OCTOBER 18, 2005
Regular Meeting No. 5 of the 52nd Session
Present: Chair Allen, Secretary Bruck, Provost Nielsen, Parliamentarian Corbin; Senators Blank, Branoff, Brownie, Clark, Culbreth, Fahmy, Fikry, Gustke, Hanley-Bowdoin, Hooper, Hudson, Kellner, Khosla, Kinsella, Krotee, Lindbo, Martin, Misra, Moore, Overton, Robarge, Schultheis, B. Smith, Williams, Wessels, Young
Excused: Immediate Past Chair Daley; Senators Dawes, R. Smith, Tetro, Yencho
Absent: Senators Banks-Lee, Baynes, Blair, Johnson, Scotford
Visitors: Katie Perry, Senior Vice Provost; Suzanne Weiner, Head, Collection Management; John Gilligan, Vice Chancellor of Research & Graduate Studies; Mary Easley, Provost Office; Hisham Salama, Student Senate President ProTempore; Robert Sowell, Dean of the Graduate School; Erin Welch, Deputy News Editor, Technician; Sarah Ewing, UGSA VP External Affairs; Kristen Rosenfeld, Graduate Student Ethics Program; Chad Jordan, Former Graduate Student; Thomas Conway, Undergraduate Academic Programs; Lee Fowler, Athletics Director; Benny Benton, Bulletin Editor
1. Call to Order
Chair Nina Strömgren Allen called the fifth meeting of the fifty-second session of the North Carolina State University Faculty Senate to order at 3:00 p.m.
2. Welcome and Announcements
Chair Allen welcomed Senators and Guests.
Chair Allen announced that an Open Discussion on University Budget would be held on Thursday, October 20, 2005 at 3:00 p.m. The meeting will be held in Room 124 Dabney Hall.
REG01.20.01 - Regulation on the Delegation of Authority
Senator Robarge noted that there is no time element specified in Section 5 of the regulation. He would like to know if it is assumed that the individual regulation that personnel actions are associated with will have the time of notification such as how many days beforehand.
Senior Vice Provost Perry stated that the only ones she knows of that have time stipulations are relative to grievances and some of those processes. She noted that some of them have natural deadlines.
Senator Robarge stated that the subheading simply says notification to the employee of EPA Personnel Actions. He wants to know if he should assume that it involves only the personnel actions within the document.
Senior Vice Provost Perry responded yes that it is only for items relative to appointment and compensation.
The faculty senate had no objections to this regulation.
REG05.50.2 - Review of College Deans
Senator Robarge stated that in several instances there are requirements for presentations to be made after the review. It has become practice that such things for interviews are now appearing on the web. He wants to know if it would be possible to include a stipulation that that has to be done or could it be made available that way?
Senior Vice Provost Perry said that it could be communicated and stated that they try to keep these away from the how to’s because they tend to change.
Senator Robarge stated that his understanding is that there has to be essentially open meetings with staff and faculty depending on the category. In terms of things that have gone on like the interview process has been very helpful to faculty who are conflicted out of those meetings to still have access to the meetings if they were taped.
Provost Nielsen recommended that it be the responsibility of the college to post it on the colleges’ website rather than on the Provost’s website because more people will be able to review it.
Senator Robarge stated that it would be helpful that the dean’s specific requirement to make a presentation be available.
Senator Robarge stated that in the last sentence in section 2b-3 of the regulation he is confused as to whom in the reviewing college makes the decision. “Are you in fact referring to the college leadership committee,” he asked?
The response was that the comment was put in basically to suggest that this review process could be done electronically and as long as you do that the adequate security measures are maintained.
Senator Robarge wanted to know if the reviewing college refers to the College Leadership Survey Committee.
The response was yes.
3. Approval of the Minutes, Meeting No. 4, October 4, 2005
The motion passed unanimously to approve the minutes as amended.
4. Remarks Provost Nielsen
Provost Nielsen stated that he would like to spend a few minutes discussing tuition and fees.
Provost Nielsen stated that the next couple of weeks are going to be extremely busy in regard to the matter that comes up every year on how much tuition and how much fees we are going to charge for the institution.
