Roll Call
The following senators were in attendance:
Aghajanian, A; Autrey, D; Barlow, M; Barringer-Brown, C; Bell, J;
Breitzer, J; Brooks, J; Chan, A; Darnell, M; Davis, G; Dilday, C;
Ellis, R; Gill, S; Goins, S; Han, S; Hackley, L; Hernandez-Hinek,
S; Kassem, A; Johnson, O; Jones, C; Klomegah, R; Martin, S;
Mattox, J; Mongkuo, M; Nickolov, R; Okhomina, Okojie, R.; D; Orban,
M; O’Shea, M; Peacock, J; Radford-Curry, B; Swinford, D; Taylor, A;
Trong, D; Wang, D; White-Oyler, D; Williams, T; Wilson-Jones, L;
Wood, P.
Excused Absences: Akbay, C, Frobish, T; Han,
S; Miah, F
Senators were reminded to sign the roll call.
Unexcused Absences: Akbay; Hackett, M; Heastie,
S; Montoya, D; Small, H;
Guests: Corey Johnson, Staff Writer,
Fayetteville Observer
Adoption of the Agenda
The agenda was adopted as amended.
Adoption of Minutes
September 27, 2007 meeting
Discussion of Executive Search Committee for Chancellor:
Dr. Aghajanian: The organizational management
structure needs to be more forward thinking with relevant issues
being posed to the prospective Chancellor.
Dr. Radford-Curry, Vice-Chair: Discussion of
Resolution of code regarding shared governance
Dr. Breitzer, Parliamentarian-Issue must come
forward on agenda before being presented to the committee.
Question from Dr. Mongkuo: Is there a law that
states that the Chancellor must participate in shared governance?
Motion: For those in favor of dropping #4 from
the agenda
Vote: 8 For-10 Against
The item #4 remains on the agenda
Motion to approve agenda
The motion was seconded, the motion to approve
the agenda motion passed.
Radford-Curry, Vice Chair: Consideration of
Resolution for code 603/604
The Vice-Chair expressed that there were
concerns regarding the resolution and its lack of strength and
offering of vague language.
Questions: What constitutes inappropriate? What
are the sanctions regarding tenure faculty?
Dr. Michelle Darnell: Motioned: Voting for the
Resolution in support of FA suggestions regarding changes to
Sections 603/604 of the Code, presented by Dr. Radford Curry, be
done electronically and within an appropriate amount of time such
that Dr. Curry could present our vote to the Faculty Assembly. The
motion was seconded.
Dr. Radford-Curry stated that the issue will be
introduced by the secretary through electronic ballot to be
completed by November 2, 2007 at 12:00PM.
Question on point #2 in the Shared Governance
Resolution. Dr. Radford-
Curry responded that the Faculty Assembly is currently reviewing
Shared Governance.
Provost Bell stated that the Faculty Assembly is possibly scheduled
to make presentation
to the Board of Governors around the 2nd week of
November.
Dr. Ellis: Motion to vote today on code 603/604 resolution
document.
Dr. Aghajanian: Motion was seconded.
11 voted for: 14 voted against the motion to vote today on the code
603/604 resolution document.
Motion was not carried.
Ms. Martin: Motion to vote by November 2 (12:00PM) to the discussion
board or
electronic ballot.
Motion was seconded by: Dr. White-Oyler
Motion carried: Vote on resolution electronically.
Need for election for in-coming Parliamentarian. Dr. Breitzer will
be ending term.
Dr. Breitzer, Chair of Governance committee issued statement from
meeting: Committee
does not agree with the merging of the two schools/colleges (Arts &
Sciences).
Dr. Mattox acted as parliamentarian while
Dr. Wilson-Jones presided for the shared governance resolution discussion.
Dr. Wilson-Jones, Acting Chair: Motion to discuss resolution.
Dr. Hernandez-Hinek: Motion was seconded, vote to discuss
Ms. Martin: Motion to read the resolution silently for 5 minutes.
Dr. Taylor: Motion seconded, motion carried
Ms. Martin: It is not in the best interest to approve resolution at
this time.
Dr. Hernandez-Hinek posed question: Is it a fiscally sound decision
to merge the two
schools?
Dr. Radford-Curry, Vice Chair: response to Dr. Hernandez-Hinek’s
question was that the
document was not one constructed through shared governance. The
language needs to be
reviewed.
