Faculty Council Meeting of Tuesday, 19 March 2002
President: Joe Liles; Vice-president: John Woodmansee; Secretary: Floyd Bullard

Minutes

Agenda Item 1:  Faculty Contracts

Joe said he believed that when Jerry (at an earlier Faculty Council meeting) said he would support performance-based contracts and also shifting the burden of proof from faculty to institution, he was utterly sincere.  Joe then reminded everyone of the letter he sent last week to all faculty to quell the rumor that Jerry had reversed his decision.  He (Joe) said once more that he believed Jerry was interested in negotiating a contract that was better for faculty than our current plan, but that the board would also support.  A week from tomorrow the faculty welfare and benefits committee will meet with Sandy, Delacy, possibly Jerry, and interested faculty to try to construct a proposal that can go before the board that will make everyone happy and that the board can support.

Here is (roughly) the proposal that Jerry made that will be discussed at the meeting a week from tomorrow.  There will be a series of appeals for non-renewed faculty that can go potentially to the Board of Trustees, guaranteeing the right of each appeal step for a non-renewed faculty member.  The appeal process would require the Executive Director to have a very solid case of non-renewal that right now (s)he is under no obligation to make.

Discussion on this?

• I'm pleased that we're hearing now about this rather than spending a whole year writing something that the Executive Director will not support, as happened in 1994 when the rug was pulled out from under us at the last minute.

• What is the rationale for opposing performance-based contracts?  Joe: My take is that from the institution's point of view, performance-based contracts open the door to faculty members for lots of lawsuits in non-renewal situations.  Betsy Bunting thinks we have the best contract system in the whole UNC system, and why wouldn't she?  At the end of a contract, we can be let go at the drop of a hat with no justification.  From that point of view, performance-based contracts are nightmare for institutions.  Jerry calls his proposal "front-loading" our contract system with performance issues.  Although performance does not become a justification for appeal, due process--including the right to a "probationary year", with a warning when performance is not acceptable--is mandated, and failure of the institution to follow due process does become grounds for appeal.

• Sandy and Jerry agreed with this description.

• Is there a way to get information--before going very far--about whether the board is likely to approve a proposal?  Jerry:  I made it clear to the Board that I am working with you, not against you, on this.  The Board Chair is aware of this and has not indicated any resistance to it.  I think it's going to get passed.

• I don't think it would be fair to the Board to go to them with less than a complete proposal.  Until they have all the pieces of the puzzle, I don't think we can go to them and ask them what they think.

• Joe:  I don't blame you for being pessimistic.  We've heard these words before, "joint faculty-administration proposal", and we've had the rug pulled out from under our feet at the last minute.  But I'm optimistic this time and I want to finish this this year and move on.

• Would it be worthwhile finding out in advance whether Betsy Bunting will approve this?

• (Faculty member): I still don't think that's appropriate.  We need to have a full proposal first.  Betsy Bunting does not have the final say, and our Board may be willing to look at some things that she advises against.

• Is the issue (still pending) on our governance status going to have an impact on this decision as well?  John Woodmansee: we've finished our recommendation to the Executive Director of becoming a constituent institution.

• Joe: So before the end of this year we can all count on a report from Jerry about governance, and a report from Faculty Welfare and Benefits about our contract progress.

Agenda Item 2: Summer Reading

In Steve's absence, Tom will share with us where we are.

Tom:  If we're going to continue having summer reading, then we need to decide soon what the books will be.  We want volunteers to take a look at last year's readings and what took place in classes etc.  Volunteers: Joan Barger, Lisa Nanney, Peggy Craft.  We also need to make a choice for this summer's reading.  Volunteers to compile suggestions?  Volunteers: None.  Tom: I'll send an email about that and impose upon anyone who responds.  (Laughter.) 

Agenda Item 3:  Emeritus and Adjunct Faculty Positions

Steve has said that we need to formally write down in the Regulations of Faculty Employment what Emeritus and Adjunct Faculty positions mean.

Tom:  I'd love volunteers to help me draft this official definition of these positions.  I'll get help from Myra and Hugh (thanks them).  Joe:  Myra wants to wrap this up in at most two meetings.  Volunteers to help Hugh and Myra on working out the language of the amendment to the Faculty Employment Regulations?  Volunteer: Chuck Britton.  Tom: These people will be great.  Thank you.  I'll also send out an email for more help, though.  (Laughter.)

Agenda Item 4:  Report on Board of Trustees Meeting Last Friday

Joe:  The Odyssey campaign is beginning.  Carol?

Carol O'Dell: Katie Wagstaff reported 20% more donations over last year, with much of it unrestricted.

Joe:  Educational practices and policies.  The Board voted on an Internet use policy that we've all received.  There is a Federal law now about protecting children from the "bad stuff" on the Internet. 

