Left Navigation

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

NOVEMBER 18, 2003

Present:  Chair Daley, Secretary Weiner, Past Chair Carter, Parliamentarian Corbin, Provost Oblinger; Senators Atkin, Beasley, Bernhard, Bitting, Branson, Brothers, Brownie, Bruck, DeLuca,  Estes, Griffin, Hammerberg, Headen,  Honeycutt, Hooper, Jasper, Kasal, Krotee, Matthews, McRae,  Misra, Rice, Smith, Stoddard, Tetro, Tyler, Warren

Excused: Senators Allen, Batra, Fikry, Khosla, Peacock

Absent: Fahmy, Lucovsky, Middleton

Visitors:   Steve Wilson, Director of Video & Presentation Services; Clare, Kristofco, Executive Assistant to the Chancellor;  Charles Duncan, Technician; Lee Fowler, Athletics Director; Benny Benton, Editor of the Bulletin; Terry Wood, Vice Chancellor for University Advancement

1. Call to Order
Chair Dennis Daley called the seventh meeting of the fiftieth session of the North Carolina State University Faculty Senate to order at 3:00 p.m.

2. Welcome and Announcements
Chair Daley welcomed Senators and Guests.

Chair Daley announced that there are still vacancies on the Grievance and Hearings Panels.

3. Approval of the Minutes, Meeting No. 6, November 4, 2003
The minutes were approved unanimously. 

4. Remarks from Provost Oblinger
Provost Oblinger discussed several items that he thought would be of interest to the faculty.

First I would like to discuss the closure of the last round of the compact planning process for this year.  We have completed round one with the Deans and the Vice Provosts.  We will initiate round two in January and February.  I would share the following observations with you because they are not totally unrelated to the comments that I have heard while in attendance at Faculty Senate meetings.

There has been impressive progress made in many areas since the initial compacts were talked about and negotiated in 1999 when the first round of compacts began under Provost Kermit Hall.  We have had three rounds since then in terms of different iterations of the compact and my observation would be that since we begin the process in the summer of 1999, there have actually been some very impressive things that have been undertaken and are still ongoing.  My concern as your Provost would be that we do not spend enough time reminding each other of some of the things that have come from that process.  The numerous innovative ideas for additional programs in a budgetary environment like we have now are among other things, a very serious challenge.  Yet the innovative programs that I would tick off for you that I think many of you are aware of are masters degrees in the Colleges of Humanities and Social Sciences and Design, new proposals there, using existing faculty and capitalizing on expertise that is present and a relatively minimal request for additional resources to round out the unique areas that need to be rounded out to have viable programs.  We are sending forward the intent to plan and I would be remiss if I did not point out that the Deans are reflecting those priorities in their compacts.  An undergraduate major in Genetics for example, has been surfaced, and that is, from my previous history one of the most popular minors on this campus.  I think it would be a very popular undergraduate major.  We are also moving forward with a professional masters degree in Biotechnology.  I think these are programs to serve as particular needs in areas of interest that exist in students that would come to us.  They are not trying to be like anyplace else.  I think they are emphasizing unique dominions of NC State University and that is what we ought to be all about at this university. 

There are important reinvestments being proposed in already established programs of excellence.  I hope to be able to have a positive impact in that because I think the Deans have been very reasonable in their requests to date.  I will also emphasize that this compact planning process shows that there are significant challenges at the same time that there are significant opportunities.  I know that a few senators have raised concern about where the compact planning process fits into the overall fabric of the budget on this campus.  I think that it is an important topic for discussion.  I think that deserves to be discussed with the Faculty Senate by the Provost but I would encourage you as faculty senators and representatives of your various units to be sure that those conversations are also taking place very close to home because I do believe that is where the action is in terms of implementation and productivity.

