FACULTY SENATE MEETING
October 23, 2007
Present: Chair Martin, Secretary Kellner, Past Chair Allen, Parliamentarian Corbin; Senators Ambaras, Akroyd, Anson, Bernhard, Dawes, Domingue, Evans, Fauntleroy, Fleisher, Genzer, Hanley-Bowdoin, Havner, Hergeth, Heitmann, Hudson, Levy, Lindsay, Muddiman, Moore, Murty, Overton, Ozturk, Poling, Raymond, Ristaino,, Shamey, Ting, Wessels, Williams
Excused: Senators Lindbo, Robarge, Scotford
Absent: Senator Schweitzer
Visitors: McQueen Campbell, Chair, Board of Trustees; P. J. Teal, Secretary of the University; Jacqui Hawkins-Morton, Academic Adviser, FYC; Catherine Freeman, Academic Standards Coordinator; Marcia Gumpertz, Assistant Vice Provost for Faculty and Staff Diversity; Amber Joyner, Student Senate – Chairman of Academics; Katie Perry, Senior Vice Provost; Cheryl Brown, ACE Fellow (Office of the Provost); Thomas Conway, Dean, DUAP; Lee Fowler, Athletic Director; Brian Matthews, CUE & Assistant Professor of Edu.; Emily Millette, Student; Katy Allen, Student; Duane Larick, Graduate School; John Ambrose, Associate Dean, DUAP; Allen Dupont, DUAP; Laura Severin, Faculty Member; Jose’ Picart, Vice Provost for Diversity and African-American Affairs; Gary Weinberg, Academic Affairs, COE; Derek Medlin, Student; Carrie McLean, Director, FYC;
1. Call to Order
Chair James D. Martin called the fifth meeting of the fifty-fourth session of the North Carolina State University Faculty Senate to order at 3:00 p.m.
2. Remarks from the Chair
Today we are dealing with some complex issues, things like the GEP, looking at the discharge and dismissal code policy, and trying to make some sense out of strategic planning. Strategic planning as we all know can cause one to tear some hair out, and how do you pull together ideas from all of this and try to consolidate it into something that we can use to move forward. It reminds one of trying to drive a rubber nail with a banana.
We are dealing with how do you deal with complex issues, well you have to have a cool head. The other thing that cooling things down does from a molecular perspective is it forces you to work together. You see the banana when it’s at room temperature, the molecules are not tightly bound together. They can go their own way and mush out but if we cool it down cool enough they are forced to work together so our rubber nail now gets some density and our banana gets some density and we can do the impossible. We can drive a rubber nail into a two by four. We have to work together but we can also have splits and factions. A little bit of fun for thinking about today but the seriousness is as we deal with these complex issues let’s make sure we keep a cool head and let’s make sure we work together and if we do both I think we are going to have a successful meeting.
We have a new member of the Senate, Mark Walker from the College of Management replacing Senator Mulvey who resigned from the Senate. Five hundred and three votes have been cast for the bylaw revision and in order for the bylaw revision to pass there needs to be a majority vote in favor and that majority must be at least twenty five percent of the eligible faculty, which is about 525 votes.
Chair Martin stated that he and Chancellor Oblinger sent a letter out inviting faculty to participate in a forum with the whole UNC Tomorrow Commission. This forum will be a chance to hear from the Scholars Council and it will also be a chance for faculty to give input to the UNC Tomorrow Commission. President Bowles will be there and this is an opportunity for faculty to get involved, make sure issues of concerns to the faculty are raised. “It gives us a chance to think not just from an institutional perspective but think from the system-wide state perspective.” Chair Martin would like to have at least a dozen faculty go as an NC State contingent. The forum will be on Friday, November 2, 2007 from 3-5p.m.
There will be a photo session at the next Faculty Senate meeting at 2:30 p.m.
3. Approval of the Minutes, Meeting No. 4, October 9, 2007
The motion passed unanimously to approve the minutes of the October 9 meeting.
