APRIL 6, 2004
Present: Chair Daley, Secretary Weiner, Past Chair Carter, Parliamentarian Corbin; Senators Allen, Batra, Beasley, Bernhard, Bitting, Branson, Bruck, DeLuca, Estes, Fahmy, Fikry, Griffin, Honeycutt, Hooper, Jasper, Kasal, Khosla, Matthews, McRae, Middleton, Misra, Peacock, Smith, Stoddard, Tetro, Tyler, Warren
Excused: Provost Oblinger; Senators Atkin, Brothers, Brownie, Hammerberg, Headen, Krotee,
Absent: Senator Rice
Visitors: Samara Burnette, Assistant to the Sr. Vice Provost; Clare Kristofco, Executive Assistant to the Chancellor; Charles Duncan, Technician; Amassa Fauntleroy, Professor of Mathematics; Neal Blair, Professor of MEAS; Judy Peel, Associate Vice Provost; Jim Clark, Professor of English; Ellis Cowling, University Professor At-Large; Terree Kuiper, Director/Employee and Compensation; Betty Byrum, Business Officer, DELTA; Sandy Connolly, Assistant Vice Provost of Academic Administration; Bobby Puryear, Director – Adult Credit Programs and Summer Sessions; Rob Bradley, Technician; Benny Benton, Editor of the Bulletin; Katie Perry, Senior Vice Provost
1. Call to Order
Chair Dennis Daley called the thirteenth 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 announced that Past Chair of the Faculty George Wahl’s wife passed away. A card was passed around for signatures to present to the family.
Chair Daley stated that there are a couple of items in the Red Book for the Board of Trustees Meeting that the faculty may be interested in reviewing. There is material dealing with retention of faculty and there is also the report on economic development on the impact of research universities in the Triangle.
3. Approval of the Minutes, Meeting No. 12, March 23, 2004
The minutes were approved unanimously.
The minutes from the Executive Session of Regular meeting number twelve of the fiftieth session were approved unanimously.
4. Remarks from the Stephen Jones, Vice Chancellor for Extension & Engagement
“I hope this group will permit me to be very informal. I welcome the chance to come interact with you. I think in my nearly three years here this is the first time I have been with this group.
I do want to recognize with this group that the purpose of my office is to enable, facilitate, stimulate and work through the people at this university who really represent the doers and the movers and the actors and that is the faculty. I am for the most part a three person show and there are only so many things that three people can do. My purpose today is to talk to you about what we can do together with you to make sure that this university does indeed capture the promise and potential associated with being an engaged university. Most of you have been here longer than I have. How many of you have seen the Kellogg Commission Report, Returning to Our Roots? The Kellogg Commission, WK Kellogg Foundation funded and empowered a commission of twenty-seven sitting and former university chancellors and presidents back in the mid 1990s to look into finding a way that public and land grant universities could be as meaningful and impactful and as responsive today as we were then. This third in the sixth of this summary of reports that are summarized in this document is called “Returning to our Roots: the Engaged Institution.” I want to read something from that which really sets the stage and epitomizes what this term extension and engagement is all about. “One challenge we face is growing public frustration with what is seen to be our unresponsiveness. At the root of the criticism is the perception that we are out of touch and out of date. Another part of the issue is that although society has problems, our institution have disciplines.” In the end what these complaints added up to was a perception that despite the resources and expertise available on our campuses our institutions are not well organized to deal with local problems in a coherent way.
Another quote is, “This commission concludes that it is time to go beyond outreach and service to what the Kellogg Commission defines as engagement. By engagement we referred institutions that have redesigned their teaching, research and extension and service functions to become even more sympathetically and productively involved with their communities however community may be defined.” Here at this university, Dr. Ellis Cowling was instrumental in pushing this university toward embracing this practice of engagement and has been one of my faculty mentors since arriving here nearly three years ago.
The mission of extension and engagement to university is to partner the resources of university and communities to produce mutual benefits. The idea is to involve our faculty, our undergraduate, and our graduate students with real people across the state facing real issues and problems and do it in a way that deals with those things in real time. The vision that we had is that we want to model excellence in extension and engagement and become among the nations leaders in embracing and applying this concept of engagement.