We operate under the guidance of the Board of Governors relative to tuition and fees and as the aftermath of the denial of a tuition increase last year and then the bill that was put in about NC State and Carolina being able to do their own thing the Board of Governors has been working on trying to get some guidance that perhaps gives us a little more freedom. A committee on tuition of the BOG has been working on this. With the announcement of the new UNC President, in the complexity of this issue they have decided to set guidance for this coming year and then wait until the new President gets in place. The guidance that they gave us this year was that our tuition and fees combined and incidentally we have encouraged them to think about tuition and fees combined because as you look at our peers some of our peers charge zero tuition and seven thousand dollars in fees and some of our peers charge seven thousand dollars in tuition and zero fees. They are all in between there so right now the fees for the students are really what we are looking at. Right now the BOG is meeting in Boone and I presume that they are passing this recommendation. The recommendation is that we be allowed to increase no more than the three-year moving average of research extensive universities nationwide. That number is available because the State of Washington annually surveys tuition and fee changes across the country and produces these characteristics. The three year moving average for the last three years has been 10.3% and the Board of Governors has taken ours and Carolina’s increase that would be allowable under that and added the two together and divided it by two and have made it the same for both which, turns out to be a dollar value increase available for next year of $451 total tuition and fee increase. They have an additional sentence in the document that I presume they are passing and that is that Chancellors are encouraged not to raise their tuition and fees up to the maximum that would be allowable by that number.
We have a new “standing” Administrative Advisory Committee on Tuition that is composed of Vice Chancellors, a dean, faculty member, Chair of the Faculty, Chair of the Staff Senate, and several student representatives. We have been going through deliberations. On Friday by 5:00 pm we would have decided what our recommendation would be to the Chancellor.
The fee package is being put together and routed. It is a whole separate process and the fee process is those organizations that charge fees have a committee that looks at what their needs are and generates a fee request. The request that came out of the University Fee Committee this year was for a total increase in fees of $147 and that is now routing through the Student Senate.
As the Board of Governors considers what is included under this $451, some of the fee increases are not included. If it is for debt services for example, that is not included. It is probably around $125 of that fee package. If it went forward it would be counted in the $451 total of tuition and fees. At our last tuition meeting I suggested to the group that from my perspective I thought we desperately needed a tuition increase and that I thought that a tuition increase in the area of $325 would be a good number. It is not coincidental that this three hundred dollar number is one that has been around in general relative to tuition increases for undergraduate students for some time. Three years ago we had a tuition task force that we were asked to recommend for a three year plan for tuition increases and the recommendation coming out of that committee was $300 per year from 2004 through 2007. Last year we recommended three hundred and received nothing. This year we will be recommending something in the $300 to $325 range.
The Budget Advisory Committee is advisory to the Chancellor. We will present that report to the Chancellor on Friday, October 21. There will be an open meeting on Thursday, October 27 from 7-8:30 p.m. in 216 Poe Hall where we will explain the background for however we got to whatever we got to and let the faculty and staff respond to that.
You have all heard about the Carolina Covenant and we are working on a similar but much better plan for NC State. We are modeling what would happen under some suggested scenarios. At Carolina an element of theirs is that there is no loan. The package provided to those students includes no loans unless the student chooses not to take advantage of the work-study that is offered to them. We do not have the financial resources to do that so we are building in a minimal loan in the amount of $2500 per year as part of this package. The idea is that everyone who gets admitted to the university in that category would have full coverage. We are also looking at the possibility of being able to extend that full coverage of their financial need up to people whose family income are at 220% of the poverty guidelines, as well as that element of it we are talking about a second element that would deal with providing enhanced counseling services for this group of students relative to careers and navigating through the system because we want them to be successful.
Also, a third feature that I am discussing is budget/tuition predictability. I would like very much for us to very soon get to the situation where we can assure people for four years what their tuition and fee package is going to be. I believe we can do that but we need the guidance and provision from the Board of Governors.
The fourth part of this is what I have called an unimpeded road to graduation, that is if a student has a major, has an academic plan and is sticking to that academic plan that they would not be delayed on the road to graduation for any reason that is not of their own doing.
The state passed a law that provides for out of state students to have full scholarships to be considered instate for tuition and fee purposes. The law is to be implemented at the discretion of each of the institutions in the state. We have sought and gotten clarification from the Board of Governors who got it from the Legislature about one critical element of that and the critical element is, “Can we count those students in our budget enrollment formulation as in-state students?” If we can that means there is no penalty to the institution for doing this. The answer was yes so we are moving forward to implement this for all students that are on full scholarships.