I would also like to reflect on the learning in a technology rich environment (LITRE) dimension of our SACS accreditation review.  Actually we asked in this round of compact plans for connections to that LITRE initiative and I am pleased to report to you that the majority of the Deans have in fact, carried over linkages to working and developing this learning in a technology rich environment initiative.  I would also share with you that I am not convinced that we have optimal communication from unit to unit.  You can take unit to unit and define that as follows.  We have some colleges that I think have engaged very thoroughly across the departments and within the departments in this iteration of the compact planning process.  I have encouraged all of the Deans in round one to be sure that it is very clear to me that we have in fact engaged faculty and department heads across units that they are representative of in the dialog that takes place when they do compact planning. Compact planning is the next phase I believe of strategic planning on this campus and as we have heard from several Provosts previously and now from me, that the compact planning process will in fact, inform the budget.  It is not just planning for planning purposes sake. 

We have initiated the two searches for Deans.  In fact, the College of Management’s Nominating Committee met two weeks ago and is in the final stage of developing the position description that will go into advertisements in the appropriate journals and other locations.  I would share with you that I have first hand knowledge that there are currently fifteen dean searches underway at business schools in the United States.  We have our challenge laid out before us.  Tomorrow at 2 p.m. I will go to the College of Veterinary Medicine and meet with that Nominating Committee and I can tell you right now that there are four dean searches underway in Colleges of Veterinary Medicine across the country.  That is fairly intimidating because I understand that there may be two or three more deanships that will become vacant over the next three to five months and there are only twenty-seven Veterinary Colleges in the United States.  No small challenge but I would like to look at it as an opportunity.  I think in both of those colleges we  have a very impressive record of achievement on the parts of our faculty and our students who have become our alumni of those two colleges, so I am looking forward to that and most appreciative of the Nominating Committee’s willingness to work so  hard. 

Reorganization in the Office of the Provost:  Relating to the units that report to the Senior Vice Provost, Dr. Katherine Perry, you may recall an Office of Academic Administration as well as an Office of Academic Affairs.  We are terming those two former aspects of the Provost’s Office as Office of the Provost.  I think that is more than a name change.  I think it will facilitate the efficiency and effectiveness and I hope that this bears itself out in the upcoming months and years.  In the context of Dr. Perry I would share with you that she is co-chairing the search for the Associate Vice Chancellor for Human Resources along with Charles Leffler in the finance and business area.  Dr. Dennis Daley is part of that Nominating Committee, Dean Larry Neilsen from Natural Resources, Department Head Jonathan Arco from History, a representative from the Cooperative Extension Service as well as well as the Industrial Extension Service, and Joanne Woodard.  I would hasten to point out that is a very diverse constituency in that Nominating Committee and those of you who are aware of the changes that have taken place as it relates to Human Resources should see this as very definitely a discussion that George Worsley and Jim Oblinger have had about the future of Human Resources and how it melds our entire campus community together in terms of personnel.  I would like to think that you see this as a very positive configuration of a committee.

Let me mention something that you may or may not be aware of and that you need to be aware of.  It does involve the budget.  Thursday morning we received a call from the State Office of Management and Budget indicating that the 2% monthly holdback that we thought might be a monthly holdback for a period of time has turned into as of yesterday at 4 p.m., a turn-in to cover Hurricane Isabel so that a 2% reversion, actual 1.59%, some $7.1M has been surrendered to the State.  That is in addition to the 4% permanent reversion that is really translated into a 3.1% continuing reversion of approximately $11M.  A permanent reversion, $11M that has already been surrendered to the state and effective yesterday afternoon a one-time reversion that we would hope to receive back at the beginning of the new fiscal year of another $7.1M. 

Let me say something also about the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools compliance activity and reporting that took place approximately two weeks ago when we received a call from the SACS organization.  You may recall that early on in my tenure as Provost I came here and told you about the seventy-three compliance reports that had to be filed covering the depth and breath of things that we are engaged in on this campus.  I will share with you that we have had additional questioning on fifteen of those seventy-three items.  A range of questions ranging from as straight forward as FY03 reports which of course you would not expect to be completed until the end of December.  They questioned those and we of course pointed out that those would be available after December 31st and therefore we were not behind the schedule, we were in fact going to fulfill those reports.  I will tell you that in the area of assessment we were questioned on six different elements of assessment.  Karen Helm in University Planning and Analysis is visiting with the units that need to provide additional detail on our assessment of activities in those areas to satisfy SACS criteria.  She is following up on those areas.  I am reasonably comfortable that we have fulfilled our compliance obligations as it relates to SACS well in advance of the late March visit of the Compliance Team to campus. 

