Skip to main content

Transcript, Faculty Council Meeting, February 17, 1995

3:00 P.M., FEBRUARY 17, 1995


Attendance: Present 51; Excused absences 19; Unexcused absences 21.

Open Session

I. Memorial Resolution for the late George R. Holcomb: John Gulick,


[Professor Gulick read the resolution.]

Chancellor: Thank you, Dr. Gulick. If you will approve the memorial resolution for the late George R. Holcomb, please stand for a moment of silence. Thank you.

II. Chancellor Hardin.

Let me set the stage for my report in the following way. Some of you have been kind enough to ask what I will be when I grow up, or what do I plan to do when I retire from the Chancellorship on June 30. The answer has been, and remains, somewhat indefinite by design: six months leave doing relatively little, I hope, except visiting grandchildren and travelling with my wife, and maybe a round of golf or two. But I made one determination — oh, incidentally, when I get back from that leave, I will continue to be a part of this faculty and look forward to being a part of this fellowship for a long, long time. But at 4:15 this morning as I pondered the Governor’s budget proposals and what I would say to my faculty colleagues today, I determined on one post-chancellor course of action. I will speak out publicly whenever I feel any state official, regardless of party affiliation, advocates measures that I honestly feel are unfair to the UNC system, especially to UNC-Chapel Hill — so unfair as to threaten needlessly the continued effective service by the University to the people of North Carolina.

I’m going to launch on that course today, rather than waiting until mid-summer, because I feel that the governor’s budget proposal constitutes just such a clear and present danger to the continued effectiveness of the University, and thus needs to be examined honestly before the General Assembly gets too far along in its own preparation of the biennial budget for UNC.

I’m going to address the governor’s proposal for our University under four headings. First, compensation of faculty and staff. Second, tuition proposals. Third, cuts in personnel — and I’m going to add personnel positions, equipment, et cetera. … I’m composing as I go. And four, the philosophical and strategic, or long-range inadequacies of the state budgeting process as it relates to public higher education and some positive suggestions for changing that process.

Faculty-staff compensation. This very day, I nominated three faculty members to serve on a new Triangle Universities Research Consortium on Youth, and I expect all three of my colleagues and yours to respond positively. And, today, I had the pleasure of nominating four other faculty colleagues to serve on a Triangle Task Force on Water Resources. And I already know that all four of them are willing to serve. Probably all of the faculty members I have asked today will accept because faculty almost never turn down requests to employ their expertise in active service to the state [and] to the people of North Carolina.

Faculty, as a part of their ordinary routine or while on leave, constitute, as you know, important advisers to our governor and our General Assembly, and to the president of the United States and to the national Congress, not to mention countless hours of volunteer service to local governments and a host of various social service agencies, private enterprises and the like.

Over the past few weeks, I have also asked several dozen colleagues — and I believe our chairperson Jane Brown will talk about this a little bit — several dozen colleagues from faculty and staff to serve on a long-range planning committee, a special task force on minority recruitment, another task force on women at UNC and so on and so on. I can scarcely remember how many task forces I have organized with your support. I know first-hand how unselfishly faculty at Carolina serve, how brilliantly faculty at Carolina teach, and how impressively faculty at Carolina advance knowledge through cutting-edge research. I also know that the effective execution of this tripartite mission would not be possible without the incredible support of non-academic employees — EPA non-faculty and SPA.

Therefore, I must agree with President Spangler that the budget proposal — 2 percent salary-wage increase for faculty and other state employees — is an insult, is totally unacceptable. I cannot imagine that a state government whose members constantly acknowledge — I think honestly — the obvious fact that the three research universities at the three points of the Triangle (this is basic geometry — there would be no triangle without three points) — I know of no responsible government official who does not acknowledge that these universities are the principal engine driving the successful economy of North Carolina. And when we ask our faculty to teach more and better, to serve in a[the] broader range of activities, and to continue to bring remarkable credit and new knowledge to our state through externally funded research, I cannot believe that these good people, all of you and our other colleagues, are going to be offered a sub-inflationary increase.

Tuition proposals. First I repeat my long-standing position that tuition in[at] colleges and universities, whether public or private, should be considered to be payment for instructional services rendered. Payment for instructional services rendered — not an ill-disguised tax to balance the state budget. I believe I may say with confidence that I have heard President Spangler support that proposal over and over again, that tuition is not an appropriate source of state revenue to balance a budget.

