Left Navigation

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


Minutes of the Faculty Senate

April 10, 2007

Present:  Chair Allen, Secretary Bruck, Chair-Elect Martin, Parliamentarian Corbin; Provost Nielsen; Senators Anson, Blair, Branoff, Dawes, Evans, Fauntleroy, Fleisher, Gustke, Hanley-Bowdoin, Heitman, Hudson, Kellner, Khosla, Kinsella, Lindbo, Moore, Overton, Raymond, Robarge, Schultheis, Scotford,  Shamey, Smith, Wessels, Williams, Yencho

Excused:  Senators Muddiman, Murty, Ozturk , Genzer

Absent:  Akroyd, Banks-Lee, Culbreth, Jones, Mulvey,

Visitors:  P. J. Teal, Secretary of the University; Jack McCreedie, CIO Scoping Team Consultant, University of California Berkeley; Gregory Jackson, Vice President & CIO of Information Technology, University of Chicago; Marcia Gumpertz, Assistant Vice Provost for Faculty and Staff Diversity; Tom Miller, DELTA; Lauren Gregg, News Services; David Drooz, Legal Affairs; Wayne Buhler, Professor of Horticulture; Lee Fowler, Athletics Director; Tyre Lanier, Food Science; Amanda Robertson, DELTA; Lisa Fiedor, DELTA; Tom Skolnicki, Landscape Architect; Michael Harwood, University Architect

1.  Call to Order
Chair Nina Stromgren Allen called the fourteenth meeting of the fifty-third 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.

The post tenure review task force will hold a set of hearings for faculty and department heads on May 2 in the Faculty Senate conference room.  Faculty are welcome to attend between 2 and 3:30 p.m. and department heads 3:30 – 4:30 p.m.  Those who are unable to attend can send comments to vernice_stevenson@ncsu.edu

3. Approval of the Minutes, Meeting No. 13, March 27, 2007
The motion passed unanimously to approve the minutes.

4. Remarks by Provost Nielsen
Provost Nielsen introduced two members of the Information Technology Scoping Team, a twelve-member team to help NC State define the position of a CIO and what the framework of it should be.  Greg Jackson, CIO of the University of Chicago will serve as chair of the group and Jack McCredie, Emeritus CIO at the University of California Berkeley will serve as Vice Chair.

Greg Jackson stated that he comes into this with no particular brief other than to ask questions and comment on things and ways that perhaps might not happen within the culture naturally in the hope that the Scoping Team would then come to a sense on two questions. 

Their charge is to understand that if there is going to be a CIO then what form should it take.  This ranges from titles and reporting line to scope. 

Jackson noted that their goal is to listen. 

Jack McCredie stated that their goal is to try to help the university think through what the role should be on the campus or if there really needs to be that role at this time. 


What is the role of a CIO?  What is the scope of that work and how do they facilitate efforts above and below you?

McCredie stated that a lot of people who has this role are referred to as Vice President of Information Technology or Chief Technology Officer.  He noted that he is Vice President and he oversees all the procurement of major items.

Jackson stated that the role at Berkeley is much more decentralized.  Their model is more closely related to the federated side where they decide if certain things belong in colleges or if certain things belong centrally.  He served as a member of the Chancellor’s cabinet bringing to all of their discussions the impact of IT.  He would also sit in and listen to all of their discussions so that he would be able to take the information back and set priorities in the Central IT Administration. 

Anyone wanting to offer input can email them at greatjack@listnotes.uchicago.edu.

5. Master Plan
Michael Harwood stated that the master plan is not about the document, it’s about the process, about creating a tool to integrate the facilities, finances, and the space plans.  It is important to  break down 2,200 acres of a 40,000-person community into some discrete and distinguishable units, which are then connected by a series of paths.  One example is the area in front of Winston, Thompkins, and Caldwell.  That has been labeled the off campus path and a project renovating the 1911 building will create an opening through that to connect the Court of North Carolina better to the brickyard and to the library.  This would take care of some fairly dangerous pedestrian conditions when trying to walk around the 1911 building. 

Chair Allen represents the Faculty Senate on the advisory team.  There are also representatives from the Board of Trustees, Staff Senate, Student Senate, and representation from the College of design.  This is a crew that brings up a lot of good ideas.

Transportation is one of those things that have been an important part of the campus dialog for a number of years.  Transportation is not only about parking it is also about moving from one location to another especially as engineering continues to grow its presence on Centennial Campus. 