Consideration of the shared governance resolution ended with a vote
on motion made by Dr. Aghajanian to "not approve the
resolution" the vote was 13 for and 3 against the motion to "not
approve the resolution"
Report from Dr. Juliette Bell,
Provost and Vice Chancellor for Academic
Affairs
Good afternoon. I was asked to talk with you
about process for salary increases for 07-08 year. The doc I handed
out is a summary of the process that was followed. I have 25 copies;
I will send one to your secretary for further copying. The salary
increases were distributed for meritorious performance and
university overall ranking as meeting 80th percentile as
a secondary concern. Also, we were told that market and equity
should be considered. Every year we get these funds, we get an
extensive document, and merit is the primary factor. The base
approximately is 5% for faculty and 4% for EPA non faculty. We do
not give this 5% across the board. Merit is the primary concern. The
funding for faculty was provided as two pools. 4% as proportional
share of total EPA system-wide. The remaining 1% was allocated based
on the BOG request for competitive salary. Meritorious performance.
In addition to funds provided by legislature, FSU has CITI funds.
This year, 25% of total funds from CITI are used for faculty salary
increases. The protocol we followed: budget office on campus
allocated to depts. Based on FTE. The CITI funds were allocated to
dept based on amount available. 25% of total recommendation, 125k
divided by total number of FTE, which is 0.59%. The total possible
amount was 5% from state plus 0.59 from Univ. for total of 5.59%. In
my disc with the deans, there should be a baseline market amount for
all faculty. We determined that 2% should be across the board. The
other 3.59% based on dept chairs and deans. Merit with consideration
of market and equity. They were given a pool of money based on 3.59%
to be distributed. Some limitations placed on our determination on
salary increases: new EPA employees with pre-determined salary
cannot get an increase. EPA employ with fixed-term contracts, no
increase. In Academic Affairs I have a budget director to work with
chairs and deans, a spreadsheet with faculty names, salaries, budget
available. For faculty with promotions or change in admin
responsibilities, etc., those were considered. For promotion, the
increase did not come out of this; it is outside and on top of it.
This was an iterative process. I reviewed what the chairs and deans
sent. I looked at the record increases to look for gross inequities.
We made a few adjustments. Finally, when we reconciled the dollars,
they were sent to the personnel office. You will be happy to know
that they will be reflected on October 31 paycheck retroactive to
July 1.
In your handout, you have a document called
Exhibit 6. Each campus has a set of peers. Our peers are not UNCP,
etc. These are a list of schools that have been agreed upon. I don’t
have the list with me. I can provide the information to your
secretary for distribution. Each school is compared. Each school is
being compared against its peers. In 2002, our average was 57,594.
That was 71st percentile. If you follow all the way
across to Fall 2006, average salary for all ranks is 65011, at 84th
percentile; 4% above average of our peers. Akbar: should this be
applied to different ranks separately? Bell: this is true for
assistant and associate rank but not full tenured professor rank.
Not all inequities were resolved, and cannot be resolved in one
year. There’s the combination of discipline and rank. But GA at this
point is looking at it. As far as they are concerned, we have met
their concerns.
The other documents that are shown compare
specifically FSU and its peer group, and as you can see again, and
for 06-07 year, we were at 105.6% of the mean, 102.1% of 80th
percentile. For 07-08, we are projected to again exceed that. We
have made great improvements, last two years we are at 16% increase
average. To compare all of the sixteen campuses, it shows the
allocation that came from the legislature. The total allocations,
total percent increase over the last two years, FSU had a total
increase for 06-07 9%, 07-08, 7%. The data was provided to FSU as
part of our analysis as whether we should ask for tuition increase
for 08-09. The argument is that there were increases that have
already been made in the last two years. If you want to know the
specific formula for your department, talk to your department chair.
Are there any questions?
Mattox: letters specifying increase? (Provost
Bell) Yes, we’re working on them now. We have 329 faculty.
Dr. Radford-Curry: Do you recall those peer
institution? No I don’t; they’re all across the country, none in NC.
I would also like to mention, we’re discussing
across-the-board minimum admission standards. Campuses have been
asked to have some discussion and give any feedback on this. I
didn’t give you a handout. Beginning 2009: 2.0 minimum GPA, SAT 700,
ACT 15. For 2010, the same. For 2011 2.3 GPA; 750 SAT. For 2013 2.5
GPA; 800 SAT. This will have a disproportionate negative impact on
our students. There has been a 1% exception.