Senator Kellner: Is a version of the NC State convenant available on your website or will it be there when it is in a more finished form?
Provost Nielsen responded yes.
March Krotee: Is there a thought for giving the loan if they graduate in four years or in a timely manner or a certain grade point average?
Provost Nielsen responded that they are federal loan dollars so it is not our decision to make. We are working on a couple of other things that I think are of interest, basically can we talk the state into doing something like the teaching fellowship program. We would like to see that happen for some of the very highly needed fields in a state that we provide for and in that case there would be more financial aid available.
Senator Blank: In regard to the in-state status of out of state students on full scholarships, “Is the intention of that to spread the scholarship money farther?”
Provost Nielsen: This is an idea that was introduced by Carolina and I think motivated largely by the idea that the cost of athletic scholarships continue to rise and if you could consider those folks as in-state the cost of providing a full ride was from about $22,000 down to $12,000 and as a consequence is more money to use for other purposes.
Senator Culbreth: Is the test simply that the student would be on full scholarship and is there some formal dollar amount that constitutes the full scholarship?
Provost Nielsen: Yes it is tuition, fees, room and board, and books. It is basically $12,000 and is only for undergraduate students.
5. Remarks from John Gilligan, Vice Chancellor of Research & Graduate Studies
We are putting together two issues of our results magazine, which is the Research magazine for the university that talks about our various programs. One of those issues is our annual report that talks about research funding at NC State, what we have accomplished in the past year. It talks about colleges and units and where they have come from and where they are going. I am pleased to announce that this year our headline on our most recent result magazine is going to be that we had a 19% increase in federal research funding over the last year. This is not just because of one big grant it is significant growth in at least four colleges that have generated a lot more federal research dollars going from 110 million to more than 130million in just one year so that is really going to be the lead item in our results magazine this year. The colleges that had the largest increases were Veterinary Medicine, Physical and Mathematical Sciences, Engineering and Agriculture and Life Sciences.
The strategic plan for NC State is being developed. There is a draft being developed of our new strategic plan and it discusses all aspects of what we do at NC State including teaching, extension, and economic development and research. In the current version the growth in research and the growth in graduate programs are mentioned in the top two things that we do. Research and Graduate Programs have a very high profile for NC State University as a research extensive university in our special mission in the State of North Carolina. I am sure you are going to be involved with reviewing different versions of this strategic plan as it becomes available. Right now it is in the very small group stage and it will be taken to all the colleges and units on campus at the appropriate time.
I have been here at NC State for twenty-two years and recruiting graduate students from the very beginning both for myself and my own research program as well as for others as either the Director of Graduate Programs or Associate Dean and now as Vice Chancellor for Research and Graduate Studies and it is a tough business. It is a tough business recruiting graduate students. In that time period tuition remission has always been one of the toughest issues to solve on this campus. I have been working to try to get the kind of appropriate tuition remission support for our graduate students who are employees as teaching assistants or research assistants. In many states those employees get automatic tuition remission or perhaps their whole tuition bill is waived, but not so in the State of North Carolina. It probably never will because the legislative control of this particular issue gets to the root of how the legislature uses the world. In other words people outside the boundary area of North Carolina are different. In the case of the national markets that we recruit for graduate students and faculty we are playing in an international market trying to recruit the very best students from around the world to come to our university to work with our graduate and research programs. It is not a North Carolina limited market. We do know that most of those students that do come here and graduate do stay in the State of North Carolina so it adds a huge amount of value to not only Research Triangle Park but also the whole state of North Carolina. It is a constant battle for us as university faculty and administrators to make a case before the legislature and before the governor’s office, etc., and we have been constantly talking about this issue ever since I have been here. This is nothing new. We have made great progress over that time period. In increasing the amount of dollars that have come in to these kinds of programs that support graduate students recruiting efforts and those programs that have taken advantage of it and really do well at it tend to be our nationally ranked programs so it is especially important for those programs to want to be nationally ranked to compete at an international level in terms of recruiting graduate students.
The situation that we are in right now is our tuition support from the state has been capped. It has been capped for a number of years at about $11M. When I came here it was $2.0M so you can see in that time frame even though we have increased the number of graduate students at NC State we have received additional tuition remission from the state over that time but it is still not enough to cover all the needs of our graduate students that are supported as RA’s and TA’s. The purpose of the graduate students’ support program that the graduate school administers is to recruit the very best graduate students in the country and around the world meaning you have to provide for those that are appropriately recommended, stipend support, in state tuition, out of state tuition and health insurance. All of that is wrapped up in the program that we talk about as our graduate student support plan.