I am currently exploring with several individuals the opportunity to take a leadership role as it relates to the LITRE project.  We have already committed some initial resourcing to the LITRE project.  I have been very cautious and very conservative because of our budget situation and at the same time wanting to respect a leadership role that I would ask someone to take and let him or her help shape the agenda of learning in a technology rich environment capitalizing on many of the excellent things that are taking place across this campus while facilitating further development and evolution.  Right now there are four elements that I have committed to in one shape or fashion.  Many of you are familiar with the G108 Project in Harrelson, something that is quite leveragable like the fly space initiative that is under way elsewhere on campus.  These are projects that are approaching completion in terms of their preliminary formation and incorporation into learning in a technology rich environment.  They are relatively inexpensive projects to complete that are quite leveragable as it relates to implementation across the campus in different disciplines.  

You may also be aware that for the last year or two the Office of the Provost has engaged in a comprehensive classroom inventory relative to IT capability in lecture halls, in particular 110 classrooms, both in terms of up-fit but perhaps most importantly continued maintenance and serviceability.  So when you as faculty expect to be able to walk into a room with your laptop with the appropriately loaded software on it you can plug in or in some of our newer facilities use wireless to use that technology in your classes and your laboratories.  This is a continuing commitment that we have.  We think that it is a very appropriate commitment for additional resources and I would share with you that many of the Deans in their compact plans have in fact made connections to ongoing investments that they are making and tied them to learning in a technology rich environment.  I think that this is one of the benefits of comparing notes more frequently with one another about who is doing what.

Lastly within the LITRE program we are also going to commit to a relatively conservative grants program that will allow faculty to explore their own ideas and applications in a learning and technology rich environment, and use those as starters for collages on the campus as it relates to learning and teaching in that technology rich environment. 

I have visited with a variety of groups on campus.  Not the least of which would be periodic breakfasts with Chancellor Fox and faculty who are either nominated for those breakfasts through the Faculty Senate, or volunteer, or Deans have recommended that they attend a session.  I have heard a lot about assessment.  I have heard a lot about unfunded mandates and I would track with you all the way back to 1978 when we started to have discussions about institutional effectiveness.  I hope that with what I have said about the SACS compliance situation and that we did not necessarily pass with flying colors at this point, that you can see that  there is a need to give attention to assessment, but I would be among the first to share with you that the way that we have gone about assessment may not have been the most efficient and effective way.  If you think back as I do in my seventeen years here I remember when university Planning and Analysis was the only group that talked about assessment and a learning objective, outcome and those kind of discussions.  I then remember when the graduate school started to be a little  more comprehensive in their involvement in programs reviews particularly in the College of Ag. and Life Sciences.  Graduate program reviews started on their own to have very definite assessments and learning outcomes associated with them.  A few years later within the last two or three years undergraduate program review was initiated and we were also in the process  of the assessment of general education requirements as some of you would recognize.  Then within the last six months finance and business began undertaking studies of business continuity and risk assessment and you know that our colleagues in Student Affairs are constantly assessing whether or not they are being effective with what they are doing.  I will tell you that there are six efforts that have some commonality related to assessment associated with them.

 I have launched an effort under the direction of Katherine Perry, Senior Vice Provost.  She has already met with key participants who are driving their respective assessment processes to bring some additional level of organization, understanding and management to something that is very important to our community and that is assessment. Whether it is institutional improvement or accountability I think assessment is with us and with us to stay.  It just makes good sense to be accountable in the area of assessment and as a result of this group that is meeting I would like to think that we will have, as we discussed with the Associate Deans for Academic Programs yesterday afternoon for one hour and a half, their support and their feedback on how we can do this effectively and efficiently instead of five or six different ways because there are common elements to this.  It will involve faculty effort and activity as it does now.  I would like to think it would be coordinated, that it would be directed in a similar fashion and capitalize on what we already have in place and I would ask for your cooperation and understanding in that regard.  This has come to us over a period of two decades.  I do not expect to be able to fix it in two months but I would like to think we will make significant progress in the short run. 