Second, my quick critique of the present tuition proposal is as follows: One, even for in-state students, the proposed inflationary rise is not reflected in an operating budget that holds its own against inflation, but is accompanied instead by budget cuts. If you look at the budget sheet in the administration’s budget — I’m not suggesting that others should be treated the way we are, but maybe that we should be treated the way others are — despite the impetus to cut taxes and cut expenses, both the public schools and the community college system receive slight increases in appropriations in the next two years, the next biennium, whereas this University goes down, despite the increase in tuition. So even for in-state students, the inflationary increase, stacked on others in the recent past, not designated to improve or maintain the quality of the instruction here, but simply a tax, is not accompanied by a fight against inflation, but is accompanied instead by budget cuts.

Second, for out-of-state students, the proposal is flat-out outrageous. Ten percent a year for three years in pursuit of someone’s suggestion that out-of-state students should pay the full cost of their education, an incredible retreat into isolationism, or something [or other], for what we used to consider the most progressive state in the South.

Furthermore, this proposal is based on faulty numbers. Something called GPAC is the cited reliance on which the administration has sent forward this proposal. To give you some idea of the fallacy underlying some of the numbers, apparently the way GPAC computed the cost of education and found it to be remarkably higher at Carolina and State and at the School of the Arts than it is in the other branches of our university system, was to take the entire appropriated budget and divide it by the number of students. Therefore our undergraduate students have contributed to their cost of education by their share of support for the arboretum, the medical school, AHEC, Institute of Government, which has no degree-candidacy students, all [of] the rest of it. And that’s considered to be the cost of education for out-of-state students who are expected to pay in about three years time the full cost of education. The Federal Trade Commission ought to swoop in here and talk about truth in advertising!

The lack of vision underlying this inhospitable proposal is, in any event, appalling. This state, to use a phrase that I love from Lewis Thomas,… the late Lewis Thomas, this state should never stop dancing when it contemplates who has been attracted to this state by UNC-Chapel Hill and remained here to become a priceless asset. No time for exhaustive research, but how about this off the top of my head: Hugh McColl, Sherwood Smith, Paul Rizzo, Al Adams. Those of you who celebrate the Charlie Justice era: Dick Grubar and Art Weiner — highly successful business leaders who were attracted here from out of state.

And how about the following group, off the top of my head, who came to this University from other parts of the country and while they have not made their careers here have been back and forth and never ever failed to give full credit to UNC-Chapel Hill for the successes they have enjoyed in life: Richard Adler; Stu Eisenstadt; Louis Harris; George Grizzard, the actor; Allan Murray, Washington bureau chief, Wall Street Journal; Jim Cooper, congressman of Tennessee; David Price; Taylor Branch, author; Rebecca Darwin; Buddy Mayer; Judy Heins; Alane Mason, an editor at Norton; Dot Ridings; Kay Knight Clark, a major corporate executive; Betty Caldwell; and on and on. Aren’t we glad that in their generation North Carolina was hospitable to out-of-state students and did not treat them cynically or dismissively as mere sources of enhanced state revenue? What if these alumni had not had the opportunity to come to UNC-Chapel Hill?

How about presently enrolled undergraduate students? This morning — this whole speech can revolve around my activities for one day — this morning I presented Truman Scholarship (finalist) certificates to four undergraduate students, two of whom are from North Carolina. The other two — Stacey Brandenburg of Atlanta and Myles Presler of Lexington, Kentucky — are out-of-state students. Half of our Truman Scholars against their quota of 18 percent. There are two Luce Scholarship finalists from our University this year. One is from North Carolina, the other, Scott Wilkens, is from St. Louis, Missouri. We have a single Marshall Scholar winner this year, Craig Syndal from Annandale, New Jersey. Rhodes Scholars: at least seven that[who] I’ve been able to track since 1979 came to this campus from out of state — Dacia Merle Sampson Toll, [of] Bethesda, Maryland; William David Ball, Atlanta, Georgia; Peter Henry, Wilmette, Illinois; Ryan Balot, Metairie, Louisiana; Bryan Hassel, Nashville, Tennessee; Lawrence Ellis Jr., Skillman, New Jersey; Karen Stevenson, Washington, D.C.

Cuts in personnel, equipment, however else we choose to absorb our cuts, especially layoffs that may be inevitable. Those measures are bad enough in hard times as I have written in a private note to Governor Hunt. Recession-induced budget cuts are borne with grace. Politically-induced budget cuts, in the context of a robust economy, are hard, very, very hard, to take, respectfully yours. Inexcusable in a robust economy to balance the budget and enact what is considered to be a popular tax cut on the backs of state employees. Look at the impact on faculty and programs. I have already said we, you, are being asked to teach better and more, maintain your research in national and state interests, and strengthen your public service and do it all with fewer support personnel, inadequate equipment, supplies, travel budgets and, by the way, here we go again, pay for your own long-distance calls on official business.

