January 26, 2016

Meeting Agenda

1. Call to Order - Jeannette Moore, Chair of the Faculty

2. Introductory remarks

Guests introduce themselves

3. Announcements

Topics the committees are addressing are listed on the 2nd page of the agenda. Minutes from each meeting will be posted on the Faculty Senate website. See the 2nd page of the agenda each week for announcements of interest to faculty.

4. Approval of the Minutes, Regular Meeting No. 8 of the 62nd Session, January 12, 2016

Darby Orcutt, Secretary of the Faculty

5. Chancellor and Provost Remarks and Q/A

Warwick Arden, Provost (Chancellor Woodson has been called away by the Governor to attend a meeting that is at the same time as Faculty Senate.)

6. Results of the COACHE Faculty Satisfaction Survey

Nancy Whelchel, Associate Director for Survey Research, Institutional Research & Planning; Katharine Stewart, Vice Provost for Faculty Affairs Background: Senators requested that we hear the results of the COACHE Faculty Satisfaction Survey that was conducted in 2014/2015, and it is now ready for preliminary presentation. Results will be posted on the web once all the data are compiled and organized.

7. Old and New Business

Discussion on possibly re-naming "Secretary of the Faculty" Darby Orcutt Election information (Appendix A) David Zonderman Remembering George Wahl, Past Faculty Senate Chair Alton Banks

8. Issues of concern

All ongoing Issues of Concern are listed on the Faculty Senate Website at: http://www.ncsu.edu/faculty_senate/ New Issues of Concern (if any)

9. Adjourn

Appendices

Appendix A

Executive Summary

1. Call to Order

Chair Moore, called the ninth meeting of the sixty-second session of the NC State Faculty Senate to order at 3 p.m.

2. Introductory Remarks

Chair Moore asked visitors to introduce themselves.

3. Announcements

Chair Moore announced that Dean Grasso from the Graduate School will give remarks at the February 9th Faculty Senate meeting. Chair Moore asked that faculty complete the committee preference survey and to encourage colleagues to do so as well. Chair Moore announced that candidates are needed for the Senate elections and candidates are also needed for the Chair-elect position. The Spring Faculty Meeting is March 1st at 3 p.m. in the Talley Student Center.

4. Approval of the Minutes

Secretary Orcutt called for approval of the minutes for the 8th meeting of the NC State Faculty Senate. The minutes were approved as submitted.

5. Remarks from Provost Arden on behalf of Chancellor Woodson

6. Results of the COACHE Faculty Satisfaction Survey

Dr. Katherine Stewart, Vice Provost for Faculty Affairs and Dr. Nancy Whelchel, Associate Director for Survey Research, Institutional Research and Planning, gave an overview on four areas of the COACHE review. The areas discussed were: 1) Where we have had very h3 ratings at NC State on the 2015 survey (very positive or very negative. 2) Time comparisons—NC State in 2015 versus NC State 2012 3) Internal Group Comparisons 4) Peers The full report is available at https://oirp.ncsu.edu/coache2015.

7. Old and New Business

Discussion on possibly re-naming “Secretary of the Faculty” Secretary Orcutt stated that a number of faculty, particularly women, have mentioned that they would never think of running for a position referred to as “Secretary of the Faculty.” He said the term “Secretary” may not exactly map to what the position is, so if we could update the title and open that up to make it more accessible for the future it would make sense. Secretary Orcutt stated that the title of “Associate Chair” has been suggested to him. Chair Moore stated that this will be discussed in the Executive Committee and she will get back to the Senate. Election Information Immediate Past Chair Zonderman stated that he has written to the senators and have asked one senator from each college to be the point person to get nominees for the Senate, 604-607 and 603 committees. Chair Moore noted that any faculty at NC State is eligible to run for the Chair-elect position. That position will serve as Chair-elect from 2015-2016 and Chair of the Faculty 2016-2018. Remembering George Wahl, Past Chair of the Faculty Senator Alton Banks read a memorial statement in honor of Dr. George Wahl, who passed away on December 14, 2015. Dr. Wahl served as the first Chair of the Faculty.

8. Adjournment

A motion passed to adjourn the meeting at 4:25 p.m.