Our enrollment applications are up 11% compared to where they were on this date last year.  We have, I think installed some efficiency to the admissions process because our admissions are up 40% compared to last year at this time.  Early on, generally you would have some of the very best prepared students across the spectrum of students that would be attracted to NC State University applying early.  We have been encouraging early applications for many years as you know.  Then they have usually waited on a decision after they have scrambled to get the application in.  Thomas Conway and Tommy Griffin are on top of this in responding quickly and efficiently to students who have expressed interest in enrolling at NC State.  One other thing that is helping drive this very significantly is that 85% of the applications that I just referred to are electronic applications.  This is just the way things are going at an incredibly rapid rate.  In fact, the College Foundation of North Carolina expects that next year at this time there will be almost 100% electronic transferal of transcripts to institutions of higher education in the state.   I am very encouraged by that and I think we are being responsive.

The Board of Trustees meets on Thursday and Friday of this week.  As you are well aware, there are representatives of the Technician  who would like to hear of faculty perspective on a certain element of things that will be discussed.  Tuition and fees will be considerations this session.  As you know the majority report from the tuition task force recommended to Chancellor Fox that there be a campus initiated tuition increase in the amount of $300 per year for each of the next three years.  In the College of Management graduate professional programs there are two recommendations for increases in tuition based on the campus; $4,000 for both Master of Business Administration and the Master of Accounting.  Then there are fee increases that once they click in at the full level would represent an additional $74.50 so there is going to be I think considerable discussion as Chancellor Fox takes her recommendation forward to the Board of Trustees.  I do believe there will be active discussion, open discussion, and candid discussion of tuition and fees at the Board of Trustees meeting.  This morning I met with the Honorary Degree Committee which will also meet for the first time with a subcommittee, the Academic Affairs and Personnel committee of the Board of Trustees on Thursday to introduce themselves to each other but at the same time talk about aspirational goals as it relates to honorary degrees awarded by NC State University.  I will take this opportunity with the Faculty Senate this afternoon to encourage you to actively participate in that process because this is a faculty committed to excellence and to recognizing individuals who ought to be recognized with an honorary degree from NC State University and individual faculty sincerely do have the opportunity to nominate and participate in this process.

I will soon be appointing the University Reappointment Promotion and Tenure Committee (URPTC).  We will for the first time spell out the composition of that particular group.  We will spell out an understood rotation arrangement for that committee and we will reaffirm the committee’s charge relative to examination of the RPT process.  I wanted you to know that we are doing that and there will be representatives from every single tenure and promotion-granting unit on the campus in that particular body and they will also have defined terms of rotation for continuity purposes. 

I would welcome any questions that you might have.

Senator Estes asked Provost Oblinger to comment on the interim positions in the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences.

Provost Oblinger stated that he committed to do a national search for the Dean in the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences. He committed to do that within his first year of being Provost and Executive Vice Chancellor.  “I committed to do that prior to knowing that I would be looking for a College of Management Dean and a College of Veterinary Medicine Dean.  I want to have those two searches firmly underway.  I have not discussed this with Interim Dean Wynne.  I was planning to talk with him in January about the time frame that I think should be used given that by then I think we will have had two advertisements in appropriate locations and start to assess what kinds of interest is out there on those fronts and then I think we can move into that area as well.  I would ask Senators to give me twenty-four hours to communicate to Dr. Wynne that at some point starting in 2004 we will have that conversation with him.  He actually knows that but we have not discussed it in the last six months.” 

Senator McRae noted that there are many faculty who do not have faculty laptops.

Provost Oblinger stated that he is learning that through a variety of ways.  He noted that there are some that do.  “It has occurred more than once that I have actually heard the following.  I verified it to where I believe in some cases this occurs.  We have done a very good job of providing our students in the area of computers appropriate technology in our computer laboratories.  That appropriate technology is updated in an organized and deliberate fashion.  I do know that there are very few units that have renewal programs. There are a couple that did in fact up until the recent round of budget cuts have very defined renewal programs.  I have heard stories that when we decommissioned some of the student computer laboratory facilities and replaced that equipment, that we actually had lines of faculty waiting to have first shot at the computers that were coming offline in those laboratories.  One of the things that I would hope to do is to get our colleges more in alignment as it relates to articulated plans of replacement in an appropriate time frame.  That is going to be very difficult under the situations that we have.  I do fully appreciate the point that you are making, not only do you not have a laptop but in many respects if you do have a laptop you probably cannot run some of the programs and software that your students are expected to run to complete their assignments.  I am sensitive to that, that is on the agenda and I appreciate you raising that concern.”