Every dean, including the Provost has said growing our graduate programs is one of our very top priorities. We have some very ambitious goals for growing our graduate programs set out in our enrollment plan that we used for base budgeting for the university. We get paid to do graduate education, but with a capped amount of money that we get from the state, that money doesn’t increase every year. The amount of that tuition remission money does not increase. You can see where the problem is. Our graduate student population is increasing. We are actually on the low end of the fraction of all of our students that come to NC State. Only 25% had some sort of support at the graduate level and it should be fifty percent. As you can see with this fixed amount of money an increase in graduate student enrollment, a larger fraction of students on support plan, and a larger number of students on the support plan, that we have run out of money. We ran out of money actually three years ago. It has been supplemented since then by me, by the Provost office, and by another pot of money that we got from the university as a whole to the tune of over $4.0M per year. That money has come in with the knowledge that we know graduate education is one of our top priorities. It is related to research and it makes the research program go so therefore we invested money over those last four years in order to keep graduate recruitment high to be able to maintain the highest quality package that we could get to offer our students from everywhere and it is an investment that we have made in order to make sure that the program is of the highest quality. We are not limited in the ability to increase our graduate programs which in turn we are rewarded for in terms of enrollment and teaching for those graduate students, so for the last four years we have been at a deficit. We have hit the wall in terms of our ability to grow. We need another way to grow the graduate programs that support the research on this campus and we can’t rely on those that have contributed so far because they are tapped out in terms of money available to continue to supplement and support that graduate tuition remission part in particular. We are proposing that in some of the colleges and two of the colleges have already done this, when some of that money was invested, we said that anyone who wants to participate put in a dollar and that pool of money will match that dollar in terms of tuition remission for your college. They invested heavily and they have seen the rewards of that program so those colleges have started investing in tuition remission a fixed amount of money that they have put in and been matched by this other pool of money that we have had available. That has allowed those colleges to grow beyond their limits. That is half of the university right there, now we are asking the other half of the university, the other colleges where there are supported research assistants to do the same, to start putting in their contracts and grants some tuition remission for those students that are out of state students only. We have a way to grow into the future. With the number of new research assistants that we have for our big growing research program we will be able to continue to support and make sure that the researchers are supplied with the ability to go after the very best graduate students because they won’t be limited by tuition remission and they won’t be limited by health insurance. They won’t be limited by instate tuition provided to tears so it is going to help not only research programs but it is going to help the academic programs in general. As we ask those faculty with contracts and grants to contribute approximately $3,000 for each graduate student that is an out of state student that is employed on their research contract that will allow us to generate another million dollars in tuition remission that we continue to match in the future. As we have been matching in the past we have a way to match into the future to grow at least into the next three to four years without a problem because without that we have already hit the wall. We have a big request before the state legislature for additional tuition remission. It has been approved through the Office of the President. It is a $10M ask for tuition remission from the state, which is for all the UNC system not only NC State. We will see what we will get out of that if it is funded and I have some doubts as to whether it will be funded. The most that we could get out of that is about $2.0M and it still doesn’t solve our problem. We have two hundred more graduate students this semester than we did a year ago. One hundred of those are on RA’s and TA’s and probably half of those are out of state. When you think about tuition remission as in $12,000 per student bill it adds up pretty quickly so what we are going to ask into the future starting next year sometime is that students that are supported on RA’s through contracts and grants be paying some small fraction approximately 25% of their total tuition remission part of their bill as well as the in state tuition. In that way we are going to be able to generate enough money to grow until at least the next three or four years whether or not we have support from the state or not and I guarantee you that is a big if because we asked for this same money five or six years ago and still have gotten it. We have used up all the money that we ever had and supplemented that money that we had with additional money and it has worked very well. I would hate to think that I would have to pass that bill on to you either as a college or an individual because your individual bills would increase by twenty five percent. I guarantee you that the colleges that are already participating in this kind of a plan have been very happy because they have been able to grow. We don’t want those colleges to lose faith and pull out of the program because if they pull out of the program the whole thing collapses and you don’t want to have that scenario. As we look forward we have put together a task force to look at this issue across the colleges. It has been talked about through all the research committees, all the graduate committees, in each of the colleges, in each of the departments. It has been discussed and that is what we are going to propose starting next year. This is just something to keep you informed of where we have to be if we are going to grow in our national rankings and I think we are in many areas with the new federal research dollars that we have on board this is a way that we can address our growth problem and become a better and stronger research institution.
