He emphasized that although many long range plans had indicated the need for these salary increases, they had never been made a priority or associated with a time table, and they had never been addressed by the legislature. The budget request also proposes

Mr Bowles said that Chancellors were in full support of this budget and he emphasized the need for everyone to work together to get the full budget adopted by the legislature.

 

Next President Bowles turned his attention to the University‘s role in the future of North Carolina. He referenced a newly released report by the Commerce Department indicating that NC was projected to need about the same number of well educated workers but a 30-40% increase in the number of workers with less than a high school education. He said that someone had suggested that this repudiated his contention that North Carolina’s Universities were the key to its future. He replied that it showed that if we stay where we are, these projections are our future. We need to intervene to change it.

 

He announced that as a result of the recommendations of Chair Killingsworth and others, the University would not employ Eva Klein to conduct a study of the University’s role in the future of North Carolina. He suggested we could do it ourselves. He said he was in the early thinking stage, and he envisioned a Board consisting of Chair Brenda Killingsworth,  a student, 3 or 4 members of the Board of Governors, and 3 or 4 community leaders of stature.   This Board would commission a report by a task force composed of ten faculty from the UNC system. The report would document the vision of North Carolina’s future shared by University faculty and students, nonprofits, small business and community leaders, and executives of North Carolina’s fastest growing industries. He included Marine Science, Marine Aerodynamics, High Speed Computing, Environmental Science, Photonics, and Bioengineering as examples of these industries.  

 

These constituencies would be interviewed by the task force and their opinions about the University’s role in the future of North Carolina recorded. He noted that he had always found that the one with the pencil was in control of the process. The task force members would report what they heard to the Board, who would add their comments and present the report to the individual Universities. Each University would respond with its vision of the changes it needs to make to influence this future as decisively as possible. Between January and May, 8 visits will be made to different regions of the state with two concentrated in western North Carolina, a region often overlooked, particularly west of Asheville.   He asked Chair Killingsworth to recommend faculty for this project, and indicated that he had already solicited recommendations from Chancellors. He said he intended to pay these individuals at a competitive rate, and fund course releases for them. He emphasized that this work needed to be their central focus next semester and reiterated that he was still in the early stages of thinking about this. He said he hoped to have nominees before Thanksgiving.

 

President Bowles then opened the floor for questions.

      1. Enrollment in the University is forecast to increase substantially in the coming years and

          there are not enough dollars available to build new buildings to accommodate it.

      2. Counties like Washington have no University or Community College within 40 miles, and

          e-learning is the most cost effective way to deliver instruction to them.

      3. In ten years, students will demand it.

      4. It is a potential generator of income from students outside of North Carolina who will be

          attracted by our reputation as an outstanding University.   He pointed out that we have over

          90 programs currently on-line, but no one knows about it. He insisted that faculty who teach

          these courses must be appropriately rewarded and said he envisioned a future in which a

          student at UNCG might take a course from Western Carolina developed by someone from

          ECU.

 

Vice President Nelson promised to keep his remarks brief. He wanted to outline the process used to put together the budget, which is available online at the BOG website. He indicated that after all expansion and program requests had been entered over the Web, the data was sorted, and meetings conducted with Chancellors to explain their priorities. Next the list was reviewed and refined by President Bowles and his staff and returned to the Chancellors. After several such iterations, individual calls were made to each Chancellor and Provost. The process culminated in last week’s unanimous approval of the budget by the Chancellors. The final document is now in the hands of the Board of Governors who will be holding a policy workshop next Thursday.   He said that some discussion of the budget had also taken place at the October Board of Governors’ meeting. 

 

Vice President Nelson then opened the floor for questions:

 

Dr. Mabe said that he wanted to clear up confusion about process for approving new academic programs. He said that GA was often accused of being the slow step in the process, and that some thought it took up to six years to complete the process. He explained that planning for Baccalaureate and Masters programs only involved posting an announcement on our Website, and once the campus is ready to proceed, submitting a request to GA, who often forwards it to the Board of Governors after only a cursory review. By contrast, the UNC Planning Committee must approve any request to plan a new Doctoral Program, with outside reviewers typically involved in the approval process.

 

He indicated that expensive programs received more scrutiny, and faculty were the ultimate reviewers of degree programs. He said that outside reviewers were most often faculty, and everything turned on their recommendation. He said that while GA is often blamed for delays in the process, campuses share some responsibility. He reported that some Baccalaureate and Masters programs had been approved within a week of reaching GA, but Doctoral programs typically took about 18 months. He acknowledged that this may be too long and some streamlining of the process might be required so we don’t miss opportunities. He said that the University of Phoenix has a six month approval process, and the Pappas report recommended that ours be trimmed by 25%. He does not agree with another Pappas recommendation which would eliminate the system-wide Planning Council however. He does like the idea of “incubator degrees” available to campuses without the need for an elaborate approval process, or trial programs run for a year or two before seeking formal approval.

