Copyright Colloquium: President Broad expressed her appreciation for
the copyright colloquium, including the quality of the presentations, the
turnout, the diversity of the group, and the hopeful possibility that we can
move ahead on the issues related to copyright and an education program for
the university.
The President’s response to issues and concerns raised by the
Assembly:
Regarding the need to improve fringe benefit packages for faculty:
There is no disagreement that we compare less favorably in the area of
total compensation than we do in salary, especially in the areas of
retirement and health care. The President has asked Kitty McCollum to
head a group, including campus representatives, to examine our package
of fringe benefits and compare these with other states and to prepare an
analytical basis from which to go forward. The University is considering
preparing a legislative initiative on fringe benefits once it has an
understanding of what might be achieved. Dr. Howell, chair of Faculty
Welfare Committee, will be a member of the study committee.
Regarding extending privileges and benefits to retired faculty (for items
such as recreational facilities at all campuses regardless of where the
individual lives):
The President raised this issue with the Chancellors and it will
continue to be discussed.
Regarding legal rights of faculty who are participating in phased
retirement:
First, with respect to legal rights, the University Counsel and outside
counsel have reviewed the university policy and each campus policy. It
appears that there are variations among campuses on fringe benefits, but
these differences apply to all retired faculty and not just those in the
phased retirement program. Second, the language used on the forms that
faculty must sign is typically used to insure compliance with federal
laws regarding retirement and was not meant to have a chilling effect on
faculty. In particular, the language is present to insure that
individuals make an informed and unhurried decision. However, the legal
staff will be making a general review of the release form to see if it
might be revised to make it less intimidating.
Regarding the final budget agreement:
It has been an "extraordinary and positive" budget for the
University. The biggest disappointment lies with the amount given to
faculty salaries. Students who are served at a distance will now be
included in enrollment growth. The new funding model which funds
students according to the level and area of their program of study
serves as an incentive for us to expand our ability to serve students at
a distance. This will be a significant step in the way the university is
funded. Funds to support information technology, which was requested in
both operating and capital budgets, lead to 18.5 million (3 million
recurring) in the operating budget and nearly 35 million in the capital
budget for infrastructure. This is approximately half the required
amount, but leads us to hope that we can complete the work in two years.
The reversion budget has been dropped from 2% to none. This year
we will get the 1% approved last year in addition to the remaining 1%
this year, so we will have 2% allocated this year. Additionally, the
proportion of indirect costs given back to the State has dropped. These
developments not only increase the amount of funds, but the flexibility
we will have to use them in future years.
Libraries received 9 million to be distributed across campuses.
Outreach efforts to public schools were also funded, including the
"reading together program" at UNCG and money for UNC TV for a
wide variety of programs and services supporting K12 programs. Graduate
tuition remissions were given 8 million dollars in recurring funds,
which will enhance our efforts to recruit graduate students on a
national basis. Individual faculty members and graduate students aided
the effort to obtain these funds. Distinguished professor matching funds
were continued.
Overall, 131 million dollars were given to the operating budget and the
capital budget was very good. Increases approach 335 million dollars, a
new record. Clifton Metcalf, Associate Vice President for Governmental
Affairs, was recognized for his efforts in budget matters.
Regarding the report on evaluation of student responses:
The President encourages each institution to study the report and
look for those areas in which we might improve. Sophomores, graduating
seniors, and alumni were surveyed to evaluate the quality of
instruction. The overall quality of instruction was highly rated by all
groups. However, there were differences between seniors and sophomores
on many items, as well as variation among the campuses. The President
highlighted the lower ratings by sophomores, and suggested that we
insure that lower division students have access to our best faculty.
Each campus will receive a report, and she encouraged that any item on
which 30% or more of the students were dissatisfied represents an area
that merit attention.
In response to questions:
Gordon Mercer: What is your perspective on new degree programs,
given rapid changes in technology and needs? Do we need to examine our
process to approve new programs?