We have identified four thrusts for extension and engagement and they were not anything that I invented. One of the first things I did in the first few months here was get out across the colleges meeting with administration and faculty and getting a sense for where our strengths were as a university. Granted, I ended up identifying four very broad umbrellas that you can put a lot under and those four umbrellas reflect not only the strengths of our faculty across campus but also needs that are apparent and became even more apparent as I made my way across the state. These four thrusts are:
1) Economic Development – So much of what we do across the university in some very significant way touches on the broad arena of revitalizing North Carolina’s economy and its economic development.
2) K-12 Excellence in Education – A critical problem across the state. First of all how do we attract young people to go into the education arena and then how do we retain teachers once they began working in North Carolina.
3) Environmental Sustainability – We are a state that is blessed with abundant natural resources from the coast to the mountains.
4) Leadership Development – We cannot expect communities, companies, and entities of any sort to prosper long term unless leadership is in place to lead them toward sustainability.
In terms of the strategies we have identified for realizing the extension and engagement vision for this university, “Championing extension and engagement as a legitimate scholarly endeavor appropriately recognized and rewarded through our campus.” With that in mind, that is appropriately recognizing and rewarding the scholarship of extension and engagement, we created a joint faculty committee on the scholarship of extension and engagement that Jim Clark chairs. This is a joint committee of the Academy of Outstanding Faculty Engaged in Extension and the University Standing Committee on Extension and Engagement. Something that is critically important to this group and is an issue that is getting a lot of attention across the country as more and more universities embrace the notion of engagement is the question of how we define scholarship in these non-traditional areas and then how do we incorporate it into the promotion reappointment and tenure process? How do we recognize it within departments that have historically focused more on the traditional scholarship of teaching and research, and how do we make it part of the fabric that defines an engaged university like N C State?”
Senator Allen stated that the Faculty Senate has a piece on the Provost’s website called six realms and she thinks that Vice Chancellor Jones should look at that to see how his committee can fit into it.
Jones stated that they have looked hard at them. Some other universities across the country have something similar. Many do not have anything that even comes close. “One of the things that I looked at as a candidate for this position was to what extent has we characterized extension and engagement scholarship. I think the six realms do a good job. I think in those units where public service and professional service and extension and engagement are all wrapped up in a single package, do a disservice to the scholarship that is associated individually with each of those three separate and distinct endeavors. I applaud you all because I think that was something that originated from the faculty here at this university and I encourage you to continue working to find a way to more firmly memorialize and institutionalize those six realms.”
Senator Tetro stated that she is curious about K-12 excellence in education. “Are we contemplating coordinating a K-6 program for our university?”
Jones stated that so much of what they do with grants and contracts with science house and other outreach components of the university extend to cooperative extension across the state. “We deal with preschool and K-6 age students. More than 200,000 kids in the state are part of 4H. Four H is N C State in partnership with NC A&T State University. I look to the Provost’s Office to work with you on that, but we do a lot in the realm of extension and engagement that addresses preschool through high school. We have developed a listserv with some eighty faculty with interest in that arena first and foremost to attempt to ensure that faculty . .. across the university who are working with some aspect of K-12 are aware of what each other are doing. We call this a university but it is really a multiversity with many individual silos operating often I found, without adequate or even any information about what colleagues are doing across the university.
Senator Batra stated that he wonders about an area that he thinks is a grey area and he has not figured out whether the university has a good way of characterizing it properly or not. “NSF fosters certain centers and I think that the university was the recipient of a few of them which were industry membership centers with money coming from various sources including industry, and in that context the pool amount that goes into the research part, which is defined by the industry membership input, that is clearly understood that it is from the research domain, but part of the technology transfer component of those centers which were significantly mandated by NSF and I think continues beyond their life of the center involves interacting with the membership and non members within that same industry to work on projects that may involve a simple testing evaluation to as much as doing significant health and product development as long as intellectual property issues are taken care of. Is that research because it comes under the umbrella of a research center or is that outreach, or extension? Is there a significant amount of this happening? Is there a problem? If so what is the solution?”