4. Remarks from McQueen Campbell, Chair of the Board of Trustees
McQueen Campbell, Chairman of the Board of Trustees has been a member of the Board of Trustees for six years. He attended NC State from 1989 to 1993 and graduated from the College of Management in the Department of Accounting.
From a past trustee perspective, we now have two members on the Board of Governors that are past trustee members, Ann Goodnight and Peaches Blank, which is really important to us and our mission in what we try to do. One of the common questions I get when people learn that I am a member of the Board of Trustees is, “What does the Board of Trustees do?” Our job and role is to serve as an adviser not only to the Chancellor but also as an adviser to the Board of Governors. It really helps as we lobby not only the Board of Governors, but also our legislators to have past trustee members who have actually been here eight and ten years, who understand the fabric of what is going on today and what our pressing issues are.
We are very lucky to have Erskine Bowles as our leader of the UNC System. Erkine is bringing in a fresh set of eyes. He has a lot of clout with our current legislators and with his past business experience, his serving as Chief of Staff and Head of the Small Business Administration under the Clinton Administration really brings a breath of knowledge and also a level of respect for our system but also at our institution as well because it helps when you have someone with that level of expertise going downtown trying to sell whatever it is we are trying to get for our university system and for our institution.
One thing that Erskine continually speaks about is getting the faculty salaries up to the 80 percentile. This is something that we have talked about since I have been on the Trustees and something that we have to continually fight with downtown because obviously you have social security and several federal mandates on our state budget that continually chip away at what is available for education and it is a job lobbying downtown and getting them to understand what higher education means to this state and more particularly what it means at our institution. Here we have a research mission which means in some respects we cannot be created equally and there are things that are needed here that others may not necessarily need as much of and that is something that Erskine has been champion downtown and every time I hear him speak that, as well as financial aid are tops on his list. Every time we have the opportunity to interact with our legislator, that something that we bring to their attention because we try to make them understand. Some of the legislators are business people so they understand that the only way that we can succeed long term is if we attract the best and the brightest, not only students but faculty, but more importantly keep the ones that we have because it is a shame at times that we can’t compete with other institutions that attract our faculty away and certainly there is a part that we can’t control. The part that we can is something that we have to continually strive for. We have one of the best groups of trustees with the past experiences that they have, the past political connections that they have, all of those things and their time and financial resources. They continually give on a volunteer basis and actually lobby these legislators for this institution and for the faculty and students here and they do that out of their love for this institution and because they are so passionate about NC State.
We couldn’t be any more fortunate than we are right now to have the leader that we have in Chancellor Oblinger. I can’t tell you how many times that I am interacting with legislators and or the governor and his executive staff where we are complimented on the leadership that he provides, not only as Chancellor but his service in other roles. That makes a huge difference when we go downtown and ask for things specifically for NC State. Not only do we have to lobby and compete at times with other programs in the state, but obviously we have to compete even within the UNC system and in doing so I don’t know of another institution that is as involved in recruiting industry or really when it comes to anything. I have had people from the Governor on down to tell me that anytime NC State is called whether it is the Department of Commerce or anybody that calls on NC State, how responsive we have been and how knowledgeable and helpful that our Chancellor is. That helps us tremendously downtown that they have that much respect for him and that he does any and everything that we can and make sure that our university as a whole does any and everything we can to help because it is part of what we are here for and that really goes a long way when we are downtown asking them for things.
The UNC Tomorrow recently had their meeting at the McKimmon Center and they have gone around the state and provided an opportunity for everyone in the state to comment on what our university system needs to be doing for our state. We definitely need to be heard not only as citizens but also as faculty involved at the university because I think it is important that we respond to them and let them know what our hot topics are and what things are important. I think it is also important to know that our former Student Body President, Tony Caravano is one of the lead participates of the cause. He is working with Norma Houston and has done a fantastic job.