Judith Pulley, Vice President for Planning, outlined the process
by which campuses submit requests every two years, which will be issued
in January. Although a process that allows requests more frequently may
be considered, we must also insure that the process is thoughtful and
based on system wide strengths and needs rather than a "first come
first serve" basis. Program planning must be integrated within
academic planning. We do have the ability to plan new programs at other
times.
Howard Neufeld: Given the pressing needs to expand enrollment
quickly, have we considered the infrastructure limitations on the campuses
and their ability to respond? Any sudden surge may change the campuses in
ways that might harm the campus environment.
The President responded that no numbers were assigned to any campus.
Each campus was asked to review its existing physical capacity to see if
might accommodate any increases that might be anticipated based on
demographic plans. Each campus was asked how many students it could
accommodate based on current or planned facilities. The campuses were
also asked how many students they would choose to have, assuming that
the resources would be available to accommodate them. Therefore, three
data points, demographic trends, current capacity, and ideal capacity,
are considered in the context of each institution’s mission, values
and budget resources. For example, ASU has limitations that will
probably prevent growth regardless of how many students might wish to
attend.
The President believes we should try to accommodate as many
undergraduate students who seek and who are qualified for enrollment as
possible. We CANNOT NOT SERVE this growing population of undergraduate
students. We must reconcile this with our desire to serve more graduate
students. We hope to accommodate the enrollment growth over the next ten
year period (40,000-50,000) using the existing campuses.
Dan Noland: Regarding the specter of competing educational providers (e.g.
The University of Phoenix) – what would happen is we simply let people
seeking distance education to obtain it from those private vendors?
The President says that we will continue to invest in distance
learning techniques because it serves our current students, even if they
decide to obtain those courses from others. Information technology will
be a measure of quality in serving students on our campuses, not only
those who we may serve at a distance. We probably do not know the impact
of trying to offer an entire program at a distance. Many of the items on
the current student survey probably would be impacted negatively by this
approach, although it may work for some students, such as those
finishing degrees, teachers in the schools seeking professional
development. This population probably represents a large market that
would take first rate programs from our institutions.
Mike Pearson: How does our articulation agreement with community
colleges impact on planning distance learning programs? Will any of the
projected enrollment increase be met during the first two years by the
community colleges?
The President said that her impression was that relying on community
colleges for this purpose is probably not wise because our transfer
rates from them are still fairly low. Therefore, they are probably not
the answer to the enrollment surge. The University has a commitment to
the people of North Carolina to do everything it can to serve
undergraduate students from North Carolina who are qualified and seek
admittance. It would be a failure on our part to not accommodate the
enrollment growth.
George Rabinowitz: If we increase in state enrollments, can we
proportionately increase the enrollment of out of state students?
The President appreciates that out of state students do bring value to
our campuses and recognizes that many of these choose to remain in North
Carolina after graduation. Although there are no plans to modify the 18%
policy, it is possible that it may be scrutinized in the future.
Bylaws Discussion – Gib Smith
Dr. Smith presented the recommended changes. These had been posted on our
website. The motion was:
"The Bylaws be amended to reflect the changes indicated in the
draft dated October 5, 1998 and the following additional editorial
changes:
In Section VI B change "will" to "shall"
In Section VIII B change "Executive to executive committee"
In Section C H&I, change "chairman" and
"chairmen" to "chair" and "chairs."
Questions and discussion followed:
IIA - The bylaws do not indicate that there will be a minimum of
two members from each institution, although it is specified in the
Charter. Move to amend (Rosenberg):
To include the statement in IIA that "Each institution will
have a minimum of two members." (to be inserted after the
second sentence.)
After discussion, the motion failed.
Section VIII J - Move to reverse the order of the two clauses in the
addition. This will be done as an editorial revision. It will read
"shall be a member of the Assembly and shall be appointed by the
Chair of the Assembly."
The Assembly agrees that all "will be" will be changed to
"shall be" as editorial changes; all "chairman" will
be changed to "chair."