Jones stated that the document returning to our roots defines this term engagement in a way that cuts across research and discovery, teaching and learning, and outreach and service. “In that definition and the one I embrace and I think the university embraces more broadly, everything we do on Centennial Campus with those partners is engagement whether it is basic science in the laboratories of some of the companies or whether it is what we are doing across colleges with the middle school and at Centennial Campus. With the kind of centers you are talking about, I guess I don’t get too concerned about whether we call it research, applied research, service, technology transfer. I think rather I get excited about what it implies and that is the university through its faculty and students working directly with those industry sectors represented whether it is the non-woven resources research center in textiles. Although we in higher education have a tendency to want to put labels on things I think what is more important is the functionality rather than the labeling. There are clearly defined units that this office is responsible for but it is the whole idea again of involving faculty and students with the real world.”
Senator Batra stated that the research component of that responsibility to faculty clearly recognize that in various stages and various processes. “I think this other part as far as I can see is not given much credit for and it can be a real drag.”
Jones stated that the short answer is it honestly varies across departments and across colleges, that is, the extent to which that kind of scholarship is recognized. Generally faculty with formal appointments in this arena of extension and engagement at least from his prospective of looking at dossiers that make it through the departments and through the colleges to the university level for review, those faculty have a success ratio for reappointment promotion and tenure that appears to be on par with faculty who have more formal research and teaching appointments.
5. Remarks from Senior Vice Provost Katie Perry
“We had a very positive outcome of the SACS accreditation visit. It is looking very good. This process now goes on as they recommend to the commission, which will reaffirm our accreditation by December of this year.
Some issues that came up during this accreditation were the assessment aspects of many of the things we do. There was an outcry from different aspects of the campus saying that we realize what you are asking us to do and does the left hand know what the right hand asked of us. It all came to a rather crisis level in the departments with faculty and department heads trying to meet some of these things that were being asked of them.
We continue to do a good job of assessment. The Chancellor appointed an assessment task force in January, made up of fourteen members that represent several of the different entities across campus that have responsibilities for assessment or carry out assessment. I want to make sure that you are aware of that task force. It has been charged with the primary goal of recommending by June 1st any improvements that might come in efficiencies and coordination among the very successful activities across the university. The Chairs of that are Jeff Scroggs, Professor of Mathematics, and Ephraim Schechter from University Planning and Analysis. I am on that task force and so far it has been a very lively and interesting dialog. I think we are bringing up good points and hopefully we will have some good recommendations.
My sense on the reappointment promotion and tenure cycle is that it went very smoothly. The final decisions go to the Board of Trustees next week and then those involved (120 cases) will get their final letters. One decision that was made this year by the Provost in consultation with the deans was to not do status letters and I think there may be some pros and cons here so we may need to keep this one on the table. Typically right after the university level or stage of the review process has been completed letters have gone out, both final letters for those where the decision does not need to go to the Board of Trustees and also status letters that speak to the ones that do need to go to the Board of Trustees.
This year the deans had an opportunity to come prior to the university level review and share anything they felt was unique to their college. I think this was very valuable to the university level group that reviews these packages. Several were called back to discuss individual cases where they wanted a little more incite into those. One of the things they were asked to do at the initial meeting of the deans is to share their discipline currencies, what is valued, what are their measures of performance in their faculty. Also in the departmental voting faculty assessments and the department head assessments where they spent a few lines or paragraphs assessing and giving guidance to those things were very beneficial as well.
We have sent over some thoughts on improvements for this next cycle that we are hoping to get feedback on so that if they are supported we can actually put those into the processes for this upcoming cycle. The same suggestions have gone to the deans and they have been asked to review them with their heads and faculty. We will be getting that feedback and hopefully you will see some changes in the process as well as the dossier and certainly the website. We are also doing a revision of the college and departmental rules and we will be getting those up for the coming cycle.
The search for the dean of the College of Management has evaluated 106 applications. They have completed eleven airport interviews and they are in the process of scheduling five campus visits so that search is well under way.
The search for the College of Veterinary Medicine dean has evaluated 19 applications and is very close to scheduling those campus interviews as well.
The committee has been appointed for the dean search in the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences. They are in the process of scheduling their first meeting.
Finally I want to call your attention to the Provost’s website. If you are looking for information and can’t find it or things that you feel should be linked or added there that don’t exist elsewhere, we can continue to improve that with your input as well.
Senator Middleton stated that the university has announced its commitment to diversity and he is curious about how the action fits the policy. “In conducting these searches for the Dean of the College of Management and also dean of the College of Veterinary Medicine, could you walk us through the process where you try to match policy with the action that might produce a more diverse administrative staff for the university.”