I think that one of the things over the last six years that I have noticed that has changed and that we have tried to improve at the trustee level in interacting with our legislators downtown is actually trying to come together and be united in whatever it is we are trying to accomplish. I think when Chair Martin was talking about keeping a cool head and working together I think long term we all need to understand that no matter what the issues are we are never going to agree on everything but as long as we stay together and work together and work through those issues together it does affect everything that we do downtown because they don’t have the necessary perception of reality. Sometimes it is what they read in the paper, which is unfortunate because it causes them to form an opinion at times that is not accurate. So that leaves it on our shoulders to try to put our best foot forward at whatever we do so that whenever we have issues we can deal with those issues but make sure that when we go downtown that we continually work together to try to make NC State the very best place that it can be. I want to thank you again for what you do at NC State and thank you for the opportunity to talk with you today.
Senator Moore: From your perspective on the Board of Trustees, what are one or two of the major challenges facing the university?
McQueen: I think one of the biggest ones is probably the funding. Obviously there are things going on at the state level that have nothing to do with education, federal mandates that continue to chip away at our state budget as a whole, and obviously that affects how much money they have to put toward education. Then when you look at that side of it, we are competing with a larger budget from that standpoint so we have to educate ourselves and understand that our legislators do a great job and understand, I think what higher education means to this state but we have to continually put that in front of them and its tough when we go down there trying to prioritize what we need because every thing is important. They have to make choices; we have to make choices because we are not going to get everything all the time. So it is our job and continually a challenge as we go forward and as the federal mandates on our state budgets continue to increase. We have got to be creative and we have got to do better at trying to get more research dollars, just bring as much funding as we can to our university and not completely relying on the state like we have in the past. We have to look at trying to improve. We have got to look toward the future. We just got a new Vice Chancellor for Advancement who I think is going to do an outstanding job. I think those are some things we have to look at trying to bring in more financial resources so we can continue to fund existing programs and as well as growing programs because obviously we have a growing student population and again, we have to continue to pay our faculty and staff at the level that will be competitive so we can continue to compete on a national and international level.
GEP Report from Academic Policy Committee
Chair Martin stated that the Senate spent part of a meeting looking at the General Education Program and at that time we listened as best we could. We did not take any action at that meeting because there was significant concern brought to us that more discussion needed to be had, particularly that concern was brought from several faculty from CHASS. Following that meeting of the Faculty Senate there was a faculty meeting for CHASS faculty that was very well attended.
For information sake there was a proposal submitted largely prepared by David Ambaras for an alternative to the GER that is available on a CHASS website and it was circulated among the CHASS faculty. To summarize what that plan proposed, it was keeping the same number of hours that were recommended by the plan from the GEP task force. The major concern had to do with the interdisciplinary prospective courses for which the GEP plan suggested that there be five to six hours and the amendment being suggested for consideration by some of the CHASS faculty was that it be moved to zero and similarly the additional breadth that was proposed in the GEP was to fill out in areas other than your own disciplines, so in the broad sweeping categories if you are a math/science major your additional breadth would be another three hours of humanities. If you were a humanities major then your additional breadth would be another three hours of math/science.
There are some disciplines that don’t fall neatly into a category of humanities and social sciences and math and physical sciences and there would need to be some discussion as to those, but that additional breadth provided for a way that you would not simply double count courses in your major. In the proposed amendment the five to six hours of interdisciplinary courses are split adding an additional three-hour requirement to the humanities and social sciences and another three hours to the math and natural sciences so in the end I think you will see that it is pretty much the same total number of classes; it has just been whether it’s in the additional breadth. There is not double counting or you do the split and you have the option for double counting your major classes.
