of faculty. At least the colleges that I am aware of, put money on their best teachers, put money on people who were bringing in outside money, put money on people that were outstandingly relating to their clients in the field if they were in extension and engagement. We have not really had that opportunity for the last two or three years and the only opportunities that we have had to reward people have been either the 5 and 7% promotional increases. Incidentally, for the first three of the four years that we awarded those, we took them out of a campus initiated tuition increase. This current year when those increases were given, we ate those administratively at the campus level because we thought it was that important of a high water mark and a mark of achievement to obtain rank and tenure. I would hope that we would do that forever realizing it represents somewhat of an adjustment to allow for some things to take place in the economy. One of the things that the Chancellor and I feel the worst about is when the deans and the vice chancellors must make the decision that if it is not a promotional increase, if it is not a commitment in the form of a bonafide counteroffer written or verbal, then we are not giving raises because we do not have the money. What does that do? That pushes people to perhaps go on to the market, and one of our fears is that the market plays itself out in lots of different ways. One of the ways it plays itself out in academic institutions is that it drives counteroffers for retention purposes. The one case that I am thinking of that was the mega-deal that we did was for someone who yes, had grants, but worked with high-school students and undergraduates in his laboratories and was the total player. That came up in the discussion."
Chancellor Fox added that when they sit at the administrative level with the final decisions on recommendations that come forward for promotion and tenure, the question that they ask is not how many dollars have you raised, but is the support that you’ve raised consistent with the mission that you have undertaken. Can you support the number of graduate students you need to succeed? That is the key question. "The other key point I want to make is market salaries are the norm in academic institutions. When we were given management flexibility as it is called, we were able to establish ranges for various positions. I am so sad to tell you that not only is the target, which is the 80th percentile within that range, not being met for faculty, but for faculty and EPA professionals, there are literally hundreds of people who fall below the range, including me. We do recognize that this a significant problem. It is something that I have argued with the president. It needs to be addressed. We need to have the ability and it will probably be related to our ability to raise that money ourselves, probably through a campus initiated tuition increase, to restore at least some multi-year commitment by which we can take our faculty closer to what the Board of Governor’s official policy is. I welcome the chance to interact with you. The Provost and I have gone together to talk with the President and the administrative leadership for the academic portion of the house at the Office of the President to make exactly this market question. Otherwise, we are going to have the kind of situation that you described. We lost a senior administrator from finance and business a couple of weeks ago. Her percentage raise that would have been necessary to match an outside offer, we simply could not do because it would have put her salary ahead of her supervisor by approximately $60,000. It was not possible even if we had the money to do that because our entire structure is distorted by accumulated years."
Senator Bruck stated, "Unfortunately, what you are getting in the perception of a lot of people is this game that has now started. How many jobs can I apply for? Certain people will not engage in that kind of activity. They are dedicated to what they do and where they are."
Chair Daley referred the issue to the Personnel Policy Committee.
7. Old Business
Report of the 2002-2003 Faculty Senate
Past Chair Philip Carter reported that a number of resolutions were passed in the last session. In the letter that I wrote to all of you and sent by email on June 30th pretty well stated my feelings about my term in office and expressed my gratitude to the people involved that I depended so heavily upon. There are a few highlights that I really enjoyed while I was chair especially in the last year. I was pleased that we were able to recognize and entertain our colleagues from other Triangle Universities. We also entertained CEO’s who are retiring from our neighboring institutions here in Raleigh. I enjoyed the Wednesday luncheons that people attended. I thought those were helpful in having concerns brought directly to the chair by those who felt they did not have access to the Senate even though we always welcome all members of the General Faculty. I thank my colleagues who served on the Senate last year. I appreciate all that you did in addressing some very difficult issues before the faculty and representing the faculty the way you did. I also thank those of you who joined the Senate this year.
We have remaining challenges. The reappointment promotion and tenure process is something that we have addressed for the past two years. The process has shown problems with our grievance procedures. We need to expedite and handle that better. We need to replace a number of our people. Mostly we need people at the college level.
The ACC Expansion this spring was a real concern. There were two articles of relevance in the July issue of the Independent. I draw your attention to Bernman’s article on ACC Faculty. As members of the faculty nationally we are being recognized as people who are shirking their responsibility in regards to intercollegiate athletics. I can’t say that I am free of any criticism in this regard. I also was aware that the roadway was strewn with corpses of people and administration and/or faculty who have tried to address the knotty issue of how we govern intercollegiate athletics in this country. I think we need to really come to some decision on proper faculty governance as far as intercollegiate athletics and focus first, on our university and secondly on our conference.
Chancellor Fox was blamed, I thought unfairly, by being the one pointed at as, if we just had her vote we could have avoided this whole thing. I was actually more critical of Thomas Hearn, the President of Wake Forest University who was in favor of this expansion, apparently in favor of the secrecy. Those cynics among the faculty, I don’t include myself in that, think the timing was unfortunate, but I don’t think it was planned that it be released at the time that the faculty all left. Unfortunately, we were left trying to get a university response and even advise the Chancellor from the faculty’s perspective by trying to gather together Executive Committee members. I don’t think it was done on purpose but we have got to avoid that sort of thing in the future. We need to take some action on that. Thomas Hearn is a signatory to the Knight Commission Report. The first thing that I did as your new chair, was passed out copies of that report. If he had voted against it the issues would not have moved ahead. Now with the eleven members, clearly I think adding to that would not cheer the opinions of Duke and Carolina as their influence on the future of the conference is further diluted. I think as we move to perhaps the expansion to a twelfth university in the ACC we can not just sit silently by, we have to accept some responsibility for the future here. I was on this body. I was a member of the Senate in 1985 when Phi Beta Kappa refused our application for a chapter. It was refused because there was a professor at Duke who was on the committee that made that decision that voted against NC State because we did not have our act together in terms of graduating our basketball players. Many people stood up at the Senate and condemned the actions of our colleague at Duke. I stood up and defended his actions. We were wrong. We should have been condemned for that. The problem however, was not that for ten years we as a university did not have a Phi Beta Kappa Chapter. The tragedy was that for ten years deserving students at this university were deprived of that honor. Personally I think it is because of faculty oversight. I will ask the Senate this year to ask members of the Executive Committee to make sure that this is an item that is not overlooked.
Our own Kay Yow, a newly elected member of the Basketball Hall of Fame and President Hearn from Wake Forest will participate in an open roundtable discussion of the future of college athletics at a meeting next Thursday night, September 4th at Elon College. Tickets are free.
The budget cuts are beginning to hurt. For two years the Provost and Chancellor offices have done their best to pick up the cuts and reduce the impact. Those funds that have been used have been pretty well exhausted and now the hard decisions are being made. I am hearing from faculty that they feel that they are being cut out of those hard decisions. I would advocate that the Senators meet regularly with their Deans and be participants in the discussions with the Dean as to what cuts need to be made. The hard decisions are made with faculty discussion even if there is disagreement. There is an important reason for that. When a person spends ten to twenty years of their academic career at this institution building programs that are just summarily cut; you can imagine what that individual feels like. Certainly when a dean who has no history at this institution makes that decision there is the added concern that they just do not understand. That further complicates the morale issue. I think a lot of hard feelings can be avoided through communication and I would advocate that those of you who are the senior members of your delegations arrange to meet regularly with deans of your respective colleges to address this issue and do it in a very open and collegial fashion.
Chair Daley thanked Past Chair Carter for his report and presented him with an engraved gavel.
Chair Daley adjourned the meeting at 4:07 p.m.