Perry stated that the first step is always to make sure there is a diverse committee and the Provost has appointed some of the positions to make sure that happens. “I think some of it happens naturally as well through people’s positions and the election of faculty. He has made sure of that and then of course all the standard steps to hiring anybody on this campus are followed. I know in the dean search advertisements they looked very closely at journals in which they got input from Vice Provost Woodard as to journals that might reach to a more diverse community. Beyond that just within the committee and their charge, they are asked to look for as diverse a candidate pool as possible.”
Senator Middleton continued, “We have been rolling this dice for a long time in terms of searches for deans around the university. I am curious that they are rolling this dice about diversity for many years and to my understanding there has never been a person of color who heads one of the major colleges. I am just wondering if we have been doing this for all of this time and the results still do not produce. How do you explain that? I am just confused.”
Perry stated that she could not answer that. She has wondered that too. “I get frustrated because the more I learn that you have to embrace diversity but you cannot do targeted things. I mean you cannot just go out and look for a minority dean and hire them. You just have to make sure that you are out there attracting those nominations, those applications and that everything that you advertise and communicate makes that piece of the target audience feel welcome to apply.”
Senator Middleton commented that at this point he is not confident in the system. “If I was at a table playing poker with a team of friends and I am losing all the time then I am going to wonder if I am being cheated. So just for the record I am not confident that the system is working properly since we cannot seem to get the results intended.”
Perry stated that she can speak for herself and the Provost unit that if there are other ideas of how to do this out there they would be open to listening to them because they are making progress in the faculty in certain areas but some of it is the audience that you have to draw on in certain disciplines and then it is a matter of going back to what is attracting people into those disciplines. It is a serious challenge.
Senator Allen stated that if you want to be proactive you make suggestions. One way to get people is to try and find candidates yourself. If they are really good they will surface.
Senator Tyler stated that it is the process as well as the input of the names. “I think if everyone on the committee in the colleges try and be sensitive to having diversity at the airport visits so that they will get a sense that we have a diverse faculty and we want to have diversity they will feel more comfortable. Again if we don’t get the names and have them apply then they cannot come out of the process.”
6. Issues of Concern
Senator Warren would like the Faculty Senate to consider being very proactive in suggesting to the NC State Board of Trustees that there be more significant faculty involvement in the search for a new chancellor when that should happen. In the past (1997) there were three faculty members including the Chair of the Faculty on a fifteen member search committee for 20% faculty representation. She compared the numbers with a few other peers and nearby institutions. Duke which just finished its search for President on its nineteen member search committee there were six faculty (31%), UNC Chapel Hill had five faculty members on their fourteen member search committee (35%), and at Rutgers they had seventeen deans, department heads, or faculty members for a 65% representation. I just want to suggest that faculty are very central to the existence of this university and are deeply invested both in its past and its present and its future. I hope that in a very timely manner that the Faculty Senate will consider a request to the Board of Trustees that we have a more substantial ratio of faculty for the upcoming search.
Senator Peacock stated that there are 56 faculty members in his department and seven of them were not on the listserv and received no communication about the election.
Chair Daley stated that all faculty like the students have unity accounts. If they are going to use a different email account it is their obligation to notify the university to transfer the information to their email address.
Senior Vice Provost Perry stated that the faculty member has to realize that it is not whether or not you use your unity account because if you are not and it gets bounced back it is an auto delete system. The other piece was that your email is not in People Soft. Your email has to be entered into People Soft.
Senator Tetro stated that she rarely checks unity because she is on the GroupWise system. She stated that she doesn’t know whether the elections are coming through unity or GroupWise.
Chair Daley stated that it should be set up to bounce wherever you are using. It should automatically be forwarding.
Senator McRae stated that in his college the email list is maintained at the college level. He forwarded the election information to the person in the college who maintains the list and requested that the information be forwarded to the faculty.
Senator Batra stated that he received an email from a colleague who used the university phone system to make two overseas phone calls. When the bill was received he was absolutely shocked. Then he went to buy a card from the open market and compared the cost. There was a tremendous difference. “I wonder if anyone has looked into the costing structure of the university cell phone system.”
Chair Daley stated that he knows it has been looked into. Departments can buy those cards and past them around, but if you have a contract you have to honor your contract.