In the amended plan it was also suggested that we retain the science, technology, and society classes and effectively let that replace the idea of the interdisciplinary course. The interdisciplinary perspectives course as proposed by the GEP it was stated would start out including all of the STS courses as meeting the interdisciplinary requirement. There are likely many other courses that are already being offered that would also fit under that category. There would also be the opportunity of developing new classes under the model if we have that five to six hours. If we keep it to three hours I suppose there is no reason one could not develop new courses, it would stick largely with the STS. Otherwise in terms of the diversity being a co-requisite the recommendations are the same; foreign language again, proficiency is the same; computer literacy again it is listed to be college responsibility. That proposal was put forward and discussed among the CHASS faculty both at that meeting and in contininuing forums. There was some online discussion as well and over the last week there was a vote among the CHASS Faculty. There was a survey that was prepared. I have received some mixed sentiment about the survey. Some concern with the survey itself, how it was conducted, and what not. The survey asked as question number one to indicate your preference, whether you supported the task force proposal, whether you supported the proposed amendment, whether either was acceptable, whether neither was acceptable. The second question asked, am I satisfied with the GEP revision process and one was allowed to answer strongly agree, agree, neither agree nor disagree, disagree or strongly disagree. There was a third question asking whether or not faculty members were tenure track or non-tenure track. Please do note that from the perspective of the voting faculty for the general faculty we do not differentiate tenure track versus non-tenure track, all are considered part of the voting faculty. The only differentiation that I am aware of campus wide is when you are talking about your departmental voting faculty and that largely has to deal with hiring promotion and tenure decisions.
There were 75 of the 521 eligible faculty who responded to that survey. The vast majority supported the amendment proposal, a hand full said neither was acceptable, a smaller handful said either was acceptable and also a very small handful said accept the report.
The vast majority noted that they were not satisfied with the process of the GEP revision. People in the survey were also allowed to give comment as to what they felt about the whole situation. I have read through all of the comments with as objective of eye as I possibly can and what I find is that the majority of the comments express significant concern about the process, that faculty were not involved in the GEP revision at an early enough stage. That action is as far as I can tell what has generated the largest amount of frustration and descent on how this process has been carried out. I also am aware that there have been a number of opportunities throughout the process where more and more faculty input has been requested and has been listened to although there is debate as to what extent things has been listened to.
There are clearly concerns with the reduction in the total number of GEP hours. There will be fewer courses to be taught, fewer courses to be taught will result in fewer faculty. There are many questions regarding that. There are many questions regarding the interdisciplinary requirement. What is it? How will it be implemented? How will it be constructed? How will it be evaluated? From the comments that are there I would say that they are legitimate questions. There are also comments that seem to not understand what has been suggested. There are those suggesting that it’s going to require two faculty to teach every interdisciplinary course. While I don’t see that it is precluded I have also seen nothing that says that is required. It would potentially be fun to be able to have classes where two faculty would get together and teach a course but that is not at all mandated. Would there be resources for such a thing? If we go forward with the interdisciplinary initiatives we have the opportunity I think to argue for that as a possible resource that is needed.
There is concern that we have not yet decided how well interdisciplinary courses be evaluated. The likely mode is that they will be evaluated through CUE (Committee on Undergraduate Education) or UCCC (University Committee for Courses and Curriculum). These are issues that do need to be resolved and I believe from my understanding of the task force report these are issues that do need to be resolved and needs to move on to the next stage to address these implementation issues. To necessarily have all of those implemented before or right at this stage doesn’t necessarily make sense. These are all issues from my reading of it that are addressed by the report from your Academic Policy Committee that you have before you and was also given to you in the meeting several weeks ago. You will note in the proposal from the academic policy committee the first comments in terms of recommendation actually do address the process issue. That issue is a concern to a variety of folk, not just the CHASS faculty. You will also note on the second page of recommendation from our Academic Policy Committee most of those recommendations have to do with making sure these are addressed in the implementation process.
We have comments from the CHASS faculty. We have the report from our own Academic Policy Committee. I have also received comments from individual faculty members. I think it’s also important to note that there is a task force that has been constructed to look at interdisciplinary and interdepartmental programs. The list of names does include several faculty, some Associate Deans, Deans, and some department heads. There is a broad distribution of folks including some folk I know to be very active faculty. That task force strongly endorses the idea of the interdisciplinary programs.
The recommendation is that we should put forward a motion to endorse the report from the Academic Policy Committee. If there is such a motion and seconded then the floor will be opened for discussion. Any vote that we take today would be an endorsement of the Academic Policy Committee report and any vote will be done by secret ballot.
A motion was made and seconded to accept the report from the academic Policy Committee.