Meeting Minutes

Present: Chair Moore, Immediate Past Chair Zonderman, Secretary Orcutt, Parliamentarian Lubischer, Provost Arden; Senators Ange-van Heugten, Ash, Argyropoulos, Banks, Bartlett, Bernhard, Bird, Bullock, Cubbage, Fath, Gunter, Hergeth, Huffman, Pearce, Perros, Sannes, Silverberg, Smith, Sotillo, Steer, Williams Excused: Senators Auerbach, Bykova, Fleisher, Kathariou, Laffitte, Moore, Smith McKoy Absent: Senators Byrnes, Davidian, Devetsikiotis, Porter, Scearce, Spontak Guests: Nancy Whelchel, Katharine Stewart, Eileen Goldgeier, General Counsel; Roy Baroff, Faculty Ombuds; Courtney Ross, Dean for a Day/Student, College of Humanities & Social Sciences

1. Call to Order

Chair Moore, called the ninth meeting of the sixty-second session of the NC State Faculty Senate to order at 3 p.m.

2. Introductory Remarks

Chair Moore asked visitors to introduce themselves.

3. Announcements

Chair Moore announced that Dean Grasso from the Graduate School will give remarks at the February 9th Faculty Senate meeting. Chair Moore asked the faculty to please complete the committee preference survey and to encourage colleagues to do so as well. Chair Moore announced that candidates are needed for the Senate elections and candidates are also needed for the Chair-elect position. The Spring Faculty Meeting is March 1st at 3 p.m. in the Talley Student Center.

4. Approval of the Minutes

Secretary Orcutt called for approval of the minutes for the 8th meeting of the NC State Faculty Senate. The minutes were approved as submitted.