Next Friday: UNC Tomorrow forum. Hope to have a
good showing of faculty there. I think it is in the Shaw Auditorium.
9:00 to 10:30.
Report from Dr. Jon Young,
Senior Associate Vice Chancellor for
Academic Affairs
Academic Calendar: We are asking for your
feedback. As we try to finalize the 2008-09 academic calendar.
Should we change our midterm/spring break timeframe to coincide with
Cumberland County school system’s? Traditionally, our spring break
has been held at midterm. Another suggestion is to align with our
break with Easter; nontraditional students have children at public
schools. Spring 08 is regular midterm timeframe. There is a
downside: Easter changes every year. People are stuffing the
e-ballot box. Dr. Young will review the situation with ITTS to make
a better decision of votes.
Dr. Radford-Curry, made suggestion to align FSU
spring break with the CIAA schedule.
Report from Dr. Curtis Charles, Associate
Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs
Title III: This summer we got together with the
deans to discuss Title III funding. Last year, funding ran out in
February. We need to come up with some way to make it equitable.
Make the $90,000 divided prop among colleges and schools. $30,000
for CBAS, CHSS, and $15,0000 for SOE and SOB. Business complained
that they need to present as part of publishing. Spreadsheet
indicated that prop would be a problem. So make it 90k and 1k cap
for each person. To make it competitive, the faculty has to present
information research. $30,000 for CBAS, $30,000 for CHSS, $15,000
for each school. Deans and chairs decide which faculty go to which
conference. My office should not have to handle this decision. But
responsibility came with it, quarterly report on Title III. My idea
was to make your deans responsible. The other responsibility was the
deans and chairs would decide. Must make report on how it aligned
with Title III. I would collaborate with deans and chairs to make
the report. I don’t mind doing it, but I wanted deans and chairs to
have ownership. Now, no longer do we require a paper. Dr. Barlow
wanted to keep the requirement. We will take it off the table for
this requirement, then the deans would take control. Faculty would
be allowed one travel. We have 312 faculty. Our average $1700. This
cap gives more an option. Pre- and post-conference form is optional.
Since we know that SACS will be here in 2011, self-study in 2010,
QEP self-study 2009. We have to define, once we know what we’re
measuring, how do we define student success. We were asking you to
go to conference that is tied to student learning outcomes. Tell us
how the conference activity would assist your department to enhance
student learning outcomes? How the events/paper you would present
are tied to learning outcomes? We are not trying to put a burden on
you.
PACE: how do we take non-academic and
reallocation. We reallocated $15,000 (50k?) to travel because the
Title III was not sufficient. We wanted to encourage scholarly
papers. Shared responsibilities: work with deans and chairs to
develop quarterly reports. We will do whatever we can to help the
deans and chairs. Guidelines for PACE: we come to GA. We need to
show how faculty activity support core functions. We give release
time to coordinators. Barlow question: Require some kind of
presentation. I agreed, but not enough time, so grandfather in for
this year. The other point: I do not think we should limit to one
trip if it only costs $500, maybe we can do two trips. Also: tenure
track. Then the decision was made: instructors who were ABD would be
supported as well.
Ms. Martin: How are creative
performances being evaluated? Disappointment was expressed with Deans and Chairs
decisions regarding assignments professional development. There
needs to be a resolution regarding faculty opinion.
Dr. Radford-Curry, Vice Chair: There are issues
of travel costs of plane/train increasing before schedule time of
paperwork being completed through travel departments.
Dr. Okojie: Requirements should be reviewed
based on discipline
Discussion of faculty representation on the
chancellor search committee was held, Dr. Clara Jones and Dr. John
Mattox each agreed to send a letter regarding this to the faculty
senators.
Dr. Mattox, Chair: Agenda will be amended.
Committees should send reports to secretary to add to the meeting.
Chairs asked to introduce themselves, (Thomas, Orban, White-Oyler,
and Peacock)
Dr. Mattox, Chair: Motion to adjourn meeting.
Dr. Hernandez-Hinek: seconded the motion to
adjourn.
The meeting adjourned at 6:35PM.