Enrollment is also a big issue in terms of growth. Harwood stated that we tend to think of 30,000 students but another way of thinking about it is having approximately 23,000 undergraduates that are in that traditional four or five year cohort, which is a lot of the way the outside community views us.  Enrollment drives our capital plan, how we provide the space that we need, where those buildings need to be, and then of course campus appearance. 

Harwood stated that sustainability was in the 2000 plan and has been refined and has become an even larger part of what we do. 

There are a number of guided principles that are in this master plan.  Effective movement was another guided principle that refined and more clearly articulated something called a bus rapid transit.  The people mover is still a placeholder on the plan. 

The free expression tunnel, Reynolds Coliseum, Holladay Hall, the Bell Tower and the one that really begins to consummate many years of discussion is the view of Lake Raleigh Woods across Lake Raleigh.   The development that has been shown through previous master plans has been removed from that part of the map.  This master plan update is to recognize the importance of that area. 

The math and statistics building is under construction.  It is creating a new courtyard that will have food service located in Park shops spilling out to the south much like the Atrium does here.  The sidewalks have been widened and the road configuration has been changed to make it much more enjoyable and safe for pedestrians.

Hillsborough Street improvements—that engagement with city contexts working with folks to try to identify some co-development sites along Hillsborough Street, that in addition to the action that the City Council took last month we will be able to supplement that with some other activity that will continue the rejuvenation. 

Harwood stated that they had been rethinking the entire Greek Village neighborhood where every front door faced a different direction, and now all of these facilities face onto a common area.

The childcare placeholder is an area between the north and central campus and centennial campus along varsity drive. 

Rocky Branch is another project where our master plan is connected to it.  In five years it really has come back. 

The free expression tunnel is part of the master plan and it is about expanding and making improvements that benefit the larger surrounding campus. 

The Wolf Village, a 1200 bed apartment complex has created a real sense of neighborhood by the way that the buildings are located.  

The Sciences Court Yard, that is the addition to David Clark Labs and the introduction of the Fox Teaching Lab not only created space within them but also created this new green space.  That is going to be a wonderful place as it continues to mature.

All of this information can be found on the web at  www.ncsu.edu/facilities .

Thank you for your time and attention. 

Senator Robarge complimented Michael Harwood on the improvements to the free expresssion tunnel and noted that it makes a big impression on visiting families. 

Senator Robarge wanted to know how they are working with security to keep the campus secure.

Harwood responded that the things that they can control from a design point of view are the things that they are engaged with public safety.

Senator Kellner wanted to know what Harwood meant by sustainability.

Harwood responded that it is essentially leaving the place better for those who come after them.

Senator Kellner wanted to know if the streets surrounding the 1911 Building would be closed.

Harwood stated that the parking that is closest to the building on the backside would be replaced with a sidewalk for a clear space for folks to be able to walk.

Senator Fleisher stated that one of the iconic locations mentioned was the pasture at CVM and the dairy barn.  He wanted to know to what extent would the expansion of the biomedical centennial campus infringe on those areas.

Harwood stated that they have worked to make sure the center does not extend any further to the east. The parking will eventually be put into a large part of the deck behind the current research building. 

Is there going to be a goal to restore parking or make it readily accessible.

Harwood stated that there is nothing in the master plan that talks about whether its student, faculty, or staff parking.  They are seeing relocation but not elimination of parking.  When they  constructed the expansion to the coliseum on the south side that was in large part to provide parking to north campus.  They constructing a parking deck between the math and statistics building that will recreate the 400 spaces that were on the old football field at one time.  Some of the parking have been relocated into the Dan Allen deck and they continue to have conversations with transportation about the assignment of the inventory that they have. 

Senator Yencho stated that most large land grant universities that he visits have a great ice cream parlor that is based on their own dairy.  He is surprised that it has not been mentioned here.

Harwood stated that they had been talking with Food Science and are waiting for them contact them.  Hillsborough Street was suggested as be a reasonable place to house it. 

Update on Rocky Branch
Senator Williams stated that a resolution was passed last fall suggesting that this project be absorbed from the parking restriction.  A proposal was made and not accepted because it took too much space from Miller Field.  This next proposal would reduce the amount of damage to Miller Field and move the existing parking lot into club area “A” preserving about thirty to thirty five feet of that space from what was in the plan that was reviewed last fall.

