Left Navigation

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

April 8, 2008

Present:  Chair Martin, Secretary Kellner, Provost Nielsen; Parliamentarian Corbin, Ambaras,  Akroyd, Anson, Bernhard, Dawes, Domingue, Evans, Fauntleroy, Fleisher, Havner,  Heitmann, Hudson, Levy, Lindsay, Moore, Overton, Ozturk, Raymond,  Schweitzer, Scotford, Ting, Walker, Wessels, Williams

Excused:  Past Chair Allen; Senator Hanley-Bowdoin, Shamey

Absent:  Senator Genzer, Hergeth, Lindbo, Muddiman, Murty, Poling, Ristaino, Robarge

Visitors:  Marcia Gumpertz, AVP Faculty & Staff Diversity; Katie Perry, Senior Vice Provost; Suzanne Weiner, Library Administration; Donn Ward, Department Head, Food Science; Betsy Brown, Special Assistant to the Provost;  David Rainer, Environmental Health & Public Safety; PJ Teal, Secretary of the University, Billy Houghteling, Director, Office of Technology Transfer

1.  Call to Order
Chair James D. Martin called the fifteen meeting of the fifty-fourth session of the North Carolina State University Faculty Senate to order at 3:00 p.m.

2. Welcome and Announcements
Chair Martin welcomed Senators.

Chair Martin announced that the general faculty elections are under way and those who are not able to vote electronically should send their information to the Senate Office.

The Faculty Senate elections will go live on April 14.  If there are no candidates, that section will be pulled from the ballot or not counted.

3. Elections
Athletics Council
Drs. John Griggs and James Mickle were elected to serve two-year terms on the Athletics Council

Faculty Assembly
Suzanne Weiner was elected to serve a two-year term on the Faculty Assembly.  Senators Margery Overton, Paul Williams, and Past Chair George Wahl were elected to serve as alternates.

4.   Approval of the Minutes, Meeting No. 14, March 25, 2008
The motion passed to approve the minutes.

5. Remarks from Provost Nielsen
Provost Nielsen stated that there has been and continues to be a great deal going on relative to UNC Tomorrow.  He handed out the latest report of the UNC Tomorrow:  Summary of Leads’ Reports.

Based on what a lot of people have suggested we are now working toward a list of thirty items.  This sheet replicates the format that has the seven major recommendations from the UNC Tomorrow report.  These are things that we are already doing or things that we are not doing that we might do.  In the case of NC State, most of what is on here is an expansion of existing ideas as oppose to brand new ideas.  Some of the seven are not developed yet.

The idea on page one is that every undergraduate be required to have some “leadership experience” as part of their undergraduate experience, everything ranging from undergraduate research to the C+ leadership program.

The second is building on the start of this global network of peer universities around the world.

The third item is the idea of having something included about graduate education such as a series of leadership and professional development activities that already exist, but would be expanded, and developing new forms of graduate education that is beyond the masters degree, doctoral degree, and certificates. 

The fourth is the idea there is the maturation of CHASS into a full research, scholarly degree offering unit.  Many more graduate degrees.

4.2 Access to Education—These are placeholders for a number of things.  We are going to be collaborating with community colleges a lot more than we have in the past. 

There has been a lot of talk about branch campuses.  The system’s decisions relative to branch campuses is that a model we would pursue is establishing an NC State degree on a community college campus where the first two years of the degree program, that are associated with the general education would be offered and taught by the community college and the latter two years of the program would be courses that are of a more specialized nature and would be taught by our faculty in that location.

4.3 Improving Public Education—Develop an education extension service similar to cooperative extension, industrial extension, and small business technology and development centers. It is not to put NC State based employees in one hundred counties and the Cherokee reservation, but instead to put a group of specialists in a few locations around the state to serve as a place to deliver continuing education, professional development to in-service teachers and school administrators.

The second item is to double the production of STEM teachers.