Chair Allen wanted to know where the one million dollars are coming from. Where it is being matched?
Vice Chancellor Gilligan stated that a million and a half comes from special appropriation that we got from the university off of the top. When I came on board I put one half of a million dollars into it right away and Provost Cooper at that time did the same thing so we generated another million dollars on that model and then the million dollars coming from the colleges. This year we have additional money coming off of the top of F&A dollars that are generated and also the Provost is putting in some of the campus based tuition money to help support stipends so it is actually more than four and a half million dollars that is going into it.
Senator Khosla: What percentages of the graduate students receive the tuition remission?
Vice Chancellor Gilligan: We have about 2,300 total supported students on campus and probably about half gets tuition remission. We have about 1,600 international students and a good fraction of them are supported on research assistants and teaching assistants. We have US out-of-state students that we initially have to keep on tuition remission until they become North Carolina residents.
Senator Martin: I think you oversell it when you say that colleges are doing this and are very pleased with it. I think at the administrative level you are correct but at the faculty level you are not correct. You said that you are against the wall when it comes to going to the state. The Provost is against the wall and last I checked federal grant dollars are going down and I am not aware of a federal agency that says that you can add $3,000 to the grant to cover tuition. If nothing else the tenor of your remarks is what is so disturbing because you are saying we are up against the wall therefore we are going to pass responsibility to you PI’s. PI’s are against the wall, yes the faculty have done a remarkable job increasing things by 19% in spite of grant levels at the federal government going down but those dollars are often not able to be used for tuition. More often than not if you talk to your program manager they will say sure go ahead and put three more thousand dollars on to tuition but then you have to take it off of the dollars to do research. This is nothing but shifting dollars. Unless I am unaware of a federal program that you know about where we can go and write an additional three thousand dollars into our grants, so I think the tenor of this is what really disturbs me. We are against the wall, can’t do anything, faculty you take care of it.
Vice Chancellor Gilligan: I think we have been taking care of business at our level too in terms of the money that we have invested into this. I think we have to continually ask the State Legislature to help us with this problem because unless we get on even footing with other states it is always going to be an issue that we are working uphill against. Any federal program can pay for tuition. Individual monitors may say, oh no I don’t want to pay for tuition but there are many universities in this country that have a blended rate that is much higher than their in state rate that everybody has to pay. So we are not the only one. Tuition can be charged, I think it has to work into the system. The amount of money that we are talking about here if you are looking at the total amount of dollars that we bring into the university is relatively small. I think we have the same problem initially getting through the colleges in terms of the ability to make sure they understand this is flexible. If you were able to pay for this kind of thing you could go out and recruit as many students as you want to but maybe you as an individual PI don’t see that you always have to go back and ask the college for tuition remission in the old days and now you don’t have to do that. So there is a big flexibility associated with this program and I think it allows us to scale into the future in a way that we would not be able to do. I guarantee you wouldn’t want to pay the toll bill for tuition remission which you might have to do if we can’t put this thing together which is $12,000 instead of three. The power of doing this together way, way far outstrips the ability of the relatively small dollars that we are talking about for each individual PI.
Senator Hanley-Bowdoin: Three thousand dollars may sound trivia but it is not when you look at it two other ways. 1) It is about $25,000 for my department without the additional $3,000 out of grants to support a student. 2) In my department fifteen students are going to cost my department forty five thousand dollars. That money has to come out of existing grants, it is money we will not have to spend in other ways. It is zero net gain. If we pull this money out of our budget that is $45,000 less to spend on research. The consequence in our department is we are re-evaluating whether we can afford to bring in international students because the cost on international students is going to increase significantly over their tenure. It is basically a tax on international students.
Vice Chancellor Gilligan: We see that in the colleges that have actually implemented this the international student population has increased. It allows you to move ahead if you want to. It allows you to increase the number of international students as much as you want and without limits based on the current dollar. You can build this into your contracts and grants. Your contracts and grants are not fixed. You can increase them with time. Initially yes, for the first year it may be a little bit of a problem but you can increase the amount of tuition dollars. There is no overhead on tuition dollars. It is straightforward. You can add that in through the total cost.