Senator Williams stated that there is this parking compensation procedure here that explicitly states that each project is basically responsible for the parking solution to any parking spaces that it takes and this seems to be the hang-up with the Rocky Branch III project.  This compensation requirement can’t be solved without doing damage to Miller Fields.  Transportation is setup separately from facilities.  Does state law mandate that?  Is there any prohibition from us saying let’s just eliminate transportation as this separate organization that has to be compensated and consider transportation as part of facilities planning and design so if we have this portfolio of projects we solve the parking problem at that portfolio level rather than be constrained by this policy that says each project by itself has to deal with its own parking problem.  There is an organizational structure here that’s creating an impediment to what you are trying to do over the next five or ten years and I would just like some one to answer that question for us.  Why can’t we just say we will solve this parking problem in conjunction with a lot of the other parking problems?  Why does it have to be done project by project and why does it have to be done now? 

Harwood stated that it is not a function of the organizational structure.  The parking department in years past has been part of the facilities world but it has always been a self-liquidation unit and I don’t know the legalities and ramifications.  I presume that there is a logical rationale why that occurs.  The planning that we do on parking is what has enabled us to build the expansion of the coliseum parking deck where we took these parking responsibilities from multiple projects created a one time solution that no project could have done on its own.  What we are trying to do for the rocky branch project is maintain the parking inventory because we had heard from this very room how important it was to not take away parking near Carmichael.  This group felt very strongly that is something that we should not get into. 

Provost Nielsen stated that if it’s the money that is one thing but if it’s the number of spaces in their relative location it’s another thing.  If its money there are two ways to do it and one is to charge each of our individual projects with it or the other is to take it off the top and have our highest priority building to be a parking deck and have the academic buildings and others come later.  We have chosen to do it in a way that surcharges all the projects and I think that is logic because as soon as you say we are going to take the money off the top then we forget about that when the next project comes along.  I think the question of how we got to the point of saying parking has to be preserved onsite has a much longer story and I’m sure it has a basis in shared governance. 

Chair Elect Martin stated that what we are effectively doing is moving parking into a classroom and we wouldn’t think of doing that if we were talking about another building.  The problem is we have sort of a third part project and we have parking and we have Physical Education and so why is Physical Education impacted and why are they losing a classroom to parking? 

Chair Allen recommended facing this head on and to come up with a better parking solution.

6. Course Hosting Regulation
Tom Miller, Vice Provost for Distance Education and Learning Technology stated that there are a number of issues that would come into play with a website being hosted outside of NC State’s control and they boil down to basically three, which are:

1) FERPA  - The Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act which states that if we have students taking a course, we have to protect the privacy of the student in that course.

2) Accessibility, which builds upon federal and state laws for accessibility of persons with disabilities. 

3) Advertising—We are forbidden from paid advertising on any official NC State web page.

A forum is scheduled tomorrow afternoon in the Assembly Room from 3-5 p.m. that will review this in depth.  It is an opportunity for the university community to review the regulation and give feedback for modification.

The regulation itself, which we have tried to explain it in generic terms and then we put two documents to accompany the regulation;  the FERPA to explain what the issues are and what our obligations are under the law.  The other is the Accessibility checklist that reviews the issues that have to do with accessibility and our obligations as a university. We have tried to take this issue and make it as faculty friendly as possible. 

Vice Provost Miller stated that the tools that they provide all have the necessary capability to produce accessible content.  All of the infrastructures they provide have the basic ability to make your content accessible and they have also provided workshops and resources.

Secretary Bruck made a motion to extend the meeting 5 minutes.  The motion was seconded and passed to extend the meeting.

Senator Janet Hudson encouraged the faculty to attend the forum that is being offered to discuss this subject.

7. Elections
Athletics Council
Dr. March Krotee and Dr. Leonard Annetta were elected to serve three-year terms on the Athletics Council.

Faculty Assembly
Chair Nina Allen, Senator Janet Hudson, and Dr. Scott McRae were elected to serve two-year terms on the Faculty Assembly.

8. Issue of Concern   
Senator Kinsella received an issue of concern from a member of his department where a colleague reported a conversation with a person who had been accepted to a PhD program in Communication, Rhetoric, and Digital Media. The student wanted to know whether NC State was a hostile environment for gay and lesbian individuals.  His colleague tried to reassure the potential student that NC State is not a hostile environment but does everything it can to be supportive.  The student stated that some research on the Face Book website revealed a number of disturbing comments that would indicate a negative climate toward gay and lesbian people on this campus.  For that reason, Senator Kinsella and his colleague expect that the student probably will not be coming here.

Several motions passed to extend the meeting during the discussion.

Provost Nielsen stated that having readily available information for someone who is inquiring about this subject would be a good thing for the university to do.

There was no action taken since the issue had already been discussed in a prior meeting and a resolution had been adopted.

9. Adjournment
Chair Allen adjourned the meeting at 5:45 p.m.



Footer Nav