Senator Tetro wanted to know if Provost Oblinger knew the number of new students on top of the number of students that were admitted last year .

Provost Oblinger responded that they have not had any indication from the Office of President about fall 2004 enrollment.  “We were asked in late October to be prepared to update our enrollment estimates.  We do know from experience it was late in the admissions cycle when NC State was asked to take an additional 200 new incoming first time students.  The statistics that I have seen in terms of college bound individuals in North Carolina, those numbers are not declining either.  We have met with our Deans group.  We have prospected what we think would be an appropriate number.  It is not much different than what we had submitted previously in terms of our targeted enrollment but we have had no formal exchange or communication with the Office of the President on fall statistics.”

Senator Bruck referred to an $18M reversion that the Provost had announced previously, wanted to know where the money is supposed to come from? 

Provost Oblinger stated that there are tremendous strains on the State budget with an ever increasing demanding need for services across the spectrum and at the same time a General Assembly that has tremendous demands on the things that it thinks will be appropriate to do with the state budget at a time that revenues are a steady state if not declining slightly.   “You have heard me and Chancellor Fox say before that this is the fourteenth of the last fifteen years that we have sustained a state appropriation decline or budget cut at some point during the process.  The first priority of the Office of the President has been enrollment increase money.  That will continue to be the case, although I will tell you that they are also talking about faculty salaries as well because of the competitiveness of this environment.”

Senator Bruck stated that it seems as though we get more students and less budget.  Parents are screaming about access to Chapel Hill. “ Parents are screaming about increase in tuition.  Maybe they are screaming at the wrong people.  To me $18M is not chump change.  It is real money.  It seems that you have two chargers heading in opposite directions.  You hear of things coming out of the general assembly, some of which are very damaging.  It just does not add up.” 

Provost Oblinger stated that three or four Senate meetings ago Chancellor Fox did an excellent job of explaining the matrix.  “The matrix is used to generate the enrollment increase money that goes to an institution and you realize that in that matrix different disciplines paint credit hours differently.  Every institution fits into that matrix at one place or another.  We understand that there is strong consideration under way of re-looking at the matrix.  We do not know what direction this takes but that is the driver of enrollment increase money and what you also need to factor in is you get enrollment increase money the year after you have the enrollment.  The enrollment increase money that we got this year was really for a very slight enrollment increase for the previous year.  Provided the Legislature chooses to fund at the full level it will show up next year.  Two years ago we had enrollment that the previous year from that year generated $14M in enrollment increase money.  This money will do battle with the types of things that you are talking about, but depending on the amount of cuts and how and if you can from those, that should help offset the effect.  The year that I came in, enrollment increase was 10%, $1.4M because we did not have that much of an enrollment increase.  Next year based on this blip upward that we have had this current year we will anticipate around $4.5M of enrollment increase money.  It varies from year to year and always trails by a year of the actual enrollment.   The matrix is critical to that as is the fact that it never shows up as the need is generated.” 

“To be fair, look at the record of what has been cut and what levels have been cut across state agencies and I don’t like to say this but we are a state agency.  We are part of the State of North Carolina.  They have had significantly higher cuts than we in K-12 or K-16, which would include higher education, have had.  We ought to not loose sight of that because in other states it  has actually been higher education that has taken it.  I think the core in the General Assembly reflecting some core values that this state has had from day one of favoring education, of trying to do the best it can for education may in fact have reflected itself in those proportionately smaller cuts.  I am not justifying this but I am making I think some fair observations.”