 

Dr. Mabe went on to discuss other issues raised in the Pappas report. He said it distinguished between supply and demand driven programs, and questioned whether we have enough feedback from the people we will be serving. He indicated that advisory groups like those in Engineering were being created for other disciplines, providing the opportunity for industry PhDs to talk to faculty. He cited the example of Biotech companies who had been passing over our graduates because they were too difficult to train until we set up a training facility suggested by an advisory group. The report also suggested that GA has been passive in the process and should look systematically at where new programs are needed and issue RFPs to campuses to create them.

Dr. Mabe then opened the floor for questions:

 

At the conclusion of Dr Mabe’s remarks, Chair Killingsworth expressed the hope that the information shared at this plenary session would get back to the campuses in a timely manner. She then invited Faculty Senate Chairs to a working lunch with vice clear Yankaskas and adjoined the plenary.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Assembly reconvened after the task force meeting to review the day’s events and consider resolutions and other business that the committees considered important. Chair Killingsworth reminded committee and task force chairs to submit requests to address the Assembly and/or present resolutions to the Secretary before the second Plenary. 

 

Report by Cat Warren, Chair of the Academic Freedom and Tenure Committee: Dr. Warren informed the Assembly that because a mandatory textbook rental system is not being proposed, the resolution drafted by her committee opposing it would not be necessary. She reminded the delegates of resolution on Best Practices with regard to textbook adoptions passed by the Assembly on Nov 5, 2005. She reiterated the call made by President Bowles to notify students of textbooks required for courses at least six months in advance. She also suggested a “Swap Textbook” Internet site, and urged the delegates to review the other recommendations made in the Nov 5 resolution. 

  

Report by Brenda Killingsworth, Chair of the Faculty Assembly: Chair Killingsworth began her comments by pointing out that President Bowles had been committed to developing a textbook rental program, but changed his mind thanks to input form the Assembly and the PACE study. She sees this as a sign that our voice is being heard. Next she reminded the delegates that the bylaws require that a five member nominating committee for next year’s Assembly officers be formed at the second meeting of the academic year. Elections are to be held during the January meeting of the Assembly, and the committee is expected to provide two nominees for each position. The committee will appoint its own chair. The following delegates were nominated and approved without decent to serve on this committee:

 

Cynthia Gillispie-Johnson (NCA&T)

Yogendra Kakad, (UNCC)

Denis Daley (NCSU)

Gary Jones (WCU)

Dee Dee Glascoff (ECU)

 

Chair Killingsworth thanked the Assembly for responding so quickly to requests from General Administration. We gave a solid response to the tuition policy plan proposed by GA, and the Taskforces are hard at working formulating their responses to GA requests. She said we have until Thanksgiving to formalize our report on the proposed assessment measures outlined in the Accountability Matrix proposed by General Administration, and that approval of these measures originally scheduled to be considered by the Board of Governors in their November meeting had been postponed to a later date.

 

Next Chair Killingsworth reiterated her belief that President Bowles is listening to the faculty. She noted that time lines were being shared so the Assembly can get the big picture and be prepared to provide timely input into important initiatives coming from GA. She said that she would receive the PACE report today, and that she would pull out relevant pieces and send them with the timelines. 

 

She announced that the University Day at the legislature, which was so successful last summer, will be repeated again this year. Judith Wegner will again coordinate the effort, and delegates interested in participating are asked to contact her. She said that she and Judith had “hand signed” 180 copies of a letter sent to legislators thanking them for taking “initial steps” toward making our salaries competitive. She also announced that the budget proposal from General Administration has been posted on the Assembly website, and delegates are asked to review it and provide feedback to the Assembly. 

 

Next Chairman Killingsworth discussed the rules that govern the number of delegates to the Faculty Assembly allowed for each campus. She announced that UNCP and UNCG will each gain an additional delegate next year. With the inclusion of two delegates from the North Carolina School of Science and Math, that brings the delegate total to 60.

 

Chair Killingsworth thanked the delegates for their prompt response to her call for nominations to the UNC Grievance Committee, whose membership will be announced next week. A delegate expressed the concern that this committee’s membership was heavily weighted toward administrators, and Chair Killingsworth promised to talk with Senior VP Martin about it.

 

Finally, Chair Killingsworth asked each of the Faculty Senate Chairs to provide three nominees for the Task Force on the Future of North Carolina. She asked that a justification and brief Vita be provided for each nominee, and indicated that the executive committee would decide whom to recommend. President Bowles expects a list of nominees from the Assembly before Thanksgiving, so the information from the Chairs is needed ASAP. She promised to send a description of the duties of the Task Force to Faculty Senate Presidents by email in the next week. A delegate expressed concern that finding qualified faculty who are not already committed for next semester could be extremely problematic, a sentiment shared by many delegates. Chair Killingsworth indicated that she planned to make the email detailed enough so that Faculty Senates are clear about the responsibilities of the Task Force Members.     

 

Chair Killingsworth then asked if there were any new business, and hearing none, adjourned the Assembly at 3:53 PM.

Respectively submitted, James H. Reeves