Strategic inadequacies of the budgeting process as it pertains to higher education in North Carolina. There is in our system a total absence of strategic consultation with professional educators, with chancellors, with vice chancellors, deans, department chairs, senior faculty. There is an absence in our state of calculated incentives to plan responsibly. For example, such an incentive as offering to let us, on our several campuses, our 16 campuses, reinvest any savings that we make in quality improvement on our campus[es] rather than this constant, incessant demand to cut the budget for the sake of the general revenues and, for all I know, use our tuition money to build prisons. No strategic consultation with professional educators but micro-management by amateurs on the basis of supposed messages from the electorate. The same phenomenon is happening in Washington right now. But in Washington, just as I expect will happen here, voices are being raised against a reckless tax cut when the price of that is bound to be a slowing of progress and reducing the deficit. I personally do not want a tax cut if it costs my children and my grandchildren! And I don’t want a tax cut in North Carolina if it weakens the essential services of a majestic University. Another absent incentive to plan, give us personnel flexibility to offer voluntary early retirement plans or whatever those well-established management initiatives are that I used as a matter of course in the private sector.

Another problem with the current budgeting process as [it] pertains to higher education: there’s been no examination in this state in my seven years here of why a parking deck in Chapel Hill under state construction costs more than to build the same deck at Duke. Or why we have to lease the Carolina Inn to Doubletree to get a swift, inexpensive renovation and black-ink operation. You want a strategic plan to make our universities more efficient? Let us run our universities.

I suggested when I first came that half the states at least had exempted their higher education institutions from their version of the state personnel act. You know that all private institutions and the entire community college system here get along without the bureaucratic inefficiencies of the State Personnel Act? One passing comment in the administration’s budget proposal was that our $10 or $12 million that we cough up would be aided by flexibility. Community colleges have always had flexibility. They’re getting more in the next two years. The public schools have a substantial measure of local autonomy. They’re getting more state support. The private universities that receive state support in this state, with my support, are not being asked to cut back and cut back and cut back and do better with less. They are not being micromanaged.

Let me end on three positive notes. Some of you may have a sense of deja vu. A few years ago, I exploded in indignation at the budget proposal of a Republican governor, who proposed that the state retain for a second year 50 percent of the indirect costs recovery earned by this faculty with its brilliance in research. (NCSU) Chancellor Monteith and I jumped on him together. He had the grace to admit that he had seen an error. He welcomed the criticism. He changed his proposal, and we were advantaged by $12.6 million in one year.

If a Republican governor can listen, I bet a Democratic governor can listen. I’m absolutely nonpartisan. As a matter of fact, I do agree with Governor Hunt very strongly that these are not partisan issues. Thus, I appeal to the Republicans and Democrats alike in our General Assembly to proceed with care and specifically to reject substantial portions of the Executive Branch’s proposal for [the budget of] the University of North Carolina system. If, as I have heard rumored lately, the Republican leadership cuts roughly in half the suggested tax cut in the governor’s budget, I will turn in my “Yellow Dog Democrat” pin. Does everybody know what a “Yellow Dog Democrat” is? A “Yellow Dog Democrat” is someone, usually a native of North Carolina, who says he would vote for a yellow dog if he were a Democrat. But this is a nonpartisan time in our state; it’s a two-party system. You know, I went away for 20 years and came back and found you folks had two parties, and I’m trying to get used to it.

And I’m getting used to it fast, because I don’t see any difference at the crack of a bat in the commitment to public higher education in this state on the part of the Republicans on the one hand and the part of Democrats on the other. In the immortal words of Bob Scott recently I say to these Republicans, “I’ve been on your side all along.” Seriously, even off-whimsy, I think there is an absolutely mammoth middle ground to be captured by one of the two major parties in this state and that would be the party that understands the legitimate concern of the electorate for responsible, non-elaborate, non-extravagant government, but that also understands that the continued quality and the constant improvement of quality at this great University is absolutely essential to the continued progress of the state of North Carolina.

The third thing I suggest on a positive vein is if you agree with me or with any part of what I’ve said, speak up and invite me to your civic club over the next few weeks.

