Minutes for Meeting with Brock Winslow, Chairman of the Board of Trustees

November 1, 2005

4:30 pm, ETC Lecture Hall

Brock began by introducing himself as a 1986 graduate of NCSSM and talking about his family.  He explained that he had a few prepared thoughts and then would open things up to those in attendance in a Question and Answer period.

Prepared Thoughts

Main purpose for speaking at this meeting

Brock stated that his purpose for coming to speak to us was to establish a deeper dialogue between the Board of Trustees (BOT) and NCSSM “stakeholders.”  He mentioned that the dialogue has shifted over the years and that he wants to institute a consistent system for the dialogue to take place.  He wanted to make it clear, also, that the opinions he would state in this meeting are his own and do not represent the Board’s opinion.

“State of the School”

Brock spoke about his view of the state of the school in three parts:  his opinion of it; an historical position with respect to the school; and how we can move forward.

Opinion

Brock feels that the state of the school is between acceptable and very good, but not excellent.  He feels that when he arrived as a Board member 7-8 years ago, the state of the school was unacceptable. 

Historical perspective

When he began as a Board member, he remembers hearing that staff did not have necessary resources, such as computers and voicemail.  There was no integration between Distance Learning and the residential part of the school, and applications to the school were “slipping.”  He stated that there were also questions about the school’s commitment to diversity.  Jerry Boarman was hired as a result, and the main goal was to “attack infrastructure that [had] deteriorated.”

Brock stated that it is a big achievement of the school’s to have gone from “unacceptable” to “acceptable.”  He feels that NCSSM is reaching out to its alumni base and has launched a capital campaign, which has helped NCSSM “halfway” reach its goal.

Where “we” want to go

Brock stated that “we” want to reach excellence.  Our key challenge is defining “excellence,” and that this has to be done together.  He wants us to create a sense of “unity of purpose” and a sense of professionalism in achieving that excellence.  We should build a collaborative approach to achieving excellence that is credible and constructive.  He does not think that an adversarial approach will help us get to our goal.  He posed the question, “How do we facilitate a collaborative environment to meet the challenge?”  He answered that this meeting is one way to help meet it.  He invites us, the SPA employees, alumni, etc., to join the BOT in meeting the challenge.

Question and Answer Period

Q:  “What do you see as the function of the Faculty Council (FC)?”

A:  Brock answered that he sees the FC as important, and that he has had some great concern about the FC for the last 18 months.  He sees the FC as an important constituent that sits with the BOT.  The role of the FC is very respected and needed, and he feels that the FC has been at a crossroads for the last few months.

Q:  (To Jerry) “What should be done about Faculty Council?”

A:  Jerry answered that we should do everything we can to facilitate it and keep it going.  That is part of why Brock has come to this meeting. 

Brock feels that the opinion represented by the president of the FC is very important to the BOT.  As much as the BOT has been seen as ignorant of secondary education and perhaps out of touch--that is inaccurate.  Brock stated that if an opinion is presented to the BOT that is at all inaccurate, it is damaging to those who give the opinion.  He gave an example:  the debate over trimesters.  Brock mentioned that he receives input from all over the community and realizes that the opinion received by faculty is not at all unanimous.  A faculty member talked with Brock regarding the trimester system, and the individual stated that the system is essentially block scheduling and is not beneficial to faculty or students.  Brock explained that he checked on the accuracy of the statement and found it inaccurate.

Brock concluded his answer by stating that it is important to “work collaboratively and with truth” when engaging in a debate.

Q:  A faculty member said that “72% of the faculty stated that the present academic program is insufficient to meet the needs of the students.  Does the vote of the Faculty Council count as the voice of the faculty?”

Comment in response to question:  Another faculty member replied that “totalizing statements” about the majority of the faculty should not be made if not all faculty members, in fact, voted.

A discussion followed regarding what a quorum in the FC represents, participation in FC meetings, and voting on FC issues. 

A faculty member explained that they find others saying that they don’t like the trimester system but don’t offer reasons for their feeling that way.  She stated that this troubles her.  More discussion followed regarding faculty members’ specific reasons why they like or dislike the system.

Related Q:  Another faculty member asked whether Brock could give recommendations on how FC can communicate with the BOT and Jerry in a collegial way.

A:  Brock stated that participation is important.  The opinion of the FC is respected, but does not mean that the opinion is always accepted.  With respect to the trimester system, Brock feels that the opinion was in fact accepted.  He explained that he works directly with Jerry; Jerry is his “direct report.”  Potential benefits of the trimester system outweigh the potential risks.  There is a difference in professional opinion.  Jerry made a decision, and the BOT is supportive of it.  The expectation is that the faculty members and administrators resolve the issues among themselves.  Brock stated that he does not have an answer as to how to resolve the problems and issues of the current program.

Q:  A faculty member stated that the FC is not adversarial and that participation is important.  He stressed that this should be communicated, and he asked how that should be done.

A:  Brock answered by saying that the faculty needs to “institutionalize the relationship more strongly.”  The FC should have the chair of the BOT on “their turf” more often, and then also have the FC come to BOT meetings.  Brock explained that the Board wants and needs the FC, the Staff Council, Alumni Association, etc.  The FC is technically in an advisory capacity and an important one.  Brock said that he needs and wants the advice of the Council.

Comment:  A faculty member explained that the liaisons to the Board have been “moved off the table” during BOT meetings, so the FC president cannot interject during discussion until their own report.  There is a call for the BOT to reconsider putting the FC president at the table again.

Q:  A faculty member stated that 38.2% of full-time or three-quarter time faculty is on one-year contracts.  Therefore, they do not have access to the appeal process.  She stated that this makes the “sense of unity and professionalism” (that Brock spoke of earlier) difficult and sends a message of what the BOT thinks about faculty.

A:  Brock answered that the contract system, to his knowledge, works pretty well and that it is a benefit to the faculty.

It was then stated that Jerry will address faculty contracts at a future meeting (November 14, 2005) with the faculty.

Jerry interjected by saying that the trimester system has both failed and succeeded in places.  He is also willing to look at the trimester system when the 3-year period is over, but at this time, the system will not be “going away.”

He then stated that the faculty is “the heart of the school” and that he sees himself as a conduit.  He views the FC as an advisory group and has invited the FC president to serve on Instructional Council.  He feels that the faculty must be willing to work with him and that we need to ask and help answer the question of how we can make things better within the trimester system.

Brock then thanked the attendees of the meeting and concluded it.