FC minutes 21 August 2001

Faculty Council Meeting of Tuesday, 21 August 2001

President: Joe Liles; Vice-president: John Woodmansee; Secretary: Floyd Bullard

Minutes

Announcements

· Joe Liles called the meeting to order at 3:51 and reflected on being 10 years older than he was the last time he was Faculty Council (FC) president. He thanked the faculty for their confidence in him as demonstrated by his recent election to FC president, and for their forgiveness of him for his reputation of sleeping through meetings. He assured all present that this year, at least, he would not sleep through any FC meetings.

· The FC bylaws require meetings at least once a month. Joe announced that we would continue the tradition of meeting about once every two weeks, with perhaps only a single meeting in a month occasionally, such as December. He solicited opinions about whether FC meetings on ALT days would be good or bad, receiving one “bad” oral response, one “good”, and several “indifferent”s. The suggestion was made to hold some meetings electronically through a chat board, and Joe promised that the FC officers were working hard to make the FC web site current, relevant, and easy to use, thus moving in that direction.

· Joe asked the faculty whether in advance of FC meetings, a hard copy of the agenda would be helpful in addition to an electronic copy sent by email. The oral response was clearly supportive of the electronic copy only, and Joe announced that only this would be sent prior to future FC meetings.

· Jon Bennett announced that the School Improvement Group (SIG), due to a scheduling conflict by one of its current members, needs another member. SIG will meet every second or third Monday from 4PM-5PM in the fall. This committee could possibly be made to count as a faculty member’s committee obligations. Interested faculty should contact Joe and/or Jon Bennett as soon as possible.

· In the near future, we (the faculty) will elect members of the faculty appeals committee and the faculty grievance committee. These committees have not had to meet for years, and there is no expectation that they will this year. The appeals committee exists to handle possible job-related decisions such as contract non-renewal. The grievance committee exists to handle possible grievances between one or more faculty members and one or more administrators—grievances that cannot be resolved by the parties themselves without help. The committees’ memberships must adhere to a certain formula (so many members from each department, etc.); this will be made explicit on the upcoming ballot.

· Joe reported that it takes a majority of our 61 full- and three-quarters-time faculty members (that’s 31 faculty) to have a quorum at FC meetings. We can meet and talk about things without a quorum, perhaps productively, but we cannot take any action or do any official business. Joe beseeched the faculty to attend FC meetings.

· Gretchen Skidmore reminded everyone that at 4:00 on Wednesday, 22 August 2001, author Reynolds Price would be speaking in the Lecture Hall. Applause was given to thank Hugh Haskell for his efforts to make this possible.

Agenda Items

1. The Purpose of Faculty Council

Joe solicited the good will, the spirit and the energy of all the faculty to make FC meetings enjoyable. He acknowledged his part in the corporate guilt of wanting to micromanage, and encouraged everyone—faculty and administrators alike—to think positively and trust one another. He made an appeal to the administration: Please give the faculty (via the Faculty Council) notice on issues sufficiently early that we can give advice. He acknowledged that that was not always possible, but he asked all levels of administration to work with the faculty and give us the chance to advise them. We, the faculty, would do our best to give “respectful, timely, and efficient advice”. Joe then made an appeal to the faculty: Adjust to the administration. We all know that life requires adjustments, and this is no different. In order for us all to get along harmoniously, Joe asked the faculty to try to adjust to management styles we’re not used to, personality quirks, etc. He then asked the administration to adjust to the faculty likewise, pointing out that our faculty is likely qualitatively different from that of most other schools.

All in all, a positive attitude nearly radiated from the FC president, and the same was asked of both the faculty and administration of NCSSM.

The formal statement of the purpose of the FC was announced in the emailed FC agenda and was repeated during the FC meeting. It is given in the bylaws of the NCSSM FC currently available on-line at http://courses/council/documents/bylaws.htm. The following text is excerpted from the bylaws, defining the purpose of the NCSSM Faculty Council.

The Faculty Council is established pursuant to regulations of the Board of Trustees of the School, to act as a committee of the whole for the faculty of the school (as defined in Article III) and to present to the Executive Director its point of view on all matters of concern to the school. It will consider general and specific educational policies of the school from creative, analytical, and critical standpoints. It will act on behalf of the faculty members in the school. It will assist the Director in every way possible in finding the most satisfactory operation of the school's programs. It will seek to carry out those tasks assigned to it by the Executive Director or the Executive Director 's designated representative.