David Ambaras: I would like to say a few things about the results of the survey and the issues that remain in the GEP, the task force proposal, and the proposed amendment.
The CHASS Curriculum Committee unanimously voted to ask for more time for the CHASS faculty to discuss the GER proposal and for some sort of survey to be developed to gauge the opinion of the CHASS faculty on this. This was not a vote and it was not a survey to reiterate. We then had a meeting on short notice. Between sixty and seventy CHASS faculty showed up on Monday at 12 noon for this meeting. There were people leaving and coming because of their schedule. At that point I did propose an amendment to the GER task force proposal that I drafted in consultation with faculty from other parts of CHASS. To summarize what this amendment entails.
Whereas the GEP proposal is 39 to 40 hours the proposed amendment is 40 hours. There is no change in portability from the task force report, double counting is allowed as in the task force report. English 101 remains as a four-hour category. The Humanities and Social Sciences moves up from 12 hours to 15 hours of which up to 3 hours may be visual or performing less. That was an issue that was raised in the General Faculty Meeting last January as well. Math and Natural Sciences move from 13 hours to 16 hours. Additional breadth is eliminated; the additional breadth is achieved functionally by increasing the number of hours in Humanities and Social Sciences and in Math and Natural Science. Interdisciplinary perspectives are zeroed out from 5 to 6 in the task force report but 3 hours are restored as science and technology and society with the proviso that other courses can be added to that list, that science and technology society is not the exclusive list of courses that other courses that fulfill the spirit of what the task force call for which is that to say, sustain approaches to a problem from both the scientific and the humanities and social scientific perspectives could fit that list. With regard to other interdisciplinary courses that are not science/non science interdisciplinary the increase in the number of hours in Humanities and Social Sciences as well as the increase in the number of hours in science and mathematics would allow for those courses to fit into those groups. So for example a history and literature course could be added to 15 hours of humanities and social sciences; physics and chemistry would be in the math and natural sciences category. So in no way is this proposed amendment denying the importance of some sort of integrative, or cross, or interdisciplinary approach to learning in the GEP. What it is trying to do is to achieve a workable compromise on which faculty across the board can agree it is possible to move forward. Similarly to emphasize the importance of interdisciplinary and again the Faculty Senate and others who have had problems with the term itself, what do we call it, the thematic tracks that are in the GER task force proposal are maintained as optional as they are in the GER task force proposal and proposals are to be encouraged to design themes that reflect that you are taking directive language of the task force report sustaining rigorous and substantive instructions that focuses on the contents and approach that at least one discipline in the humanities and social sciences and at least one discipline from mathematics and natural sciences engineering and technology. So this proposed amendment again is an attempt to try to move forward toward a GEP revision that is implemental and that has the consensus of a large variety of faculty including the faculty in CHASS who were in a significant number concerned about the vagueness, not simply the process of how the GEP revision was undertaken but the vagueness of one of the fundamental categories at the core of this new revision.
The survey results: Of 75 people who responded to this survey, 2 indicated their preference for the task force proposal; 67 indicated their proposal be a preference for the proposed amendment; 5 found neither of the task force proposal nor the proposed amendment acceptable; 1 found either acceptable.
On the question of satisfaction with the GEP revision process, zero strongly agreed, 2 agreed, 8 neither agreed nor disagreed; 33 disagreed; 30 strongly disagreed. So you have here a fairly significant number of CHASS faculty who have been participating in these meetings. I would emphasize that the October meeting and forum that have ensued are not the first time that CHASS faculty have been involved in this process. The CHASS faculty have been involved in various meetings all along, presentations to the CHASS faculty, participation in the General Faculty meeting in January of last year.
I would like to remind my colleagues of two chronologies. The first is the chronology I just mentioned about the CHASS faculty’s participation. After the General Faculty forum in January of last year when questions were raised about interdisciplinary among other things, the CHASS faculty met a couple of days later and came up with a counter proposal which was passed by the voting members present at the end of that meeting that was submitted to the task force and no response was heard from the task force.