Senator Martin: I think almost all of our colleges pay in rent for buildings more than the dollars that will be generated from this. There are few universities in the nation where one has to pay rent indefinitely for buildings for academic space. If we just took the money that we are paying in rent for Centennial or other buildings you would more than cover this issue.
Vice Chancellor Gilligan: Where would I get the money?
Senator Martin: Right now you are using our overhead money to fund Centennial Campus and I’m suggesting that this rent model has been very disruptive for the academic program and has been an issue that we have raised on multiple occasions. We are using our overhead to pay for rent which is hurting faculty hires and graduate student recruiting. This is a model that we have instituted here which is an ineffective model. Anybody from the outside that has looked at it has said this is counter-productive for an academic institution. You take our rent dollars that is currently going into a rent hole and you will take care of this graduate student issue.
Vice Chancellor Gilligan: It is your choice as to whether you want to rent space on Centennial Campus. I think what we have to do is to continue to go to the state to try to get additional money for legitimate research buildings on Centennial Campus or this campus. I think we need to work with the college deans in order to make that happen and I think it’s an up hill battle because the kinds of things that typically are well received at the legislature are not research items, more academic support items and that is the kinds of thing that supports our teaching program. I think we need to continue to support the ability to go after research facilities so the state pays for it like the College of Textiles. There are a lot of people that don’t pay on Centennial Campus such as the Engineering buildings, the academic buildings, the Monteith building, they are rent free and that is what we need to go after. We need to continue to get research support for those kinds of capital expenditures.
Chair Allen: You want to grow the graduate program but if I am really strapped for funding and it comes to where I can have a Post Doc for about the same amount of money I will get a post doc instead of a graduate student and that is very easy to do in many of the departments in CALS.
Vice Chancellor Gilligan: I think it is important to have post docs. I have had post docs in my lab and they are good. They are very productive and you have to have a mix but we are an academic institution and academic and research go together at the graduate level. We want to encourage that and make sure that that has the ability to grow.
Senator Fahmy: In the years that I was in Materials Science Engineering I noticed a great increase in the number of post docs and a disproportionate increase in the number of post docs as compared to graduate students and what you are suggesting for the PI’s to put in money from their grants for the graduate students might actually make this situation even worse.
Vice Chancellor Gilligan: They haven’t seen that happen but that is up to the individual PI.
Senator Fahmy: Is there any incentive for the PI to get a graduate student rather than a post doc or a disincentive for the PI to get a post doc rather a graduate student?
Vice Chancellor Gilligan: We get paid to do graduate education. We get paid very well. I think the incentive is to grow our graduate program because that’s where we get our national reputation; it is not from post docs. Additional money eventually is coming into the Provost Office for academic programs and we need to reinvest it in a way that it stimulates the research program and that is what in fact has happened. We are investing in that kind of mode already.
Senator Blank: To what extent when new faculty come on this campus, recruited into our research programs is this thing explained during orientation that this is what you are going to be working with. This is the mechanism by which we fund research here because if they don’t get it when they come in the door and they don’t have someone that sits down with them and explain the whole process then they are kind of in the dark because what we found was DGP’s didn’t necessarily share the word about how the GSSP work. They didn’t necessarily talk about tuition remission, this whole idea of how the system works and the orientation of new faculty members and what they are up against. It would look like the rules are being changed but the rules have always been there but you didn’t know what they were then the rules haven’t been changed you just were ignorant of them.
Vice Chancellor Gilligan: What we are talking about here is just for those colleges that haven’t instituted this particular thing. In orientation there has been a significant increase of the amount of orientation that new faculty get just in the past couple of years. There had been a significant orientation for those in the College of Engineering and PAMS over the last five or six years and they did get this detail and I think in the detail that we get now for new faculty arriving on campus there is a teaching component and a research component. They do get a lot of this. Those that go back to the departments this need to be explained by their department head and the research dean in that college and or the DGP. I think we are doing a better job at orientation especially for new faculty and the more that you can do within the departments and within the colleges that would help as well.
Senator Hanley-Bowdoin: One of my concerns about this process is I think some of us became aware this was a possibility this summer through an Internet grapevine so to speak. When we started talking to each other it became pretty clear that the faculty were not in the decision making process. My understanding is that the task force did not have any faculty and I think that one of the problems here is that we are the ones that are being asked to find this money on our grants. I don’t think it is reasonable to bring this to us as a deal without getting us involved in the process and examining what all the options are and potentially coming up with some other approaches for this same problem.