Senator Beasley commented that the matrix dates back to 1996.  Anything that has happened since 1996 as far as an enrollment increase has added to our budget.  All of the people that were here prior to that are essentially funded under the old full-time equivalent model.  In other words there was a base amount.  We have never taken everybody and put them in the matrix.  Only the changes in population were put in the matrix.  So we are still not accounting for how much it cost.

Senator Tetro stated that she read in an email that she received this afternoon that funds are so short in a particular department that the suggestion has been made that rather than teach a course at the 101 level in Spanish they are now going to offer a tutorial for students who come in without the necessary proficient ability to go on to the next  level.  She is concerned more as an advisor because she feels that she is going to have to answer that question to parents at orientation.  Secondly it concerns her that it is a university wide policy change. 

Provost Oblinger stated that they are looking at some of the rationale behind differential tuition rates because of that.  He stated that he has not heard this of this specific issue yet.

5. Remarks from Terry Wood, Vice Chancellor for Advancement
“I thought I would start by elaborating on what the Provost just said about how we are organized.  Unlike a couple of other universities nearby we have what I would call the full menu of advancement activities.  For example, at UNC Chapel Hill they do not have alumni relations reporting to their Vice Chancellor for Advancement.  It is a separate independent organization.  At Duke, for example, they do not have Public Affairs reporting to their Advancement.  In our case we have all four and I think that is a real advantage for us going forward.  That is how we are organized.  What do we do?  We are in the fund raising business.  We are in the alumni relation business.  We are in the advocacy and marketing business and we are in the data collection business.  That is how we are organized.  Who are we?  Who do we serve?  We serve all of you.  We serve the colleges you represent.  We serve the alumni that you help produce.  We serve the people of North Carolina.  We have some common thread to help us do that.  I think one part of our common thread that keeps these groups together is how we relate to the Chancellor’s Office and what we are trying to help facilitate with her agenda.  I think another thing that helps us have a common thread is when we try to help unify the campus on certain things like how we relate to our public externally.  I think a major way that we have a common thread is through the common campaigning that the Provost just referenced.  The campaign for NC State builds off of the highly successful campaign that we completed at the end of 1999.

 We are in a very aggressive mode considering the economy that we are living in.  We started the quiet phase of our campaign at probably the most challenging economic time imaginable.  It  was started in July 01 when the economic downturn was well underway.  We decided that we would have a target goal of $750M over a seven-year campaign period and we decided that we would have a three-year quiet phase where the goal of about one half of the $750M would take us to June 2004.  We are exceeding expectation.  It has caught a lot of national attention.  I am very proud that our development organization is one of the professional organizations best improved of development  programs in the United States.  Those development officers that are active in your colleges and Lee Fowler in the Athletics Department through the Wolf Pack Club are really getting the job done and it is an honor for me to be able to report for them.  I will say that we are not at the point where giving has gotten out of hand.  This $750M goal is really the sum of goals that have been set bottom-up style by Deans and Directors across our campus.  We found that this bottom-up style works better than something that is imposed the other way.  I am very proud here at NC State of building our goals from the bottom up based on the prospect list that we have, so that we can have some reason to how we do goal setting.  All fundraising really has the same sort of big buckets if you will.  We not only build up the goals, we also ask the Deans and their development officers and others to say how much for this and how much for that. 

In the areas of endowment because of the economic conditions we have been living through, because individuals stock portfolios are down, a lot of the really major gifts that I think we are still going to receive from individuals through appreciated securities have not happened yet, but we are going to be in business until 2008 and I am betting that this day will happen.  If we were to look at a trajectory again we would be fully more than a year ahead of where we thought we would be in our quiet phase.  We are not going to be in the business of just saying, “Okay we are doing so well so $250M gets added just because of momentum to this campaign.”  That is where a lot of the work that my colleague David Anderson and I are already starting to do is working on when the Provost comes in and helps us to answer a big question.  What can we put into this success that we are anticipating that is new, that is exciting and can really help NC State?  We on the fund raising side do not really know what those signature items should be.  We are trying to identify those things.  We are working hard on that and they will show up in a case statement when we have our campaign kickoff in September 2004. 