5. Remarks from Provost Arden on behalf of Chancellor Woodson’s

Provost Arden reminded everyone of the leadership transitions. He announced that David Hinks has been appointed Dean of the College of Textiles. Scott Douglas is the new Vice Chancellor for Finance and Administration and Annette Ranft has been named Dean of the Poole College of Management. Provost Arden reported that there are three other leadership searches in place for this spring that include deans for the Colleges of Education and Design, and the Vice Provost for the Office of Institutional Equity and Diversity. He stated that the on campus interviews for the Dean of the College of Education finalists will be during the month of February and the interviews for the College of Design and OIED will be in March. He stated that by the end of March he should be close to naming three more leaders for the institution. Outstanding Research Awards Provost Arden announced that Dr. Trudy McKay is the winner of the Wolf Prize for Agricultural Research. The Wolf Prize is widely recognized as one of the most prestigious awards for academic achievement. Her work will lead to new developments in the rounds of genetics research and is a great example of the work being done here at NC State. Provost Arden announced that Dr. Kate Meurs, the Associate Dean for Research and Graduate Studies/Professor in the College of Veterinary Medicine is the first recipient of the Mark L. Morris Jr. Investigator Award for the Morris Animal Foundation. This award honors the work of the late Dr. Mark L. Morris who was a pioneer in the work of both small and exotic animal nutrition as well as the advancement of animal health through science. Susan Nutter, Vice Provost and Director of Libraries was named ACRL Academic Research Librarian of the year. The award recognizes an outstanding member of the library profession who has made a significant national or international contribution to academic/research librarianship and library development. Much kudos to Susan Nutter! Provost Arden noted that the Chancellor wanted him to mention the Connect NC Bond. He said this is big and hopefully everyone will vote positively for the bond. The Connect NC is a two billion dollar bond referendum to provide critical support for North Carolina’s university and community college systems, the National Guard, state parks, and water and sewer systems. This includes $160 million to support agriculture and engineering at NC State specifically through Engineering Oval between Engineering I and the Library, and then the Plant Sciences initiative, which is just north of the Engineering Oval on Centennial Campus. These are very important projects for NC State and NC State is the only institution in the UNC System with two projects in the bond. Provost Arden stated that the Chancellor also wanted to mention that NC State has been invited to join as an affiliate institution, The American Academy of Arts and Sciences. This invitation is to join places among the nation’s most prestigious scholarly organizations, through international leaders and Physical, Life & Mathematical Sciences as well as Humanities and Social Sciences. We will help the academy by participating in studies on higher education as well as offering support for fellowships and outreach programs. Funding Raising Provost Arden reported that the university has had a great year in fund raising in 2015. We had new gifts and commitments of about $81.6 million bringing the campaign total to more than $804 million and gift receipts accounted for more than $64 million last year. Provost Arden stated that the Employee/Dependents Tuition Program is up and running and thanks to all the faculty and staff who have contributed to that program. Provost Arden reminded everyone of the anniversary of the shooting in Chapel Hill that claimed the lives of three students. The anniversary will be observed on Wednesday, February 10th. NC State will memorialize these students who have come to be known as “Our Three Winners” on February 10th and 11th with several events around campus. An “Our Three Winners” memorial day of light will be held in Stafford Commons at 6 p.m. on February 10th. If there is inclement weather that will be moved into the lobby of Talley Student Union. At 7 p.m. on Friday, February 11th in Stewart Theater, NC State alumnus Mohammad Moussa will present “Shattered Glass” a 45 minute performance that will blend poetry, images, and videos as a tribute to the three students. Provost Arden announced that RAVE Catering has taken over the catering at the State Club. The club is now open to all faculty, students, and staff and the general public for lunch from 11 a.m. to 2 p.m. every day, five days a week. Provost Arden announced that if you use your all campus card for payment you will receive an additional 10% at all restaurants and cafes on campus and 5% discount at C Stores and $1 off at campus dining halls. NC State’s Dairy Enterprise System has added a new ice cream flavor. The new flavor is lemon wafer and it was first introduced at the state fair. Provost Arden announced that hoverboards have been banned from campus. They contain lithium batteries that can overheat and catch on fire. Provost Arden stated that a memo was sent last week reminding everyone of the adverse weather categories and what they mean. He said after the announcement was sent, General Administration “reminded” the administration that there is a new categorization of adverse weather policies. Instead of being a Status I, it should have been a category 2 or category 3. He stated that SPA who are covered under our Status I policy don’t need to make up the time or take leave, whereas under Status 2 the employees do need to take leave or make up the time. He said over the next few days he will resolve the issue with GA to figure out how to address this. Senator Cubbage commented that the letter that was in the Pope Foundation Newsletter was quite negative, basically attacking sustainability efforts at NC State. Provost Arden stated that he is concerned because frequently those Pope Foundation articles make their way into the hands of either Legislators or Board of Governors or both. He is still dealing with the fallout of one that accused us of egregious administrative expenditures because of how much money we are spending on diversity. We are passionate about our diversity inclusion programs. Provost Arden said he thinks they are important to what we do. This is not the time for the state to be trying to pull back on state appropriated expenditures in the realm of diversity and inclusion, with what has been happening on campuses all over the country. “I think this is just not a wise direction to go in. I share your concerns. I think we should be articulate spokespeople for why we do what we do, whether its diversity inclusion, sustainability, or otherwise, it is part of who we are as a progressive research extensive university.”