Joe remarked that advising the Executive Director is our responsibility and that the faculty need not feel guilty about it. He expressed his belief that if we follow this mandate by the Board of Trustees, we will be proud of where it takes us.

Julie Graves remarked on the FC president’s positive radiance.

Peggy Craft stated that while it was wonderful that faculty attendance was sufficiently high to require the importing of chairs into Hill 19, a room with a greater seating capacity might be sought. Joe stated that the Lecture Hall would be possible but that there could be no refreshments. He also commented that after the completion of construction in Hunt Lobby, the classroom there would have sufficient capacity.

2. The Governance Task Force

Joe had commented earlier that the new administration’s style may take adjustment by faculty members. He elaborated upon this by pointing out that “task forces” are a new entity at this school and that some faculty may have negative feelings about them. He repeated his request that we (the faculty) adjust to the new administrative style, and added a request that we put all possible effort behind the task forces. When possible, credit for committee work will be given to faculty members of task forces. Joe said that even when that is not possible, he asked faculty members to participate fully in the task forces. He then asked Jerry to begin the discussion on the Governance Task Force (GTF).

Jerry Boarman stated that the GTF was set up for the purposes of (1) looking at how NCSSM has been governed in the past, and (2) making a recommendation about how NCSSM should be governed in the future. He pointed out that since no one (e.g., the Department of Public Instruction, the UNC system) takes ownership of NCSSM, we often “get breadcrumbs” (financially). He stated, and repeated twice later, that he does not know what the outcome of the second goal above will be. He is asking the GTF to research thoughtfully all options available (detailed below), to present findings to him and the Board of Trustees, have discussions, and make recommendations about NCSSM’s future governance. Comparisons were made with the School of the Arts and to the UNC Arboretum, both of which received larger pieces of the recently approved bond package ($23 million and $9.1 million, respectively) than did NCSSM ($5.1 million), perhaps because they are more closely aligned to the UNC system than we are. Jerry stated that he is not mandating a timetable for the GTF and will not rush in without considering the question carefully. He also stressed that he has no preference for any option over any other. However, since the Board of Trustees would like to review the options and recommendations as presented by the GTF at one meeting and then vote on it at another meeting, and since they only meet once per quarter, Jerry pointed out that no action could take place that would affect the 2002-3 school year unless a presentation was made to the Board by their meeting in March. (Note: the Board meetings this year are scheduled for 28 September, 7 December, 15 March, and 31 May.)

John Woodmansee shared in some detail who was on the GTF (Ed McBride, John Woodmansee, Sheila Butts, John Morrison, Carol O’Dell, Sally Adkins, Megan Francisco, and Barbara Namkoong) and what options it was considering for the future of NCSSM. Some details as he shared them via the emailed agenda and an overhead transparency are given below.

Governance Alternatives: Remain affiliate of UNC System

Become constituent of UNC System

Align with another group such as DPI

Issues to consider:

NCSSM’s relationship with the General Assembly--making requests and receiving protection

Infrastructure: Continuation budget

Expansion budget

Repairs and renovations

Capital improvements

Bond package projects

Human Resources: Benefits-health care, retirement, etc.

Working conditions

Faculty and EPA issues of hiring, contracts, and salary

Curriculum: University credit for courses

Course structure

Distance Learning

Board of Trustees structure

Timeline: Jan/Feb 2002 NCSSM BOT

Ed McBride bemoaned the fact that the NC legislature still has not approved a budget for the state.

John Woodmansee then asked the faculty, as a discussion item, for their questions and concerns. “What things need to go on the list to be considered by the Governance Task Force? What things should the Governance Task Force be discussing?” The following issues/concerns/questions were raised by the faculty, paraphrased here except where enclosed in quotation marks.

· Chuck Roser. If we went with DPI, would they require all faculty to be certified? If so, would existing non-certified faculty be grandfathered in? Would new hires be required to be certified?

· Gloria Barrett. DPI uses a statewide pay scale that localities may supplement. If we went with DPI, where would our “supplement” come from? (John Woodmansee. A similar question of salary scale would be relevant if we became a UNC constituent.)