The third item is to institutionalize and expand the things that are being done under Bob Bechner’s STEM research into science teaching area and some expansion of the Friday Institute.

4.4 Communities and Economic Development—To have a premier College of Engineering

Create a College of Design and Performing Arts.  That is a placeholder for a significant performing arts unit on the academic side of the house.  It could be a freestanding college.  It could be associated with CHASS and it could be associated with design.  The idea here is, unless we make a positive, significant statement about what we want to do in performing arts that we are likely to run into issues getting individual degrees approved because as we have talked about before, the idea of the UNC Tomorrow Report and its associated documents is going to be the filter up against which new proposals for anything are examined, so we need a commitment on our part that we wish to move performing arts to the full major status in some organizational content like this.  In the absence of that, I don’t think we will get very far.

The next is expanding industrial extension, which everyone thinks is a good idea.

The next is to institutionalize our entrepreneurship programs at the university level, which we are moving towards.

Economic Development and Partnership—The center for democracy and engagement is the idea to take the faculty expertise that we have in these areas and make them available to communities and governmental agencies.

4.5 Health—No school of nursing.  The “one medicine one health” idea is the idea of the connection between what we have learned from research at the College of Veterinary Medicine and how that relates to human health.

The next School of Health Programming—A virtual program to highlight the many things that we are doing across the campus that relate to human health. 

Global Health Initiatives—The connection between plants, food supply, nutrition, animals disease carriers, well wide distribution and human health is very much what we do and are about and then the expanse of cooperative extension programming in the health and wellness areas.  All of this is pretty much designed to establish us in health and wellness as oppose to disease.

4.6 Environment—This academy of the environment is the thing that we have been talking about, but it’s basically the placeholder for interdisciplinary academic programs.

Energy—The healthy built environment has to do with design for help in communities, healthy buildings, etc., and include in there funding for the center for universal design and the college design which we have been getting on a one time basis. We thought we were going to get it solved this year, but it’s not and we have to get it solved.

Sustainable Campuses, what we do on campus to make our living better.

The last one is a placeholder for something that might develop in terms of emphasis in terms of Natural Resources management. 

4.7 Outreach and Engagement—I think this outreach and engagement one is going to be sort of organizationally a strange thing, because we have engagement and outreach in lots of places.  There are general organizational ideas here rather than a load of outreach and engagement plans. 

The idea of an urban extension program that is the urban equivalent of cooperative extension, and then this institute for science and technology policies, is something that Dr. Zuiches has been working on in a taskforce for some time and would relate to the proposed Center for Applied Public Policy at the UNC system level.  Although you will hear it talked about as being placed at Chapel Hill, it is designed to be a system-wide thing, something that would presumably come out of the engaged with the School of Public and International Affairs in CHASS.

Provost Nielsen announced that on April 21 at 3 p.m. in this room there would be an open session for the entire university community to talk about where we are.  [Later, site changed.]

Chris Anson – Under the Global Readiness category one of the things I noticed in the UNC Tomorrow Report was a mantra of communication ability and the need for writing and speaking ability.  I would think that that is crucial to global readiness and it is not something that happens only in the first year writing but really should happen across the whole institution in every curriculum.  We have a very strong program that does that and I’m wondering why that particular need, which is one of the highest ranking needs among citizens and business leaders, is not mentioned in the recommendations.

Provost Nielsen stated that it is because we already have a very strong program and it is engaged in the general education program to lead communication across the curriculum.  We have not discussed or heard anything particularly about what is the next step in terms of doing this.

The people listed are charged with writing the first draft of a two-page statement relating to each of these.

Chair Martin stated that Linda Hanley-Bowdoin is not here to raise the issue but both this group and the other faculty group raised agriculture as a major component that needs to get worked into Human Health.  Speaking for Linda who is currently in Washington, I think that needs to be front and center in what we report.