6. Results of the COACHE Faculty Satisfaction Survey

Nancy Whelchel, Associate Director for Survey Research, Institutional Research and Planning Katharine Stewart, Vice Provost for Faculty Affairs Dr. Katharine Stewart, stated that they would be giving a brief overview of the COACHE survey. The COACHE Survey is done every three years. It is conducted by the Harvard Graduate School of Education. The goal is to look at a wide variety of aspects, faculty life and what faculty are saying they appreciate about their institutions and what they are concerned about. There are approximately 150 items in the survey. This year there was a pilot section of the survey itself, so in addition to the standard items, there was a pilot survey on shared governance. She pointed out that although those results are very important to us, we do not have peer comparison. Dr. Stewart stated that we survey our full time pre-tenured, and NTT faculty. There are some exclusions, which include folks who were hired in the current year, folks who were in their terminal year, senior administrators, and in 2015 they excluded library faculty. This last exclusion was a concern expressed by some faculty, and something that we’ll have to talk about more in the future. Dr. Stewart stated that the COACHE Survey decides who our peers are going to be. They choose a small or subset of institutions to use for us to compare ourselves against. We picked five institutions (Iowa State, Purdue, University of Arizona, UC Davis, and Virginia Tech). We are aware that for some colleges, those may be great peer comparisons and for others maybe not. We have to pick the set at the institutional level; we picked those so that we would have broad institutional comparisons. Stewart pointed out that the response rate at NC State was very good for this survey. About 53% of pre- tenured and tenured faculty responded and about 43% of NTT faculty responded compared to our peers at about 50 percent. Some of the demographic differences at NC State with respect to response rate were women had a higher response rate than men, about 60% of females responded compared to 46% of male faculty. Faculty of color have a lower response rate than white faculty, 40 versus 54 percent. Stewart stated that they wanted to give an overview on four areas. 1. Where we have had very h3 ratings at NC State on the 2015 survey (very positive or very neg 2. Time comparisons—NC State in 2015 versus NC State 2012 3. Internal Group Comparisons 4. Peers Remarks from Nancy Whelchel Dr. Whelchel reported that there are about 150 questions on the survey. She stated that she reviewed all of that information and asked herself “What is popping up that faculty are most pleased with?” In very broad terms, faculty told them that one of the best things about working at NC State is that it is in Raleigh. Other items pointed out by faculty were colleagues, academic freedom, library resources, and there are a lot of questions on the survey about faculty ranks and the quality of our pre-tenured faculty. The less favored item often relates to governance. In particular, divisional leadership. Compensation doesn’t rate well, family and personal policies and support for interdisciplinary research, primarily financial support. A huge negative was promotion among NTT faculty. Another item that gets relatively low rating is mentoring, support for mentoring and the availability of good mentoring among faculty. Trends – Spring 2015 vs Spring 2012 Dr. Whelchel reported that with respect to trends, we have done the survey four times and the population have changed a little over time, so in looking at comparing our pre-tenure and tenured faculty combined, those responses to the last survey in 2012, none of the common items between these two time points got less favorable ratings in the current survey in 2015 and then 2012. A small number improved, specifically interdisciplinary work being rewarded in tenure and in merit. The overall ratings improved for – Interdisciplinary work rewarded in tenure & merit – Stop-the-clock policies – Health benefits for yourself – Clarity of advising and teaching expectations for tenure – Salary – Health and retirement benefits overall. There were no notable declines in overall rating. Senator Pearce stated that it would be useful to know what the salaries are by department and rank for each of the five peer institutions and what their contributions to retirement are in terms of percentage of salary. Whelchel stated that we don’t have that from the survey, and what she was just talking about is just NC State, so that doesn’t have anything relative to do with our peer institutions, our pre-tenured and tenured faculty ratings of how satisfied they are with their compensation and their health benefits that they gave in 2012 compared to what they said in 2015. Provost Arden stated that HR does a markup survey to establish the markup range and the medians for different positions as different ranks. What schools are we being compared to? Provost Arden stated that he believes they do it multiple ways. They do it by our official peers, they do it by research extensive universities and they do multiple comparisons to see how we rank. Senator Pearce stated that he has never seen that except in the aggregate. Provost Arden stated that there is a separate equity study as well, which looks at equity within the university. Senator Pearce stated that to interpret this since you are comparing NC State to these schools it would be informative to know what salary and compensation those schools are providing. Senator Cubbage stated that he is curious even for the last year, what was our raise. Dr. Stewart stated that one possibility is, as you know salaries haven’t changed at all but the perception of where the market is in terms of what you could get if you went elsewhere has changed in the last three years. Senator Cubbage stated that he is serious, what are the percentage raises that faculty have received in the last three years on average. Provost Arden responded that this year was 2% and last year was a 3% program. Sub-Group Comparisons Dr. Whelchel stated that we find some general trends when we look at different groups of faculty and one of them is that the NTT faculty are frequently more positive in their outlook than the tenure track faculty and that is particularly related to things such as balancing their work time expectations. The NTT faculty are more satisfied with their health benefits and with clerical and administrative support. They were slightly less positive about their inclusion in the departments, their discussions with colleagues and opportunities for mentoring and collaboration. Pre-tenured faculty are typically more satisfied than those who are tenured and the pre-tenured are particularly more satisfied with