· Myra Halpin. Both DPI and UNC have minimal lab requirements (in terms of space) that we may not meet. (Chuck Roser. This might also be true for classroom space. Carol O’Dell. The UNC lab requirements were looser than those imposed by DPI.)

· Ginger Wilson. DPI also has regulations for textbooks, standards, and other curricular issues. We would not want, for example, to be required to purchase or teach from books that we don’t like.

· John Morrison. “One word: [standards] testing.”

· Leslie Brinson. DPI does pay for textbooks… but we wouldn’t want to be required to choose from a mandated list of books.

· Peggy Craft. We would not want our admissions process to be mandated by DPI or another external organization, would we? Would any of our three governance choices require something regarding admissions that we don’t want? (Myra Halpin. Charter schools do have some externally mandated admissions requirements.)

· Jon Bennett. Is this a decision we can make and it will just happen? (Jerry Boarman responded that he has been approached by the UNC Board of Governors asking if we were moving in their direction, and that he responded that he didn’t know. He believes that if the NCSSM community wanted to be a UNC constituent, it wouldn’t be a problem. He added that our own Board of Trustees wants whatever is best for the institution, and he thinks they would support it were it recommended by the GTF.)

· Chuck Britton. Is there any institutional memory of the mid-1980’s when Hunt was in office and the same issue was faced? Jon [Miller]?

· Jon Miller. We began in the Governor’s office, and we were the only such school. The Governor is frequently a fairly influential figure. “He’s close to the money.” Of course, he may not want us, having his fingers in enough pies. Then again, governors often like having their fingers in pies. But there are advantages to being “a single player out there with a powerful spokesman. It frees us up from regulations and gives us a powerful spokesman without institutional folderol.” (Ed McBride added that when democrat Governor Hunt, who had instituted the school, left office, there were concerns that republican Governor Martin might want to scrap the school. We became a UNC affiliate as a safeguard against that. Now, thinks Ed, that concern would likely be nonexistent.)

· Jo Ann Lutz. Would DPI or UNC control our school calendar? And what about sick leave? Do UNC faculty have it?

· Jon Bennett. Jerry addressed the question of becoming a part of UNC. What about DPI? Who would approve that? (Jerry. The State Board of Education.)

· Leslie Brinson. The School of the Arts was a UNC affiliate like us and is now a UNC constituent. Don’t students there pay tuition? (Jerry. Beginning this year, they don’t. Carol O’Dell. High school students there don’t pay tuition, but degree seeking students do, right? Jerry. That’s right.)

· Julie Graves. Adding to what Jon [Miller] brought up, I want to encourage the Governance Task Force to consider whether the given three alternatives are the only ones. In an ideal world there would be protection without too many constraints. Can we think more broadly than just the three given alternatives?

· John Woodmansee. One thing nice about our current position is that no one is making us change. I can’t think of another option besides the given three.

· Jerry Boarman. We would not just “walk in there alone”. If it came to being a UNC constituent, we would hire an outside consultant to advise us, someone who could go beyond what we can think of. Lawyers would be involved. We won’t make a final decision without a lot of help.

· Gloria Barrett. Schools like IMSA, how are they governed? In terms of creative thinking, can we get ideas from other schools like us?

· Brad Sturgeon. I lived in the Research Triangle for four years without knowing that NCSSM existed. Better PR would be good, getting our name out there. Anything we can do to increase public awareness.

· Jon Miller. “A division one basketball team.” [Laughter from several.]

· Martha Regalis. IMSA is in the state university system. Two years ago when their budget was seriously cut, they hired two professional lobbyists. (Jerry Boarman. That’s against the law in NC. Julie Graves. What law? Jerry. NC law doesn’t allow it. Ed McBride. The UNC code of conduct. Jerry. If we were a UNC constituent, the university lobbyists would also be lobbying for us.)

· Jerry Boarman again stressed that he doesn’t know what the answer is. He is concerned about employee benefits and employment status. What if the university had a budget cut? We would not want to be required to cut jobs at NCSSM.

· Peggy Craft. Is there a danger in “sticking our heads up right now”? If we decided to stay as we are, would there be a danger in us having made inquiries? (Jerry. We’d actually like to have some suitors. [Laughter from several.] Molly Broad (president of UNC general administration) has assured me that UNC will not cut us loose as an affiliate. She will pull for us no matter what, whether we stay put or seek constituency status.)