Provost Nielsen stated that it would be in that global health initiatives one.  There is nothing basically written against that.  We expanded that one to deal with plant resources and food resources specifically based on Linda’s comments and others, that the CES health and wellness programming is also an area that is largely agriculturally based on food supply.  For example, the Kannapolis program on improving nutritional health.  It is either there or it will be in the transforming and translational research up front.

Senator Hudson stated that both our faculty and students need to work to communicate better and noted that she doesn’t see that under characteristics or initiatives.  She wanted to know if it could be added.

Provost Nielsen agreed that they need to communicate better but stated that the question is how do we do that?  If you have recommendation for how to do that it would be great. 

Senator Hudson stated that at the General Faculty meeting they talked about the idea that it needs to be more integrated in the curriculum and the way to do that would be professional development workshops for faculty to teach faculty soft skills not just communication, but teambuilding, leadership skills, critical thinking, problem solving and then help them understand how to integrate that more into classes. 

Provost Nielsen stated that we had a faculty development task force that we had this year that has made a number of recommendations about faculty development and what we would do in faculty development.  That does not appear in the report because the UNC Tomorrow is really not focused on that, but it is a good point.

Senator Ambaras stated, in thinking about some of the initiatives in the 4.1 global readiness I would encourage whoever is involved to cast the net as broadly as possible across the university.  Just at the very basic level of communication I would strongly encourage whoever is doing this to set up list serves and just put in as many relevant names of faculty as possible and see what comes out of that.

Secretary Kellner stated, in the global readiness we find very little that is global and we find very little that wouldn’t be the case even if the United States was the only country in the universe, but cultural, historical, and linguistic research, and graduate education would be useful.  With regard to the next point, enrollment plan for forty thousand, I recall a conversation in which it was noted that a dramatic increase in the quantity of the overseas study would make it easier to expand the university.  If a certain considerable percentage of students were studying abroad in a given semester, the facilities here would be that much less used. Consequently, policies in that direction could enable this move to increase the size of the university and it would also do a great deal for global readiness and that would be an initiative to increase overseas study dramatically.

Provost Nielsen stated that under the student leader idea is that study abroad in one form or another would be one of the ways that students would accomplish that.  I would suggest that our experience has been so far that it is costly for us to open facilities over there.  There are other ways to doing this.

Remember, the global readiness is not really so much about global readiness, it is about preparing students to be able to succeed in the twenty first century.  The other reason that the research emphasis is in the report here is because this is the only place in the report that calls for globally competitive research and so we are landing on that opportunity with both feet.

Senator Havner stated that he happened to be at the Faculty Assembly meeting when President Bowles gave this number of expectations of eighty thousand more students across the system and so the number here of forty thousand is roughly our 10,000.  Is that projection, with such a large increase, because North Carolina is one of the states that has a very large rate of population increase, because all across the country there is the expectation of a significant decline in the students going to college over the next ten years?

Provost Nielsen stated that the eighty thousand number is not the total number of additional college going students that will be launched from North Carolina high schools in the year 2017 but is only the proportional share of those students that the UNC system would be expected to take under the current operating conditions. That forty thousand is based on our current size, our recent rate of growth relative to scaled up to fit this eighty thousand.  We remain at forty thousand students, the largest school in the state, but interestingly Chapel Hill drops to number three and number two will become East Carolina.

6. Consideration of Policies
REG11.00.1:  Family Educational Rights and Privacy (FERPA or Buckley Amendment)
Senator Overton, Chair of the Personnel Policy Committee stated that the committee had suggested that “date and place of birth” be taken out of the list of information in the directory.  David Drooz from Legal Affairs responded that the university is okay with taking out “and place” but leaving “date of birth.”  The committee agreed to go forward with that and moved that the change be accepted.

The motion passed unanimously to approve the revision to the policy.