If we look at the chronology of the task force’s operation itself, we will find that on February 19 the task force submitted there second, excuse me they um on January 17 they had their first, their meeting of the General Faculty on the second version of their proposal. On February 19 the task force met and according to their minutes, members said, “We need to think more about what these courses are that make up the interdisciplinary perspective and what constitutes interdisciplinary. We need to develop a way in which in the IP category be clear and better articulate the objectives. Perhaps review rationale reviewed by other universities.” This is after the second draft was submitted to the faculty, the task force came back and expressed its own lack of clarity about what the criteria are. In the same meeting a member of the task force at least one said faculty and students support the STS requirement. The second draft had already been submitted to the General Faculty.
On April 2, 2007 the minutes of the task force read: Members express some confusion still that the wording of the IT category and how to define this piece; how to clarify this so that it can be presented satisfactorily to the faculty.
At this point wording was developed but there was not discussion of the IP itself in the final meeting on June 15 of the task force. The task force composed it’s final report, submitted it to the administration, and it was posted to the website on August 6, 2007. That is to say much of the final drafting and the posting to the web site was done over the summer when most university faculty were not here. We are now asked within two months of that to come up with a decision to implement an endorsement of a proposal to implement this proposal when as late as April the authors of that proposal themselves did not know what interdisciplinary means and how it should be defined to satisfy the questions coming from the faculty. At this point we do have a survey in which 67 of 75 respondents said that they support a proposed amendment. Only two supported the task force report and five indicated that neither is acceptable. I encourage you to read the comments that were posted to the web forum and the comments that were posted in response to the survey itself.
Let me reiterate that nobody is saying that scholarship and teaching that traverse disciplinary boundaries are bad. To the contrary we take it seriously to the point that we want to know what it means and how it can be pursued. Similarly the CHASS faculty at this point are not saying let’s stop the process and go back to zero, let’s dismiss the work of the task force. They are saying recognizing where the process is, here is a way to move forward toward implementing a GEP revision, that takes in consideration the spirit of the task force’s work as well as the reality which is that the driving demand for this is cutting GER hours from 53, to 39 to 40.
Senator Kellner stated that he believes the amended version is better and noted that he has expressed concerns about the GEP and its process since it first came to the Senate last year.
Several senators shared their college’s perspective on the issue.
Chair Martin stated that people who teach GEP do not own the GEP they own the content of the course that they teach but the GEP is something that we collectively own as a university and we must think in university contents. We absolutely independently in our departments control our major curriculum that we should have complete control over but, those who teach it do not own GEP, it is owned by those who need it and I think that is a very important thing for us to keep in mind.
Senator Ambaras stated that this is not a question of anybody owning the GEP. This is really about everybody thinking about what is best for the university and what is best for our students. What kind of university NC State wants to be and that is really what the debate comes down to. I don’t see this as someone trying to defend the status quo or someone trying to defend resources. That is really what the debate has been for people that I’m speaking for it is an intellectual proposition first and foremost, it ethical proposition first and foremost. It is not about how many sections are we going to have tomorrow.
On something like the faculty bylaws we have not been able to get 525 faculty to vote but on the GEP 75 CHASS faculty on an informal survey responded. I think one can say that there is sufficient energy in CHASS around this issue to merit further consideration.
Senator Dawes pointed out that STS would be the vehicle by which you would explore interdisciplinary and that is already in place and that is the position that these people have taken in CHASS with regards to interdisciplinary.
My final point is that many people felt that it was necessary for people to have a sense of the discipline to have a sense of a routed education in the discipline before going on to issues of the interdisciplinary.
I think there is a lot of positive in the current GEP plan and I think a lot of time that our discussions sort of neglect the fact that the task force has put a tremendous amount of work into this proposal over a number of years and I don’t think they often get enough credit for that work.
Senator Anson stated that he has listened very carefully to his CHASS constituents and it seems that the real concern from his perspective is on interdisciplinary requirements.