The motion to adopt the bylaws changed passed without dissent.
Discussion of Copyright colloquium
The second plenary session adjourned at 4:55.
The Third plenary session was convened at 6:50. Forty
delegates were present.
The Assembly heard reports from each committee:
Executive Committee – Noland
The renovations to the General Administration building will begin
soon, and the meeting room will not be available for our next two meetings.
We don’t know where the February meeting of the Faculty Assembly will be
held. In April, we will try to meet in the Triangle area to be near the
meeting of the Faculty Governance Association that will be held in Raleigh.
The Executive Committee discussed how to improve the new delegate
orientation. It was agreed that the orientation will become the
responsibility of the Assembly Vice Chair.
Dr. Noland reported the appointment of Keith Howell to the task
force to review Post Tenure Review and a member of the committee to study
faculty benefits
After some discussion, the Executive Committee proposes that the
topic for the faculty colloquium next year will be the issues related to
technology and teaching.
Reported that the President feels strongly that any copyright
discussion should also involve sister institutions around the country,
especially around the issues of fair use. She feels we must move quickly,
although thoughtfully, on these issues.
Dr. Noland reported on the discussion with President Broad. The
President announced the appointment of a new distance learning
coordinator, Diane Oblinger, to help with the implementation of the ITS
project. The University has contracted with a consulting firm, pending
approval, to consider issues related to "Phase II" of the
technology initiative. One part of that effort will be the establishment
of a team on each campus to manage its IT initiatives. The President also
mentioned the possibility of having a system-wide "help desk" to
help in problems using the technology. The President suggested that she
may consider issues of consolidation of services to better deal with
technology, such as combining efforts of campuses located in close
proximity.
Professional Development – Pearson
The Professional Development Committee discussed three issues.
First, the committee discussed the recently completed report of the
Professional Development Advisory Committee. This report is currently
being reviewed by General Administration. We will be having a larger
discussion of this report at our meeting in February. The second issue
involved a discussion of the current committee charge. While there was
agreement that the current charge was ambiguous, this gives the committee
great flexibility. Third, the committee discussed whether it might examine
the increasing time spent in assessment activities (e.g., peer review,
review of administrators, etc.) This topic will be explored in greater
detail at the next committee meeting.
Faculty Welfare – Howell
Acknowledged that the President’s responses to our requests were
not only positive but very timely.
Reported that the Chair of the committee had been appointed to
serve on a new committee to study faculty benefits. The committee is
expected to prepare recommendations by January. This is significant in
light of an anticipated increase in BCBS premiums that may exceed 50% in
the next two years. The implication is that faculty will become quite
concerned with benefits, especially as the State Legislature’s new tax
cuts are implemented over the next two years.
The committee is concerned about the lack of access to medical
care options, especially in the western part of the state where state
employees only have access to the State Health Care plan, so when the
increases are phased in these employees will not have a access to less
expensive alternatives. This issue will be presented to the new benefits
committee.
The committee is also concerned about the percentage contributed
into the optional retirement plans by the state. GA’s benefits committee
is expected to also address this issue.
The committee had requested that retired faculty have access to
certain benefits on campuses throughout the system, including library,
computer and recreational facility access. The President has discussed
this with the chancellors and will continue to discuss it at their
upcoming meetings.
Finally, regarding the wording on phased retirement agreements,
the committee chair discussed the issue with Dave Edwards of the GA legal
offices, who will continue to work on this topic at the President’s
request and share his information with the committee. Mr. Edwards reported
that the form was prepared under contract with an external party to follow
formats fairly common in early retirement documents, but that the wording
will be reviewed. The committee has been asked to act quickly on this so
the form may be revised before the deadline for phased retirement
application this year
The committee is concerned that the percentage of full time
faculty may be decreasing because of the increasing use of part time
faculty. Although campuses vary considerably in how they keep records on
part time faculty, the committee will be requesting available information
from GA on the extent of part time faculty use on each campus.
