Notes on the 09/28/2007 Faculty Assembly Meeting
Over
the summer, an administrative committee reviewed sections of the UNC code
pertaining to tenure and dismissal of tenured faculty. The Chair of the review committee, NCSU
Provost Larry Nielsen, was present at the Faculty Assembly meeting to present
the committee’s proposed changes.
Details of the proposed changes are available on the UNC
Faculty Assembly website. A summary
of the main proposed changes, along with the response of the Faculty
Assembly Executive Committee, are compiled on the ECU Faculty Senate website. There were 2 active Faculty Assembly
representatives on the review committee and one of those representatives was
present for the presentation to the UNC Faculty Assembly. The proposed code changes are not the result
of unanimous agreement among the committee members.
As
detailed in the supporting documents, the Faculty Assembly delegates believe
that many of the proposed changes would be detrimental to the UNC system and
that could eventually result in the abolition of tenure. Delegates present at the meeting suggested
that the proposed changes would not only result in the loss of academic freedom
for UNC faculty, but would also ultimately result in the loss of our best
faculty.
One
of the specific concerns is the proposed introduction of “unsatisfactory
performance” as cause for dismissal of tenured faculty and the use of an
enhanced post-tenure review process to establish that “unsatisfactory
performance.” Faculty Assembly delegates
pointed out that this is in direct opposition to the original intent of post
tenure review and to the AAUP position, which states that the post tenure
review is to be used for faculty development purposes only.
The Faculty Assembly unanimously passed
a resolution (attached) concerning the proposed changes to the UNC Code
(Sections 603/604) and requesting that
faculties at the constituent institutions review the proposed changes and
respond as soon as possible. Both UNC-CH and NCSU passed resolutions
concerning this issue at their September Faculty Senate meetings.
In
his report to the Faculty Assembly, President Bowles focused on the budget,
Chancellor’s raises, and UNC Tomorrow.
He reported that he is happy with this year’s budget, because it reflects
the system’s priorities and because the system got its fair share. Some of the items he highlighted were
need-based financial aid, faculty salary increases (making real progress toward
the 80th percentile goal), summer program funding (especially a
pilot “boot camp” transition program), lots of money for on-line education (if
you have ideas for on-line programs, he says he has money), increased graduate
student stipend funding (a “good start”), competitive research funds, and
approximately 1 billion dollars in new facilities.
He
stated that he has no apologies to make about what some thought were rather
high Chancellor raises, that he wants to keep his good Chancellors, and that
his goal is to get the Chancellor salaries up to the 80th percentile
(just like the goal for faculty).
Bowles
wants more faculty involvement in the UNC Tomorrow program. He wants to have a “listening session” on
this topic with the Faculty Assembly soon.
Reports from the UNC Tomorrow campus visits are online. He says that the “big message” is that our
graduates need “soft skills,” which he defined as general education/liberal
arts. Hence, GA wants campuses to
refocus GE programs on the liberal arts basics.
He says that those who contributed to the program also pointed out the
state’s needs for teachers and nurses, the need to provide better education for
black males, and the need bring the state’s growing Hispanic population into
the system.
In
the Q&A session, Bowles said he has asked each campus to reactivate its insurance
committees and to replicate best practices regarding domestic partner benefits.
He also noted that the state personnel committee has recently introduced a
non-discrimination policy (not yet through the system) that might help
here. He acknowledged that the call for
competitive research proposals funds was last minute, but insisted that in no
case would showing results by March of 2008 be a criteria for funding. He stated that the funded proposals would be
in “focus areas.”
In
answer to questions about what is driving changes in the system, he said that
most of the drivers were economic. GA
has been favoring 1st job training rather than 5th job
training and that needs to change. He
says that we need to focus on providing a sound liberal arts foundation for our
students so they will be better able to adapt to changing economic conditions.
He
stated that the UNC sustainability efforts were not a mandate from the
legislature – that GA is working on a policy of its own and trying to get
campuses to think about cooperative projects with utility companies (no luck
yet on this last point . . .).
In
response to a remark about the allocation of new funding for new programs
(instead of to sustain core programs and long-term viability), Bowles stated
that the system got a 14% increase in appropriations and that allocation of
funding on campuses is up to individual Chancellors, but that it is obvious
that some monies should go to basic core functions. He mentioned that he hoped that Chancellors
would reallocate some funding to core programs, that campuses need to look at
data to determine the appropriate balance between graduate and graduate
programs, and that the system is likely to develop a satellite campus (of UNCW)
in Jacksonville to accommodate growth in that region and to use facilities more
efficiently.
He
noted that tuition benefits for faculty is “on the agenda,” but there is not
enough money yet and the legislature needs help understanding the importance of
this benefit.
Finally,
he noted (in response to a comment about the difficultly of funding good
liberal arts and writing programs) that one of the purposes of UNC Tomorrow was
to educate the people of the state about the importance of this kind of
education. This would allow reallocation
of resources to writing, arts and sciences, and other core areas. The faculty members of the UNC Tomorrow commission
will write up the results of the program’s findings.
In
his report to the Faculty Assembly, VP Martin told the delegates that the BOG wants
to focus more on the “needs” of the state (UNC Tomorrow program), the “engaged
university,” and “demand-driven” curriculum. He asked the Assembly to consider
what all of this means to faculty and to the university. He suggested that policies might need to be
changed to allow “extension-like” interactions to be recognized in the
promotion and tenure process. But, he
emphasized, we do not want to be less supportive or less active in basic
research as a result of such changes.
He
also stated that all of these changes will result in “substantive changes to
the degree/program approval process,” but was not specific as to the nature of
those changes.
He
suggested that the needs-driven changes in the system might require new
faculty, but acknowledged that enrollment growth drives position funding and
that the funding formula may be inadequate to hire sufficient tenure-track
faculty to meet these needs. Also, he
noted that the funding formula makes it difficult for us to build a core research
faculty (no start-up funds, etc.).
Martin
noted that GA is looking at increased minimum admissions standards for
undergraduate students admitted to UNC system campuses; that campuses are being
encouraged to enhance retention rates; and that data suggest that the system
has been admitting too many students with poor reading, writing, and math
skills. Increasing minimum admissions
standards could help here, as could enhanced relationships with community
colleges. GA is also looking at
“transition” programs that may improve the preparedness of incoming students.
Finally,
VP Martin reported that GA may co-host a shared governance conference in the
Spring (if the Faculty Assembly is ready at that time) and that one of President
Bowles’ focuses is on creating/engaging in/enhancing shared governance on all
campuses – so much so that President Bowles makes support of shared governance
a requirement for all chancellors.
The
Sustainability Task Force reported on its efforts and on Senate Bill 668,
which will legislate increased efficiency for both in-place and new buildings
on our campuses and across the state, on the “American College & University
Presidents Climate Commitment” (which was signed on to by UNC-CH Chancellor
Moeser in June of this year), and on “Sustainability Across the Curriculum”
efforts across the nation and the state.
(As a related aside, the ECU Carbon Neutral Committee will
hold an open meeting on Thursday, October 18, at 5:30 PM in the Howell Science
Complex Room N102.)
The Welfare Committee reported
on the changes in federal law that effect UNC system retirement benefits (these
changes were announced on our campus last month); on a report and resolution
passed last Spring regarding the need for functioning/active insurance
committees on all campuses; on resolutions they passed last Spring requesting
after-tax benefits and health insurance coverage for domestic partners; on the
phasing out of the indemnity plan option for state health insurance coverage;
and on changes in the funds menu for the optional retirement program.
The Faculty Development Committee
reported that its major work this year will focus on post tenure review and the
proposed code 603/604 changes, on UNC/community college articulation
agreements, and on faculty engagement issues.
The Faculty Governance Committee
distributed the results of a survey on current Administrator Evaluation
processes on the constituent campuses and asked for further input/updating of
the survey results.
The Budget Committee reported
that it is designing a interactive website that will help educate faculty on
the budget process.
The Engaged University Task Force
is working with UNC Tomorrow issues and will hold listening forums to get
faculty input regarding educational issues facing the state. They also requested that Faculty Senates
provide as much input on this issue as possible this semester.
Respectfully submitted,
Catherine A Rigsby
UNC Faculty Assembly Delegate