divisional and department leadership and benefits. They are less positive about work life balance. Full professors are more positive than associates. In particular, anything relating to promotion, associate professors give much less positive ratings about a slew of questions relating to promotion. Sub Group Comparisons Dr. Whelchel reported that there is a difference among the tenure track faculty versus the non-tenure track faculty in terms of what we find by race. Among tenure track faculty the faculty of color are sometimes more positive than white faculty particularly in things like the importance of mentoring, balancing the work time expectations, leadership and support for faculty. Faculty of color are less positive than white faculty about anything relating to tenure and promotion, salary, and diversity. The non-tenure track faculty, there were too few faculty of color to have any comparisons. When we look at gender, the men who are on the tenure track are typically more positive with their work life than are women. That is particularly related to promotion and tenure and departmental leadership. Men give less positive ratings than do women about the importance of mentoring. Women are much more likely to see mentoring as more important than are men. Among the non-tenure track faculty the women were more positive than men, in particular anything relating to interdisciplinary work. They were less positive than men on contract renewal, promotion, and work life balance issues. COACHE Peer Comparisons (pre-tenured+tenured faculty only) NC State faculty give more favorable ratings to – Classroom & library resources Chancellor (e.g., communication) Clarity of advising expectations for tenure (pre-tenured only) – Interdisciplinary work rewarded in tenure (pre-tenured only) NC State faculty gave less favorable ratings to: Health & retirement benefits Personal and family policies Dr. Stewart stated that perception is reality in many ways. What does this mean, where should we be spending our effort? What can we do here to work with faculty, to help create some space for faculty to feel more satisfied about their work? Some areas that have stood out is that we do compare to our peers in a lot of areas and we need to continue to build that up. If you go into the data you can see that in a little more detail. She pointed out that even in those areas where we say we are doing less well, our mean ratings are still not way down in the 1s and 2s, so that is where we want to spend some effort, but we also need to figure out what is working well in those areas. So what are we doing well with our peers and where do we need to continue to work? Dr. Stewart said she thinks we need to continue to think about the things we can change like our personal and family policies and where we can advocate with the board, but internally we do need to pay attention to some governance issues. Divisional leadership popped up as an issue of concern for a lot of faculty. We need to think about how we can help with that. We need to think about promotion pathways and being clear with faculty about what it means to be successful and be promoted. This seems to be especially important for certain subgroups of faculty. If non tenure track faculty or female faculty don’t perceive a track for success then we are all vulnerable in terms of retention of those faculty. Then thinking about what it means to provide support for interdisciplinary/multidisciplinary work. We have improved on that over the last several years, but I want to continue to dig into that. Dr. Stewart stated that she is trying to think about what it means that we have some of these dramatic differences, for example, between our non-tenure track and our tenure track faculty. The dramatic differences we have between faculty of color and white faculty, female faculty and male faculty and how to be addressing the underlying issues that are being identified by these faculty that are interfering with their sense of success and satisfaction here at NC State. Questions and Comments Some of the things you are telling us, we have heard before. I’m wondering what do we do about it, how are we going to go forward with some of the obvious things? Stewart stated that one thing that has come up in past years that has jumped out on this again is the issue of NTT faculty and the pathways that they perceive, the path for success, their satisfaction, their integration with departments, this is an issue that the Senate has identified as a priority for the committees to work on. So, we need to think about what it means to create really clear pathways for NTT faculty given the diversity of roles that NTT faculty play across departments and colleges. So that may be one area where we could do some work. Immediate Past Chair Zonderman stated that he would like to recommend a more streamlined policy. Right now, in terms of paperwork, it is almost as hard to do an RPT dossier on NTT as a tenure line faculty member and he doesn’t think that is necessary. They have a different career path, different expectations, why do their packets have to have seventy to seventy five pages? On governance, since we are all in governance, I would be interested if we get some more drilled down data for the Senate. What has people dissatisfied about governance? There is the sense that the mechanisms are fine, but I still feel the sense on this campus that when the big decisions are made the faculty are not really involved. Stewart stated that she thinks the results of the governance highlighting, in particular are very interesting because they look at governance at a lot of different levels. Dr. Lubischer followed up on the conversation about NTT’s. She thinks language matters and the challenge here is when we define folks as being not something, we kind of get locked in to that. When we think about how to define the career paths more clearly, teaching and research faculty that we change the language as well. Stewart agreed. The question becomes how do we simultaneously respect the very different career paths and different standards for promotion that those different tracks may have while thinking about what it would mean to streamline and clarify what it means to be successful and achieve rank in each of those tracks. She thinks we do need to work on it. Senator Pearce – Is the NTT faculty just full time / three quarters positions? Stewart responded yes, that all faculty included in the survey were. Are the peer groups having some of the same problems that we are having, i.e., when we look at our problems are they reflected in our peers too? Stewart stated that every institution has problems and one of the areas where we have found that we tend to compare favorably to peers is a sense of clarity and expectations for faculty who are in these teaching