Joe:  The "streamlined" plan for judicial procedure change that Jerry proposed was approved by the Board, with an amendment: administrators may gather more data in a judicial review not just by looking at paper, but by making inquiries and phone calls, etc.

Mary Roberts:  The Board was made aware of the great value of cyber-campuses, how much appreciated our exported courses are.

Sally Adkin elaborated on this, naming our 7 Cyber-campuses and sharing positive feedback we've received from them.  We'd like to put together a slick color brochure that informs the public of what we do.  This would help with funding.

Joe:  In the class of 2002, we had 15% minority applications.  Class of 2003, 19.6%.  For 2004, there were 20.8% minority applications. 

Joe:  Fiscal and Human Resources committee.  This was, of course, the hot one.  One of their action items (this may surprise you) was to approve the increase in student population at the school.  We  now have 10 more students than we typically have at this time of year, thanks to admitting more students in the first place, anticipating some early withdrawals.  Wyche is being renovated to house 50 more students.  We don't know whether the state will fund this or not.  We're asking for funding for the 10 more students for next school year.  For the following year, 2003-2004, we're requesting funding from the state for 50 more students.  The Board approved this increase and request for funding.

Jerry: We're not at full capacity now.  The state of NC will fund you all year for how many students you have on the tenth day of school.  We're set up for 550, we began this year with 561, and we now have 541.  We're requesting  $214,000 for the 10 more students.  The 50 more students would cost about $1.2 million.  This would cover faculty, etc.  If we don't get that funding, we'll still take the 10 more students, but not the 50.

Joe:  What about these 50 more students?  Soon the curriculum and standards task force will report on their proposal for a sophomore class.  These are two separate issues.  The decision to go to sophomores has not been decided.

Q:  What about classroom space and new teacher offices?

Jerry: We've looked at ground Watts, the Hunt classroom, evening classes.  So we have a variety of ways to address this, but obviously nothing has been decided.  The original master plan for this school called for 900 students (which the Board does not want).  But the Board knows that if we don't grow, our funding won't grow.  Very probably,  with the extra money (if approved), class sizes could be reduced, because of the extra faculty.   I can assure you that if we don't get the money, we won't bring in 50 students.

Q: What if Wyche is finished and then we don't get funding?  What about those rooms?  Jerry: We would probably move students into those new rooms, then repair the sorriest students' rooms (sorry rooms, not sorry students) or convert them into other uses, like classrooms or conference rooms.

Joe: Well anyway, back to the student fee issue.  Just before the Board meeting (5 minutes before it), Jim Hunt personally phoned Carol Hughs and Jerry asked them to give him a chance to try to find more funding for them.  They voted on whether to wait, and though the vote was split, they voted to go ahead and vote on the issue.  Then in the afternoon, the board voted 16-3 in favor of the fee.  (All 3 voters against the fee were alumni.)  Jerry: I plan to meet with Jim Hunt soon to discuss alternate funding sources.  Also, the Board was very clear that they would vote on this every March, so it is not institutionalized.  They will vote every March on whether there will be a fee and how big it should be.

Comment: Joe, I think you did a wonderful job representing the faculty at the Board meeting.  (Applause.)

Announcements:

Now that these Discovery Days are over, how do we feel about these group interviews?  We'll discuss this thoughtfully and fully informed at a future date.  We'll have statistics to see whether the interview information from last year correlates with success at NCSSM this year.  Measurement, Inc. and admissions and Steve are all working furiously to get that information ready.

Comment: Our feedback (not the applicants') from the first year--hopefully from both years--need to be shared with us.  We've heard what the applicants thought but not what we thought.  Joe:  I'll pass that on.

Comment: We've been told that admissions and Steve are doing regression analysis to predict success based on admissions criteria.  I'd like that information, details of it, to be presented to the faculty.

Comment: Perhaps the group interview doesn't tell us anything about the kids, but it may help the kids have a positive experience and want to come.  Tom: That may be true--hopefully is true--but it is not our main goal.  Jerry: I've had faculty come to me privately about the admissions process.  Perhaps more have come to me about this than about any other issue.  It's hard for faculty to go through an interview process when the interview doesn't count.  Why are we doing this?  For Measurement, Inc.?  etc.  I go through 86 appeals and I can't tell why some were accepted and others not.  There's no rubric, no range of SAT scores, etc.  This year we've implemented something new.  After the old "holistic" rating system is done, ever admitted kid will have his folder reviewed by the counseling office.  A task force will be created to find a better way to do admissions.

Comment: It's easier to do the interviews when you don't believe in them if they don't count than if they do.

More announcements?

Jon Bennett: Reminder that at 3:45 tomorrow in the lecture hall, the SACS committee will give a 30-45 minute report, stating some of their major observations.

Marilyn Link: Research Symposium will be at the end of April.

Hugh: Faculty Symposium this Thursday.

Joan Barber: Supervised Study begins this week.

The meeting adjourned at 5:00