Vice Chancellor Gilligan: Good point and the task force did consist of a lot of graduate and research associate deans and they were supposed to be able to go back and be able to discuss this with their individual constituents. As this thing evolved and then discussing it through the graduate operations council and the DGP group as well as the folks on URC and the ROC this was something that was suppose to be discussed so obviously that wasn’t done well.
You can see that we are reacting to the immediate problem. This is not something that I can say we need to implement two or three years from now. We have to act on something pretty quickly.
Senator Hanley-Bowdoin: It seems to me that we have time to reopen the dialog and get faculty involved in this process and try to see if we can come up with a solution to this that is going to meet the needs of the university and also be fair to faculty and the people that work with them. I would like to request that this be reopened and faculty get involved. I think you need to reconstitute the task force and make it more broadly and get faculty represented on that task force who can come forward with representing the faculty position on this and potentially put forward other solutions.
Vice Chancellor Gilligan: I think we should have a faculty study group that looks at what has been done so far. I don’t think that we need to reinvent the wheel because I think a lot of this is self-evident. I think we need to get a faculty study group to look at the work that has been done and come back and give us a report.
Secretary Bruck: I have had the pleasure of attending several senior faculty meetings just over the past week and when discussing promotion, post tenure review, things of this nature I hear publications and I hear grants and as we all know you need publications in order to build up the record to get grants. When a certain individual did not have a lot of graduate students we said well probably that person should have more graduate students. What I hear from many of my colleagues is exactly what was discussed, “If I had an active research program and I have a choice of having three post docs or three graduate students in my lab in order to be able to gain that publication record and be competitive for grants that is what I’m going to do.” Unless there is a specific directory that quotes what you just said, our job is to train graduate students and if that means that publication output is not equivalent to that of having post docs then its okay and that should be part of the culture. I think it needs to be stated as such because that is not in my opinion the culture of this university right now and being given a choice if that is the way it is going to be people are going to protect their own programs and it is not going to be followed.
Vice Chancellor Gilligan: I think supporting graduate education and research which to me are synonymous in terms of the way we do things in the United States needs to be stated more emphatically.
6. Old Business
Post Tenure Review of Faculty
Provost Nielsen stated that the Faculty Senate has made some changes that are contrary to the wishes of the department heads as they review the document. He asked, “What does that mean for us?”
Senior Vice Provost Perry: I think we are going to learn that the document is going to go back and come to the deans who will be asked to react to these proposed changes and then they will be asked to go back to the department heads to get some reaction. Some of these items I think will be accepted.
Chair Allen: I think the essence is that it would be easier the other way and the administrators would like that. I think here we as faculty are very concerned because it is our jobs. You have to understand that the faculty really is concerned about this post tenure review because it directly impacts us more than any administrator.
Senior Vice Provost Perry: The voice of the faculty is heard from different directions and with all due respect to this body a lot of what department heads were putting into their piece was from their faculty. Whatever is not accepted of this will return to you.
Senator Blank: It raises the question the extent to which the faculty senators have communicated with the faculty in their colleges and therefore in their departments what the Faculty Senate deliberations be and the will of the Faculty Senate on this. I think it needs to be communicated to the department heads that the Faculty Senate is saying to the faculty that we want responsibility.
Senator Hanley-Bowdoin pointed out that this is a peer review process and noted that it is required by central administration. It is not an option for the faculty. “The only thing we can do is interpret what peer review means so I agree with Senator Blank that we cannot past the bulk. We have no option. We have to have peer review so it is up to us to decide how we define peer review.”
Senator Robarge, Chair of the Personnel Policy Committee moved approval of the regulation on post tenure review.
The motion was seconded and passed unanimously.
7. New Business
Graduate Students Resolution on Ethics
Sarah Ewing, Vice President for External Affairs for the University Graduate Student Association stated that they are here today to speak about a recent resolution that was passed last February in support for the institution of a requirement for research ethics training for all doctoral students here at NC State University. They would like the support of the Faculty Senate with respect to this resolution.
Dr. Chad Jordan, former University Graduate Student Association President stated that the dialog about research ethics has been going on for a very long time. It really manifested itself university-wide when Dr. Margaret King along with others secured a federally funded Research Ethics Program for this campus and there were approximately thirty fellows that went through the program in both learning and a service component and that program ended but ethics did not. A sort of a grassroots efforts began and graduate students in particular the UGSA to get the feel of should this be something that all graduate students be required to take. Should everyone have research ethics training despite his or her differences? “I formed a committee when I was President of the organization to investigate this formerly and this committee was responsible for contacting all representatives from all graduate programs and finding out whether this was a good idea or not and overwhelmingly students responded yes it is. We drafted a formal resolution and it passed by a vote of 32 to one. This is the first time students and graduate students in particular have come forth and said we would like a requirement for a particular course.”
Dr. Jordan stated that they made a recommendation in line 27 to support a requirement for a one-credit course in research ethics. “Again this is our recommendation and I want to make it clear that the UGSA is not really recommending any particular method that this requirement would be fulfilled. Certainly individual departments already have requirements within their curriculum and those would qualify to meet this requirement. We can logistically offer or institute this requirement and it would be logistically possible without requiring additional FTE’s or the development of courses with an individual department.”
Kristin Rosenfield stated that as graduate students they have a culture that they developed on this campus and that is part of what a good research extensive university will offer to their graduate trainees and NC State is poised at this time to be a leader in this area particularly in the area of land grant university. “As students we feel that this is part of the land grant mission and that it would be appropriate for us to have this kind of education as part of our curriculum. There are several reasons why now would be a good time; one being that the NSF is also onboard with this awarding NC State a huge grant to study land grant university research ethics, having someone like Gary Comstock on this campus, and having the folks outside this university and having alums like Larry Wilkerson to endow fellowships such as the one that I have just been recently awarded for this exact thing. It has really put us in a position where we can provide this at NC State and the students want it. Thank you again for letting us come and speak to you briefly and asking for your support as faculty for this kind of requirement.”
Senator Moore stated that this has been presented to the Administrative Board of the Graduate School. They have not taken any action. They have six different people who currently teach these courses and one of the questions raised was it wouldn’t cost anything to implement this program. The people who are teaching this course says that they are discussion intensive courses and twenty or more students are about all you will want. “I think we need to look carefully at the cost implications.”
Kristen stated, “That is part of what NSF has funded us at NC State to do with the land grant. It is to determine ways to provide this kind of education on a large scale. We are looking at technology driven ways of implementing this as well as just from a very practical perspective on this campus. I believe conversations with Dr. Comstock have revealed ways to increase his course so that it could handle a couple hundred students a semester. I think that logistically we think it is possible to do this without putting a new burden on the departments or the Provost.”
Secretary Bruck moved that the Faculty Senate endorse resolution number six of the University Graduate Student Association.
After discussion on the document Secretary Bruck modified the motion to support the concept of a graduate ethics program for doctoral students at North Carolina State University.
The motion passed with two abstentions.
POL 05.20.01 - Academic Tenure Policy
Senior Vice Provost Perry stated that the Policy was sent to the Faculty Senate as notification and noted that it is a done deal.
Personnel Policy Committee
Senator Robarge stated that the committee postponed discussion in the Personnel Policy Committee on the sexual harassment regulations until next week. Rhonda Sutton and Joanne Woodard will be speaking to the committee at that time.
Senator Clark reported that the Governance Committee is starting the process of reviewing the deans that are under review. They are going to look at the faculty input in terms of how they will review the undergraduate dean as well as the graduate dean. Anyone with input or questions should email him.
Senator Clark serves as Faculty Senate representative on the Group Insurance and Benefits Committee. The university can now offer ROTH IRA’s. The 403B and the 401K are coming. Anyone with concerns should contact him.
Secretary Bruck wanted to know if anything has developed regarding a potential breakaway with medical insurance.
Senator Clark stated that the report that was given is that nothing has happened at this point. The UNC system is looking at some alternative offerings as well as NC State.
Provost Nielsen stated that there is a new director of the state health system who has promised to look at other options including looking at the option of an employee/spouse category instead of the employee family category, “but recognize that what they continue to tell us is that a spouse is a lot more expensive to cover than kids.”
Senator Brownie stated that the UNC recently voiced a no tolerance drug policy for the athletes. He consulted with the chair of the Athletic Council on what the university’s policy is or if there is a policy in place. The item is going to hopefully be discussed at the next meeting. Senator Brownie stated that he would report back on what comes out of that discussion.
Chair Allen adjourned the meeting at 5 p.m.