or research paths, but yet they are still feeling the struggle of not having the time to get to those standards because this is how my job is defined. So, yes we do have those comparisons. I encourage all of you to go to the website and look at the preliminary reports. They go very deep even in those preliminary reports compared to what has been reported today. A lot of issues of where you see us popping up very favorable compared to where our peers are struggling will show up in the reports online. Senator Williams stated that survey after survey, things that are looked upon favorably is the clarity of expectations for tenure and that was a classic example of faculty governance with administrative support. Alton Banks and I were on that Special Select Faculty Senate Committee on Reappointment Promotion and Tenure and we basically got Kermit Hall at that time to develop RTP policies that make sense, that were coherent, that were fair to faculty because it was all over the lot here, and depending on where you were located, you faced an entirely different institution. Maybe this same strategy would work for NTT, sort of reconstitute a committee of faculty to work on that problem. Stewart said that is why she uses the language “we, what we can work on,” because she believes that, for example the idea, can we build clear pathways for teaching, research or clinical faculty. It will take a conversation and it will take working together on what our policies really are. It will also take conversations at the department level for how those things are operationalized because those things play out for faculty in those different tracks very differently depending on their department and college, so it really does have to be a collaborative effort. Senator Cubbage stated that for a few years there were several times we took the tuition increase that was significant, 4% or so and used those funds for rewarding teachers, faculty with salaries and even for scholarships for students. So, I think maybe it would be nice to consider revisiting that policy to see if there is a way we can use those increases to come back to the faculty. That is where we have not seen any increase in funding that is actually reflected very much in our salaries. Provost Arden stated that one place where that does occur is we use tuition receipts from the campus initiated tuition increase (CITI) for funding promotional increases. The problem with using it for straight across the board merit increases is scaled, so CITI this year will generate not quite $10 million. A 3% increase on state appropriated resources is roughly about 9 or 10 million dollars. So, the question is, how much do we want to go to student focused programs. How much to the faculty? Interestingly at the last CITI meeting, the fall before last, the students were very interested in putting more toward faculty salaries, so I think you would find support for earmarking more than we have in the past for faculty salary programs. Going forward, we know that there is a high likelihood that we are going to have to fund our own internal salary program. With a 3% program that means that we are going to have to find about $10 million a year internally and so in years where we have tuition receipts, maybe we can be looking at that as being one resource for doing that. Senator Silverberg stated that in the College of Engineering there are a lot of lecturers who are going to move into non tenure track positions, and these are full time people who are dedicated. He wants to know if data is available for how many lecturers we have who have been here five years. He thinks compiling that data and providing it to the department heads would be valuable. Stewart stated that she thinks one of the things that we do need to look at is that the Senior Lecturer path is a separate path from the rank path in the teaching or clinical track and this is an area that faculty have expressed some frustrations in terms of not being clear about what do you do if you have been a lecturer for a long time or moved into a Senior Lecturer position and you would like to move into the professorial rank line. What is the difference between a lecturer and an assistant teaching professor? Stewart stated that the biggest differentiation is you’re primarily teaching and the difference in master’s degree versus terminal degree. Secretary Orcutt stated that speaking about the exclusion of the library faculty, when you are talking about comparisons between prior years—2012 and 2015 I know we are not probably a statistically significant population, but perhaps we are for some of the differences between 2012 and 2015. Was that something you were able to pull out of the 2012 and see? Stewart stated that she hasn’t looked at that. Whelchel stated that they did not look. So you were in the 2012 but not in the 2015 and maybe your exclusion in that is skewing some of the results from being compared in the two surveys. That is something we can look at. Is there a way to parse out how the interdisciplinary hires fit into the survey? Stewart stated that she thinks the issue of interdisciplinary faculty becomes a challenge even in our own policy because one of the things we say is that a faculty member who has multidisciplinary focus can choose to be evaluated by a different committee rather than a DVF, but those committees may not have standards that are as clearly articulated as a DVF has, which makes that faculty member really vulnerable, but it also creates challenges for the departments. So there is a group of folks who are reviewing these kinds of philosophical questions and as we continue to appoint more faculty who have expectations for being very multidisciplinary, very interdisciplinary, what do we need to be thinking about how the rules were created and the structure we are creating may either facilitate that or create barriers for that. Senator Cubbage commented that he is not keen on having faculty in his department whose dossiers he can’t see and can’t vote on so he thinks it would be better to fold these new persons into the department DVF, so that the department DVF is not excluded from the colleagues that they work with. Stewart stated that she thinks that is part of the challenge, that we want faculty who are very disciplinary to be evaluated by their faculty colleagues who may span DVF, but at the same time we know they are living in a departmental home, so it’s a challenging situation and what I can tell you is that there are some departments that are much more comfortable evaluating their disciplinary, multidisciplinary colleagues and other departments that kind of struggle with that a little bit more. So the question is how we make sure that both of those perspectives are getting integrated into the process so that people feel really engaged.