Senator Fikry stated that he would like to know how many people voted in the election and how it was distributed in different colleges.
Chair Daley stated that in the past we have not reported numbers on elections before but it can be done.
Senator Honeycutt stated that we have had two comments today about our leadership in the future and another colleague who talks about diversity. “I think that attention needs to be paid to those issues and leave things like email to the end of the meeting. I think this group should make sure that the President understands that we have a senior person here, a second in command by the works of the last change in orders, a Vice Chancellor is the second in command. If an interim person is appointed off of this campus I think that our Senior Vice Chancellor should be involved with that process. I think the issue of the leadership between now and the full announcement of a new chancellor is very crucial but the interim is also important.
In the issue of diversity I think the group should get behind it and say listen recruitment committee for the chancellor we want to see exactly how you are going to change these rules in this game. This is an issue that is going to be here because if we don’t get behind it and we don’t make it happen we are going to lose as an institution and as a nation.”
7. Old Business
Reappointment Promotion & Tenure Revisions
Senator McRae stated that the Personnel Policy Committee has been examining the issues associated with reappointment promotion and tenure and have decided that the basic criteria that is currently in the academic tenure policy should be replaced with what is essentially the language of the six realms currently on the Provost’s website as a regulation. The committee made the recommendation to the Senate at the last meeting. Vice Provost Katie Perry met with the committee and offered a small revision to the promotion criteria that was offered last time which he thinks goes a long way toward answering most of the questions that were received. The change specifically is to replace section 6.1 in the academic tenured policy with what is essentially the language of the six realms. The clear issue is that when this change is added to these criteria then what each faculty member should be judged upon is the mix of the six realms appropriate to their own situation and to their research and other faculty responsibilities.
The recommendation on the six realms was voted on and passed unanimously.
8. New Business
Overhead Compensation and Summer Pay for Faculty
Senator McRae stated that fourteen months ago a work group was formed by the Provost’s Office to examine the issues of summer school compensation for faculty and also the issue of overload compensation as it was then called for faculty during their contract period. This committee was charged with examining all aspects of these issues including what the limits were, how the compensation should be made, tracking from an administrative standpoint. The committee has reviewed it and recommends that the Senate endorse the draft resolutions.
Comments from Sandy Connolly
I would like to give you a little background on the old regulations and why we were compelled to submit recommendations for improvements.
The first one I want to look at is the overload compensation supplemental pay regulation. In that particular one it was currently stated in a way that there was confusion on campus between what overload and supplemental pay is. It stated that overload was supposed to be any additional compensation received outside of your home unit. Home unit was not defined so there was confusion whether that meant within your department or within your college. Also supplemental pay was intended to mean additional compensation within your unit and that got confused with temporary supplements which are not additional compensation so there has been a lot of questions generated as to what the intent or the meaning behind those particularly terminologies meant. In addition there has been no notification from the state auditors that we are not having sufficient justification for the additional pay that is being processed in the system. In addition campuses do not have the tools they need to really monitor additional compensation. We ran some reports for last fiscal year and total additional compensation was in the range of $8.6M.
We are recommending that the titles be changed. We have also changed the format so that it is now compliant with the policy rules and regulations. We added definitions for compensation and additional compensation. We have also added clear concise instructions on the approval request process, verified limits on additional compensation and added record retention information as well.
Senator McRae stated that one thing the regulation does state is that it does not apply to outside compensation and so the question was asked “Should there be any correlation between the 20% overlay and the standard one day per week for consulting.”
Connolly stated that with the current regulation it does state the 20% is not a cap of 20% but it indicates that if additional compensation within the contract period exceeds 20% then it needs to go to the Provost Office for approval, but there is not a maximum cap that can be reached during the contract period.
Senator Batra stated that he felt that over the years that if someone is working within the
university and continues to do that up to the maximum of 40% then it seems to him that should be traded in terms of time. Otherwise you are creating a situation where the things that you do not have to account for in tangible terms are the ones that will suffer whether it is research or teaching. The point is that this kind of system permits misuse of the system.