Campus/Workplace Violence Prevention and Management
Senator Williams, Chair of the Resources and Environment Committee stated that the committee met with David Rainer and there were some reservations about some of the definitions, particularly the one on intimidation.  The language was meant to parallel the state personnel rules, but in a case of intimidation the word  “intended” was left out.  They amended the document to be more consistent with what is already in the state policy.  He noted that more and more universities are moving toward this kind of threat assessment team in response to Virginia Tech and a lot of procedures are included to codify and encourage behavior that was lacking at Virginia Tech. 

Senator Williams moved that the changes be accepted.  The motion was seconded and passed unanimously to accept the change to the policy.

REG 10.00.3 Royalty Sharing Under NCSU’s Patent Policy and Procedures
Senator Williams stated that a lot of changes were made to this policy but it is relatively a simple idea.  In the past, royalty sharing with inventors was based on gross revenues.  That, first of all, is a rather unusual type of contract -- most universities don’t use gross revenues, they use net revenues.  They met with Billy Houghteling and he explained the economics of his position and how they frequently have cash flow problems with the patent trust.  This policy is one where they will be able to recover their direct cost of managing these various patents before any royalties are paid and as an additional benefit, in the past   colleges and departments didn’t receive any of the patent royalty because it was split 60/40 between the inventor and the university.  There will be 10% of that now that will come from the university’s piece and be distributed, five percent to the departments, and five percent to the deans of the colleges. 

Senator Williams stated, the one issue that came up was the concern about what are the costs that are going to be deducted from gross revenues to arrive at net.  The committee recommended in paragraph 2.2 that revenue means gross revenue minus all costs associated.  The committee recommended that the words “direct out of pocket cost” be inserted, and that means only the cost directly associated with managing that particular patent. 

Billy Houghteling, Director of the Office of Technology Transfer stated that the revision to the policy makes it more equitable for the entire faculty.  The revenue that we will be able to retain with this policy change allows us to do a considerable amount of additional speculative patent following and work on some of those disclosures.  

Senior Vice Provost Perry questioned whether the proper channels for approval had been followed.

Chair Martin stated that the standard templates needed to be attached to this policy to make sure the appropriate channels for approval have been followed.

Senator Levy wanted to know if the policy is intended to be retroactive, if approved, and he stated that it does not appear to apply to copyrights.

Houghteling stated, if the revision is approved, it is not retroactive, but applies from the date approved by the Chancellor.  It does not cover copyrightable works or plant varieties, which are governed by a separate master agreement with the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences. 

Senator Heitmann stated that to change this from gross revenues, which is a very clear concept to net revenue seems to be complicating the process.

Senator Williams stated that we might be attributing too much importance to the inventor because he or she couldn’t have invented it without the resources of North Carolina State University at their disposal so it really is a sharing agreement.  We provide the capital and he or she provides the brains. 

Senator Fleisher stated that there are two points here.  The first is that the university is supplying the environment to do this, and the second point is doing this as an individual, you would have to pay for all of those things, if you wanted to process your patent. 

Senator Williams stated that NC State is almost unique in the country in this kind of a contract because every other university has a net arrangement. 

Houghteling stated that there are fewer than five institutions, public and private in the US that function under this gross revenue model.  The only one locally that has a gross revenue model is Wake Forest University.

Senator Heitmann stated that it is his understanding that it doesn’t bring more funding, that it actually brings less funding.  It gives the money to the office quickly, like a cash flow thing, rather than a revenue thing.

Houghteling stated that almost $700,000 in the fiscal year 2007 budget was distributed to inventors before the office was able to recoup it and that $700,000 is what could have been used to file on other technologies, which his office is asked to do every day -- take the risk and decide which one should they promote.  He noted that if you don’t take risks, you can’t have the success in the future.

Senator Levy stated, based on his experience, it is the inventors who have had to seek out the partners so it’s the efforts of the faculty, graduate students, post docs, etc who are incentivised by this potential reward.  It is not the office that basically initiates the majority of those contacts.  “We are putting a lot into it and I agree if all the net cost come out first, then the chances of inventors being rewarded in the short term are going to be diminished.”