· Jo Ann Lutz. Can we get a feeling for how other people will feel about having us? Will they consider us a “step-child”, “just a high school”?

· Myra Halpin. My gut instinct is that DPI would not want us. They like the fact that we presently provide services for them, but under their jurisdiction we’d be a liability rather than an asset. Or we’d be “just another LEA [local education area]”.

· Jon Miller. We do tend to violate some of DPI’s rules.

· Ray Church. We pride ourselves in being residential and that should be a big consideration when figuring out our future.

· Carol O’Dell. Many of the answers to these questions about UNC can be found at www.ga.unc.edu.

· Julie Graves. (After the GTF members were named.) Are there any students on the task force? (Jerry. That’s not decided yet. Julie. I would have concerns about that. John Woodmansee. Students will be concerned about the outcome of this decision.)

· Ed McBride. Tuition will not be charged for NCSSM under any of these options; however, fees may be assessed.

3. The August 31 Admissions Policy

Joe Liles asked Letita Mason and Gail Hudson to explain what this is and how counseling is intervening to help late-arriving students.

Letita explained that up until 31 August, we may invite students from the waiting list to enroll whenever current students choose to leave. She stated that this helps our funding and provides opportunities for students who want to be here. She added that no students would be sleeping in lobbies or lounges like last year. Also, that Gail has put together a welcoming process to help late-arrivals so they don’t feel disadvantaged.

Gail elaborated on the welcoming committee. Admissions will notify counseling of any late-arriving student. Counseling informs teachers, the student’s SLI, advisor, etc. Barrett Brown or Letita or Gail will personally meet student upon their arrival and welcome them, show them their room, then various other people will have responsibilities. e.g., the advisor may give them their schedule and show them around the school, etc. The SLI or RLA will show them the clinic, PEC, cafeteria, etc. A campus resource officer will meet them to talk about security, etc., etc. Gail stressed how important it is for late-arriving students not to feel stranded.

Letita remarked that we’ve admitted many fewer students on the waiting list this year (17) than in years past (25 or 30 typically). Joan Barber said that the attrition rate this year is as low as she can remember NCSSM ever having. Gail said that NCSSM would try to mail late arrivals their class schedules so they would be fully informed about their courses before coming here.

Leslie Brinson asked for clarification about the first reason Letita gave for us having this policy, the fact that it helps our funding. Jerry explained that we spend “$17,000 some-odd dollars per student”, and that while no money has been taken away before, nor is it actually given on a per-enrolled-student basis, still the Board of Trustees would like to see full beds and may take funding away in the future if we’re 17 or 14 students short of full enrollment. The policy is not to make up for money that has been taken away, but in anticipation of what could happen.

Jon Bennett asked whether students would be expected to make up missed work, and after some discussion by Steve Warshaw and Emily Gallagher, the answer was No, not every single assignment, but late arrivals would be responsible ultimately for all the course material. It will be left to each teacher’s discretion about how to handle it on an individual basis, with approval by the department head

It was pointed out by Jerry and Letita that the students admitted from the waiting list are among our very best students, and that they tend to be highly qualified students from congressional districts that send us more highly qualified applicants than we are legally able to accept.

Gloria asked whether all these students would physically be on campus by 31 August, and Letita said that she hoped so, but that students may first arrive on Tuesday, 4 September, immediately following the first extended weekend.

Following a suggestion by Julie Graves and a request by Joe Liles, Letita Mason agreed to set up an evaluation process of this policy so the costs and benefits could be evaluated.

Chuck Roser asked that placement issues for these students be dealt with immediately upon their arrival, and Steve Warshaw said that they would be.

Gail concluded this agenda item’s discussion by stating that when such a student is admitted, the student’s teachers will know the entire schedule so that they may better determine how to help the student make up missed material. Also, if a student is offered admission but can’t come right away (Letita believed such cases to be unlikely), the teachers will be told how to contact the student so that they may begin classwork at home.

The FC meeting of Tuesday 21 August concluded with the introduction of new faculty members by their department heads, John Woodmansee’s request that faculty send future agenda items to FC officers, and Joe Liles’s request that faculty not hesitate to share relevant issues with him, even though he is being positive.