Connolly stated that there really were two regulations, summer earnings for nine month appointees and summer session instructional salary regulation and it was the recommendation of the workgroup to combine these into one new regulation called summer earnings and summer session compensation. A lot of the same language was used in creating this revised regulation, however we did make some changes. For example, we simplified the summer earnings cap to 33.33% across teaching, research, and extension related activities. We removed restrictions to related monthly earnings. We increased the cap on summer teaching earnings from 20% to 33.33% of an individual’s nine-month salary and provided department flexibility instruction scheduling by removing the six-hour instructional cap.
There is actually more flexibility in the current regulation than existed in the two old regulations that was recommended to be revised.
Senator McRae stated that from his standpoint this regulation allows the nine-month faculty member to choose how they will use their time during the summer without having some arbitrary restrictions on that. He thinks that there was some arbitrary limits put on summer school teaching, which was not really appropriate.
The document will be voted on in the next meeting.
Chair of the Faculty
Chair Daley announced that Senator Nina Allen has been elected as the next Chair-Elect of the Faculty. He thanked Senator Bernhard for running.
Dr. John Griggs and Dr. Roby Sawyers were elected to serve on the Athletics Council
The delegates elected to the Faculty Assembly were Richard Bernhard, Frederick Corbin, Harriette Griffin, and Suzanne Weiner. The alternates are Cecil Brownie and Mary Tetro.
Faculty Budget Advisory Committee
Dr. Bruce Branson and Dr. Catherine Warren were elected to serve on the Faculty Budget Advisory Committee.
9. Report on Committee on Committees
Senator Allen, Chair of the Governance Committee, thanked Senior Vice Provost Katie Perry and Samara Fleming Burnette for their assistance to the committee.
University Standing Committees play an important role in the communications and infrastructure of NC State. These committees provide essential feedback to administrators in continuing to improve university administrative services and operations. Recently, faculty and administrators have expressed concerns about the effectiveness of the current structure. In response, Provost Oblinger requested an evaluation by the Faculty Senate. Subsequently, the Faculty Senate Governance Committee prepared this report with substantive assistance from the Provost’s administrative staff. The primary change in the committee structure proposed is that the support responsibility for each standing committee be assigned to the administrative office it advises
The following are recommendations for reorganizing the existing management and structure:
- Committee on Committees continues the responsibility for membership selection. Once the Chancellor approves the recommended members, the rosters are forwarded to the appropriate administrator. (The table in Appendix A indicates administrative offices that support the various University Standing Committees.)
- Reassign the responsibility for charging and maintaining University Standing Committees to appropriate administrator who will provide the charge and administrative functions of web management for the committee’s agenda, minutes, reports, and other information and the archiving of these items annually. The administrators will also continue to carry out existing administrative functions.
- The ASVP will work directly with the administrative offices responsible for the University Standing Committee in terms of membership and appointment. The current process will remain the same until the Chancellor signs off on the recommendations. The approved appointments will be sent to the appropriate administrators to be included in the web updates and appointment notifications or charge letters to be distributed on or by July 1.
- Another change would be that annual reports from the committees would be sent to the appropriate administrative offices. The responsible administrative office would process the committee’s requests or recommendations appropriately. A copy of these reports should still be forwarded to the Faculty Senate. Thus, the committee process would be streamlined by providing institutional history, committee support, membership, and web development support by the administrative office that already supports the committee. The Office of the Provost-Administration would become a vehicle through which proposals and recommendations are sent to the appropriate administrator.
· Nominal terms would become three years without a standard option of serving two consecutive terms.
Senator Allen noted that the administrative officer will maintain committee websites and report routine changes on the committee so that everyone on the committee will know what is going on. There will be greater adherence to the faculty bylaws reporting process.
Senator Allen stated that the outcomes are that we should be able to solicit members in a better fashion. The other thing that I think is very important is that we want to limit terms to a total of six years with two three-year terms for faculty to serve on one particular committee.
Senator McRae stated that from looking at the total list of committees from his own observations it seems that a lot of problems that exist have to do with the other committees that are technically not standing committees. His suggestion would be that this be the first step to suggesting some reorganization in the rest of the committee structure also.
Senior Vice Provost Perry added that this is a proposal and what it involves is that the offices listed would take over the management of that particular committee. Those officers have not been asked if they would do this. Some of these units are very tiny so we may have to step back and group some of these where we can ink out some of the staff support.
The report will be voted on in the next meeting.
Chair Daley adjourned the meeting at 4:50 p.m.