Houghteling stated that his office relies heavily on inventors to provide them leads.  They spend a significant amount of time trying to find partners to commercialize university innovation. 

Senator Akroyd wanted to know what the contract is between an inventor from a company like IBM.

Houghteling stated that typically as an employee of a private company, you assign all your rights to that company and you get no share of the commercial value.

Dr. Don Ward, Head of the Department of Food Bioprocessing and Nutrition Sciences commented that we have had a considerable stake in technology for a number of years.  I am glad to see that departments are now being considered as sharing in the revenue.  I think that is a step in the right direction because we are often left holding the bag when the inventor is out selling the technology, we are defending it in court, departments have to cover classes, departments often pay for some of the infrastructure that you don’t get from the university to develop the patent but yet departments via department heads have not been included in the process.  I think we have a significant stake because oftentimes we have paid the patent fee and if, in fact, OTT won’t pay them, we pay them and then when the thing is successful we get that feedback and then it’s over.  We don’t get to participate in the revenue stream.  We have invested and we continue to invest and if it is successful I can guarantee that dinner is consumed with that invention once it leaves campus and is in commercialization and then departments also have to cover that.   I would like to see us in the process, so that we could comment on a regulation such as yours.

Provost Nielsen stated, “I ask you to put yourself in the position of the university trying to get this done as effectively as possible rather than necessarily in terms of you as an individual who is concerned about your share of a particular process being reduced or delayed.  That I think is your responsibility here as a faculty senate.”

Chair Martin stated that we have to look at Senator Heitmann’s concern that we do have to look at does it incentivise people filing, so the university is really both sides, the administrative side and the faculty side.  We do have the responsibility to consider both sides.

Houghteling commented that the 40% that is returned to the inventors to recognize their contribution and their role in commercializing innovation is one of the most handsome reward policies in the US.  If you compare it to our peers, inventors receive a significantly less amount for their contributions in their  involvement in commercialization of technology.

The motion passed to adopt the policy with two voting no and one abstaining.

7.  Constitution of the Faculty Senate Executive Committee
Senator Gary Moore, Chair of the Governance Committee reported that the Governance committee came up with three recommendations and Secretary Kellner came up with an additional recommendation on how to choose the Executive Committee.  He handed out a one-page document detailing several different views. 

After much discussion, a motion was made and seconded to adopt Secretary Kellner’s option.

The motion passed unanimously. 

Senator Moore moved adoption of the proposed bylaws.  The motion was seconded and passed unanimously to adopt the revised bylaws.

8.  Task Force Report and Proposed Regulation Revision for Post Tenure Review
Chair Martin reviewed the draft proposal for the revision of the Post Tenure Review that was put together by the Post Tenure Review Task force. The proposed regulation was developed ina collaborationof two from theSenate, two Department Heads, and two University administratorsin order to ensure that all vested parties were involved.

During the process of revision the task force looked at the system policy and asked if they were writing the system policy, what are the things that they would try to incorporate.  The Task force came up with a draft, but that issue was politically charged enough at the system level that there were not those kinds of large revisions done, but a final set of guidelines came down from General Administration.  The task force picked up those guidelines and looked at merging it with the work that they had done previously to come up with the proposed revision that is being presented today.  The Personnel Policy Committee has reviewed this draft and the Executive Committee has also reviewed it. 

The General Administration has asked that the policy be in place by October of next academic year.

Chair Martin reviewed the draft regulation with the senate. 

A motion was made and seconded to extend the meeting by ten minutes.

The motion passed unanimously.

9.  New Business
Resolution of Expression of Confidence in Lee Fowler
Senator Paul Williams presented the resolution for its first reading. 

The resolution will be voted on at the next meeting.

10.  Adjournment
A motion was made and seconded to adjourn the meeting.

The motion passed to adjourn the meeting at 5:15 p.m.

Footer Nav