We know that many dozens of institutions around the country have added what is called the writing intensive requirement to their general education requirements. These are requirements in which students must take X number of WI courses across the curriculum and they are flagged as meeting the requirements for writing intensive. I have participated in formulating those kinds of questions and I have never seen a WI requirement get put into a GER without a document that describes very clearly what is and is not a WI course. I don’t think any faculty would dare to vote through a proposal that wouldn’t stipulate just what it means for a course to be writing intensive.
Now what we have here is a situation where we have a new proposal for a two course requirement and something that is called interdisciplinary courses without a supporting document like a WI document that would say what interdisciplinary means, what kinds of courses would fit or not fit interdisciplinary. I would really be much more satisfied with a proposal if we had some kind of supporting document that would help to define and explain what we mean by interdisciplinary and what we don’t mean by it. Maybe that could come in the form of a friendly amendment to the endorsement of the APC that might read:
In connection with number three, which is, establish a stable well functioning structure in process for administration of interdisciplinary courses and programs. That structure seems pretty vague to me too. I would like to see something like “With broad faculty consultation and adequate faculty representation develop and approve a document that 1) defines what does and does not count as an interdisciplinary course; 2) provides examples and models of appropriate interdisciplinary courses and 3) offers principles and guidelines for the creation of and support for new interdisciplinary courses. To my mind that would be the first step to implementation and I think many answers to questions would follow, but my problem is on this one issue that we don’t know what this means.
There is a famous article written by Ed White called the “Damage of Innovation Set Adrift,” where he goes back to campuses five years after they have implemented something and you find essentially that the ashes of the original spirit of a proposal. If we are going to create intellectual rigor, we are going to have a curriculum here that really works for students, that really does what I think is in the spirit of this document, we need something more than just vague language. We need a document that says here is what counts. Here is what you cannot do.
Chair Martin agreed with Senator Anson and noted that it is the spirit of the recommendations that are here.
Senator Hudson agreed and stated that the intention of the task force leaving the language open had to do with allowing faculty to make these determinations and to not have a top down process.
The motion was made and seconded to accept the amendment to the Academic Policy Committee’s report.
The motion passed.
A secret vote by secret ballot was done on whether or not to endorse the report from the Academic Policy Committee as amended.
The motion passed (24 yes, 6 no, 1 abstention) to endorse the Academic Policy Committee’s report as amended.
UNC Code 603/604 Revisions
Chair Martin stated that the code revisions were given to the Faculty Assembly late to mid July. He reviewed the revisions with the Executive Committee and they prepared a document and submitted it to the Faculty Assembly. The report was significantly used by the Faculty Assembly Executive Committee in revising the texts. There was also a significant report from UNC Chapel Hill faculty. There was broad faculty opposition to the report as coming from the General Administration Committee. This was a significant topic of discussion at the Faculty Assembly meeting on September 28. The leaders of the Faculty Assembly drafted resolutions that they would recommend all the branch campuses to approve.
Chair Martin stated that there the desire is to get this language through a level of faculty approval before the Board of Governors meet in December so if we can get a general all campus opinion before then that will be useful.
He noted that items a, b, c, d and e, contained text that he put in based on comments that he heard back. This is not formal text this is just an attempt. The only vetting is on point “e” and Senator Hudson raised our attention to this issue that the way the text read in terms of the UNC Faculty Assembly language would make it sound that at the end of a term appointment you are done which is the case for some term appointments and that was the case in the past. She has made some modifications from what it when it was sent to the senators. She would like the reading to read the same as it is written down to “appointment constitutes fully and timely notice when that term expires.” She would like the wording to be that “special faculty may be reappointed”, and that is a legitimate statement to add and then go on to say that special faculty who have served at least three consecutive years shall be given at least sixty days notice of intent to reappoint or not reappoint.
A motion passed to amend the wording in section “e” with the language that states, Special Faculty may receive subsequent term appointments.
A recommendation was made to change the wording in section 604.D.2a to read “no less than 14 calendar days and up to 60 calendar days” to file an appeal
A motion was made and seconded to vote on the amendments to the resolution. The motion passed unanimously to accept the amendments.
A motion passed to adjourn the meeting at 5 p.m.