7. Old and New Business

Discussion on possibly re-naming “Secretary of the Faculty” Secretary Orcutt stated that a number of faculty, particularly women, have mentioned to him that they would never think of running for a position referred to as “Secretary of the Faculty.” He said the term “Secretary” may not exactly map to what the position is. It is a position that serves as part of the leadership team of the Senate and sometimes will stand in for the Chair of the Faculty. When you look back at the past fifteen years, an interesting thing about it is that the only women that have served in the position were women in NTT positions. My own feeling is that the office of Secretary of the Faculty is not this big storied thing that bears a lot of tradition and meaning. If we could update the title and open that up to make it more accessible for the future it would make sense. Secretary Orcutt stated that the title of “Associate Chair” has been suggested to him. Chair Moore stated that this will be discussed in the Executive Committee and she will get back to the Senate. Election Information Immediate Past Chair Zonderman stated that he has written to senators in each college and has asked one senator to be the point person in each to get nominees for the Senate, 604-607 and 603 committees. He stated that we would like to have competitive elections. He urged colleges to use the university procedures to keep the process consistent. Chair Moore noted that any faculty at NC State is eligible to run for the Chair-elect. That position will serve as Chair-elect from 2015-2016 and Chair of the Faculty 2016-2018. Remembering George Wahl, Past Chair of the Faculty Senator Alton Banks read a memorial statement in honor of Dr. George Wahl, who passed away on December 14, 2015. Dr. Wahl served as the first Chair of the Faculty.

8. Adjournment

A motion passed to adjourn the meeting at 4:25 p.m.

Content navigation

Meeting Agenda Executive Summary Meeting Minutes

Office of the Faculty Senate

January 26, 2016

Meeting Agenda

1. Call to Order - Jeannette Moore, Chair of the Faculty

2. Introductory remarks

3. Announcements

4. Approval of the Minutes, Regular Meeting No. 8 of the 62nd Session, January 12, 2016

5. Chancellor and Provost Remarks and Q/A

6. Results of the COACHE Faculty Satisfaction Survey

7. Old and New Business

8. Issues of concern

9. Adjourn

Appendices

Executive Summary

1. Call to Order

2. Introductory Remarks

3. Announcements

4. Approval of the Minutes

5. Remarks from Provost Arden on behalf of Chancellor Woodson

6. Results of the COACHE Faculty Satisfaction Survey

7. Old and New Business

8. Adjournment

Meeting Minutes

1. Call to Order

2. Introductory Remarks

3. Announcements

4. Approval of the Minutes

5. Remarks from Provost Arden on behalf of Chancellor Woodson’s

6. Results of the COACHE Faculty Satisfaction Survey

7. Old and New Business

8. Adjournment

NC STATE UNIVERSITY