Finally, Fred Eckles has been serving on a committee
investigating the addition of a mutual fund family, and this committee
will be making a report soon.
Budget – Fogarty
The committee met with Ken Grogan to hear details about the budget
and review proposals for the next biennium. The committee discussed how to
help individual faculty become more active in budget planning on each
campus. This committee will contact the chair of each campus committee
charged with working on the budget to determine effective practices. They
will use this information to develop a model of "good practice"
that might increase faculty input into the budgeting process.
Because there appear to be many questions about budgeting, the
committee hopes to develop a "FAQ" page for the Faculty Assembly
home page devoted to budgeting.
Planning and Programs – Caton
The committee met with Jarrett Cummings, the Director of Special
Projects, who reported on the Information & Infrastructure Technology
Strategy (ITS) plan which will bring campus networks closer to standard.
GS is working with a project manager using input from each institution.
Each campus will identify goals, objectives and capabilities, and each
will empanel an IT planning taskforce. External consultants will work with
steering committee, which has nine chancellors as members, to identify the
highest priority initiatives. The purpose of Phase II is to bring faculty
on-line by providing computers, faculty development, software and support.
The results from Phase I will be available on the GA website in the near
future.
The committee then met with Gary Barnes, who discussed using
system wide survey data as part of demonstrating the University’s
accountability. GA reports results on a regular cycle to the Board of
Governors Planning Committee. The surveys rate the overall quality of
instruction.
Mr. Barnes also proposed that we consider using broader measures
of efficiency instead of just the quality of instruction. For example,
those campuses who are efficiently used during the summer, or those who
encourage academic progress and who average fifteen student credit hours
attempted in the fall semester might be rewarded by sharing some of the
cost savings. Representatives from GA visit each campus at least once very
three years to better understand how the surveys are viewed. They attempt
to balance the measures used to avoid promoting reactive or inappropriate
responses to perceived problems. Mr. Barnes suggested that the issues of
accountability will be particularly important with distance learning
programs.
David Claxton discussed why the review of new programs seems to
be delayed. It appears that programs are not being reviewed if they are
not part of the strategic plan. Also, the University is shifting how it
classifies programs, and now uses the CIPA system. We are involved in
classifying programs into the new system, and it may be that some of the
new requests are not really asking for new programs but only new tracks.
GA is considering whether to review new programs at times other than on a
two-year cycle.
The committee also discussed distance learning issues, especially
the need for faculty development. They hoped that either GA or the
consultants involved might provide workshops on each campus.
Finally, the committee discussed the copyright colloquium held on
the previous day. They appreciated that the meeting was focused and hoped
that more colloquia could be held in the future.
Faculty Governance – Smith
The committee met with Mr. Richard Robinson, Vice President for
Legal Affairs and General Counsel, to discuss grievance procedures, the
model computer use policy and the public records law. Related to the
computer use policy and the public record laws, and Mr. Robinson’s
suggested that GA may attempt to influence the Legislature on this matter,
and the committee asks that Chair Gasaway keep the Assembly informed of
the initiatives being made on these issues.
The committee also discussed grievances that are appealed to the
Board of Governors – in the last six years there have been 80 appeals.
One was reversed, 11 were sent back to campuses for further review, and
the others were either upheld or not heard.
After these discussion, the committee suggested that a procedure
be developed to advise faculty on each campus to make the process more
effective. The committee asks Chair Gasaway to form a task force to
examine grievance procedures on each campus and to recommend ways to make
the procedures more effective.
Academic Freedom and Tenure – Mackey
The committee asked Dr. Judith Stillion to provide an overview of
the criteria used create the post tenure review procedures on each campus.
A state wide committee drafted the guidelines that each campus to followed
to develop policies for faculty development.
The committee will examine the campus policies, paying particular
attention to items that impact on tenure. GA will review the program
annually to be sure that each campus is operating in compliance.
The five criteria of concern are: