January 29, 2008

Report to Faculty Senate of East Carolina University

Elizabeth Layman, Scholars Council, UNC Tomorrow

 

North Carolina General Statute 116-1(b) states that “the University of North Carolina is a public, multi-campus university dedicated to the service of North Carolina and its people.”

 

Working from that foundation, the Board of Governors, President Bowles, and the UNC Tomorrow Commission began a process of envisioning the UNC system for the future – or UNC Tomorrow, as it is called.

 

The process started in ~March 2007 with campus visits by President Bowles –I wasn’t a part of that.  In May 2007, 14 Scholars from across the University system were added to the process.  Here’s where I came in – I’m unclear about the selection of the 14 members of the Scholars Council – I just know that Chair Mark Taggart nominated me – he may have also nominated others.  It was emphasized in many ways that we represented the system – we did NOT represent our constituent universities.

 

The BOG charged the Commission to learn what the people of North Carolina needed from their University and to make relevant recommendations.  The Commission’s work was guided by the research, analysis, and advice of the 14 Scholars.

 

During the summer 2007, the Scholars wrote briefing papers in their area of expertise – the papers focused on the current situation in North Carolina and nationally and internationally as relevant and the major challenges we saw in our area of expertise.  These papers were posted to the UNC Tomorrow web site.  They also became the basis of the video that was shown at the opening of the forums.

 

So, to learn what North Carolinians needed, 11 public listening forums (town hall meetings) were held throughout the state (~2700 attendees), 11 faculty forums near all 17 campuses (~1000 attendees), an on-line survey (~6700 respondents), and a blog.

 

The 14 Scholars were your eyes and ears.  Almost all the 14 Scholars were at each the public forums (September & October).  At the public forums, all the Scholars took notes during the open mike and during the small group discussions.  The small group discussions were led by a facilitator from the Small Business and Technology Development Center.  The Scholars distilled the notes from all 11 listening forums into a master list of issues.

 

We presented our findings at faculty forums for all the campuses (October & November).  As many Scholars as possible attended the faculty forums.  For example, I attended faculty forums here at ECU, at Wilmington, and at Fayetteville.  At the forums, faculty members spoke at an open mike.  Again, the Scholars took notes.

 

At both the public forums and the faculty forums, talking by the Scholars, President Bowles, and members of the Commission was held to a minimum.  The forums focused on hearing what the public and you had to say.

 

All these data fed into drafts that the Commission and Scholars worked on at two meetings (November & December).  Then, the final report went to the Board in January and was approved.

 

Now, we’re in the response phase.  The report has been sent or will be sent (soon) to all the campuses.

 

The purpose of the response phase is to develop specific plans as to how each campus and the University as a whole will respond to the UNC Tomorrow Commission’s report and recommendations.  Plans will include specific timelines for implementation, reprioritization of existing resources wherever feasible, cost estimates, and assessment and accountability measures.

 

The UNC Faculty Assembly has recommended some overarching questions as campuses examine the Commission’s recommendations:

  1. Which initiatives are best addressed on your campus because of your distinctive mission, resources, and regional needs and considerations?
  2. Which initiatives cannot be addressed effectively by your campus?
  3. Which initiatives are best addressed in collaboration with another (or other) institution(s)?
  4. Which initiatives are best addressed by another institution?

 

The Response Phase takes a phased approach.  Phase I responses are due May 1, 2008; Phase II responses are due December 1, 2008.

 

“Ultimately, the outcomes of UNC Tomorrow developed during the response phase will serve as the basis for prioritizing and realigning institutional missions, academic programs and other initiatives, resources, and funding decisions (including future budget requests and funding allocations) so that [the] UNC [system] can respond more directly to the state’s future needs.”

 

During the response phase, campuses [and affiliated entities] will be asked to respond to 5 main questions:

 

  1. What existing programs, initiatives, and activities are already in place that effectively respond to the Commission’s recommendations?
    1. How is their effectiveness assessed?
    2. Can their effectiveness be improved, and if so, how?
    3. What is the cost, if any, of improving their effectiveness?
    4. Where will the funding for these improvements come from (with emphasis on utilizing and reprioritizing existing resources, and eliminating unnecessary, duplicative, or obsolete programs, initiatives, and activities)?
    5. Who is accountable?

 

  1. What new programs, initiatives, and activities are needed to respond to Commission recommendations?
    1. What is the cost of establishing them?
    2. Where will the funding for these efforts come from (with emphasis on utilizing and reprioritizing existing resources, and eliminating unnecessary, duplicative, or obsolete programs, initiatives, and activities)?
    3. How will their effectiveness be assessed?
    4. Who is accountable? 

 

  1. What administrative and policy changes are needed to successfully implement response plans in ways that ensure UNC’s efficiency, effectiveness, and relevance to both current and future challenges?  Examples: rewards and incentives for faculty, removal of administrative barriers that inhibit inter-institutional collaboration, more flexible personnel policies

 

  1. Where appropriate, what interdisciplinary and inter-institutional collaborations can be established (preferably within existing resources) and what “best practices” by campuses can be modeled and adopted by others to address needs identified in the Commission’s recommendations?

 

  1. What are the clear timelines for implementation, cost estimates and proposed internal/external sources of funding, assessment methods, and accountability measures for proposals to improve existing programs, initiatives, and activities and/or establish new ones?

 

In the Response phase, to assist campuses and General Administration, the Scholars will be identifying, within their respective areas of expertise, best practices and barriers and obstacles to implementation.  These documents are due March 1, 2008.