This achieve campaign is a marketing and branding campaign.  We did not just jump on some sort of bandwagon.  The trick that we have is we are bringing our fundraising campaign and our branding campaign together.  We are joining them strategically so that when we have our campaign public announcement next September one will help the other. 

We need new prospects.  Every fundraising organization needs new prospects.  We are spending time and efforts to identify new prospects.  You may find some.  You have a development officer in your college to pass those along to or you can send them directly to me.  The only thing I would ask is that chances are a lot of the people that you might identify whether they are individuals or corporations might already be in our system.  We have a very carefully managed prospect management system just like any really good sales organization ought to have.  We develop strategies for the highest then prospects, whether they are corporations or individuals.  What I would ask is what I ask everywhere I go.  Please acknowledge the fact that we do have this coordination system.  Things can really get messed up if we have unauthorized contact with some of our top donors and prospects. 

Now, imagine Western Boulevard with a Visitor Center, a place where those multitudes of prospective students and their families can come and stop at NC State, go into an exhibit area, go into an area where there will be nice chairs, nice places for presentations and welcomed to NC State by the Admissions Office’s staff.  There will be a satellite office for the Admissions Office there with a professional admissions person to help answer questions and guide these folks along their way.

Fundraising has gone pretty well.  We are going to be breaking ground during the first quarter of 2004.  It will have a lot of neat things in it.   We are real proud to say that Harris Teeter is putting their name on our exhibit area and will help us make sure that all the exhibits are current and exciting.   We have hired a professional group that has done some of the best Visitor Centers anywhere to help us present this.  We are really excited about this and I need to say that it is not just the prospective students and their families that need help getting around NC State.  It is the alumnus from fifteen years ago who does not know about Centennial Campus or any of the new buildings and how things have evolved on this campus. 

Our new Alumni Center is going to be on Centennial Campus.  We are thrilled about the prospect of getting that building opened and serving the needs of the campus.  It will be a place where all sorts of meetings, all sorts of casual and informal interactions will take place.  The Alumni Association is working very hard to get to the point where we can have a connected group of alumni that is informed and can advocate for NC State in their local areas because sure enough the time will come around when we will want to have another bond referendum.  We are going to want to get it passed.  We need to be able to activate our alumni in a way that we were not able to do the last time we went through the bond referendum.  This time we are going to do an even better job. 

The other thing in Advancement that we like to do is to play on some traditions that our university has and to help the university have a little fun.  We had a parade last year and we are working to have that brought back to Hillsborough Street just like the old days, in the next year or the year following.  Obviously we hope that you will be a part of that.  The other thing I want you to be a part of is this campaign kickoff that I mentioned would take place in 2004.  The Chancellor, Provost and I have made sure that the Faculty Senate, Staff Senate, and the Student Senate are at the top of the list for invitations to that series of festivities.  We are excited about that.  We want you all to be there and we want you to be part of this big announcement that we have and I thank you very much for inviting me to speak with you about our work. 

6. Liaison Reports
Senator Honeycutt stated that the Admissions Committee met at the beginning of the academic year.  They readmitted approximately 200 out of 2000 students.  The main problem they are seeing with the students who have been suspended is they do not seem to want to build up their course profile through distance learning courses.   The committee also met again with Thomas Conway in a new regulation about monitoring students who have academic difficulty.

Senator Atkin reported that the DELTA Advisory Committee met on Monday.  They brought up the issue about having students taking courses without the advice and permission from their departments, which is against university regulations.  The distance education people have developed a form that suspended students are suppose to bring to their advisor to get approval of the courses that they have selected. 

Senator Bernhard reported that the Library Committee has a major issue that will be coming to the Resources and Environment Committee next week and to the Faculty Senate the following week with regard to an ongoing major battle that the academic libraries across the country are having with the publisher Reed Elsevier which is the dominant publisher of scientific and technical journals.  This company is having a battle with all of the academic libraries with regard to pricing policy, with regard to bundling of content which is forcing us to buy journals that we do not want in order to get reasonable prices for those that we do.  The Library Committee has asked that this be relayed to the Senate through the Resources and Environment Committee and the following week to the Faculty Senate. 

7. Adjournment
Chair Daley adjourned the meeting at 4:20p.m.

Footer Nav