[prolonged applause]

Professor Brown: Do you want comments now, or…? Chancellor: Yeah: let somebody else get their name in the paper. Professor Steve Bayne (Dentistry): It’s so incredibly frustrating. I mean, we all share all your emotion. I mean we excel at so many things. Nobody comes in and tells us we’re doing major things. They tell us we’re doing everything right. And then we’re constantly slapped in the face. You can accept some degree of that because you’re trying to bear the burdens of the state accounting for the other problems that we’re having, but to go forward in the future, into this next century, we have to have a little bit more control over our fate. Just a couple of years ago we discussed the possibility that we may be at a zero-based budget by the year 2000 the way things were doing — that ought to give us the right to at least change the name of the University if the state’s not going to pay any money for it. We want to be part of the solution, but nobody’s listening to us, and nobody’s giving us credit for all the things that we’re contributing.

Chancellor Hardin: Steve, thank you for those comments. You know my position on that. I covet the continued strong appropriated state support. It’s critical. It’s so critical to things like Arts and Sciences, the heart and soul of the University. But when I first came here we were a very, very low tuition state. And just before we launched this $320 — now $400 million capital campaign — I suggested to the movers and shakers of this state that if we were given permission on this campus to raise our tuition $500 a year for three years or $300 a year for five years, we would still be at or below the median of public university tuition of all the 50 states and we would have the equivalent of a $600 million increase in endowment. No. We’ve got to maintain low tuition. So what happens — we don’t maintain low tuition. Did it become, in effect, an endowment for the University at Chapel Hill? No. It vanished into the general revenue of the state. Now we don’t have the low base with which to start in case they get the message in Raleigh and begin to let us raise tuition for the benefit of the people who pay it. We’ve lost all that leeway. Now luckily it hadn’t been wildly extravagant, been roughly inflationary for in-state students. But I’m sick and tired of exploiting out-of-state students. And it’s time to speak up. You know I have six more months on salary after I step down. I don’t want my 2%. I want it to go to need-based financial aid for out-of-state students. I won’t take 2%. And it’s been advertised in every paper in North Carolina I’m underpaid. We’ve got to continue the partnership with the people of North Carolina, with both substantial state appropriations and the ability to get out from under micro-management and compete.

It is no accident, colleagues, that when you rate UNC-Chapel Hill with other state universities, state major research universities, the state universities in AAU, we’re always in the top five or so. Then when you put all of us together, all the great public universities with the great private universities, all the public ones get shoved into the twenties. It’s no accident. It’s no accident. Despite the largesse of generous legislators, the bureaucracy and the micro-management and the constraints under which we operate, it’s laughable that a great leader of our legislature who’s temporarily back in Buncombe County, talked about the carte blanche that we have, the blank check that we have, with no accountability. Only someone who spent twenty years presiding over usually impecunious private universities knows how laughable it is to say that we receive a blank check from Raleigh. We are the victims of incredible micro-management.

Professor Harry Gooder (Microbiology & Immunology): I think we need to remind the legislators that of all the public universities and I think the faculty and staff on this campus perform far more public service by every criteria that I’ve seen — the last analysis was something like 19% of our activities and 2% for comparable institutions. If they continue to cut our resources [in the way] are expected to continue teaching and doing research, this public service is going to be lost.

Chancellor Hardin: Thank you, Harry. I don’t want to monopolize this meeting, so I’m going to sit down with a request. It wouldn’t surprise me if someone editorializes that Chapel Hill is whining again. Do me a favor. If you read that anywhere, will every single one of you write to the editor and say you were there. There was never a whine. There was never a whimper. But there was a roar. [applause]

III. Chair of the Faculty Jane D. Brown.

Professor Brown: Thank you, Paul. We’ll follow you. We’re glad you’re still here ready to roar. Chancellor Hardin: Four months longer. Professor Brown: We have what we call a Faculty Legislative Liaison Committee. We met this morning in response to the Governor’s budget proposal as well. We have a letter going to every new — every legislator — saying that we still support the Board of Governors’ proposal for salary increases. We are vitally concerned about graduate education. We’re especially concerned about this tuition increase. And if we have such a tuition increase, we must be talking about increased tuition waivers for our graduate students. We are also making plans to meet individually with the legislators, to do as much as we can with the Governor and the legislature, to say maybe the Governor’s proposal ain’t the best way to go here. I’m going to also give you an opportunity to participate in this process.

The Board of Visitors has come up with a plan, or I think they’ve done this in the past. And what they’d like to do this year again in the next couple of months is to bring legislators over to campus, to have them meet you and observe what we do over here. And that’s the blue sheet that you have in your set of materials today. I encourage each of you to fill this out, even if you aren’t teaching a classic course this semester where you’re standing in front of a course[class] teaching. If you’re doing any other kinds of teaching activities or any other kinds of activities that a legislator would benefit from observing, please agree to meet with a Board of Visitors person and a legislator in the next couple of months. Fill it out, comment on it. Whatever you can do would be helpful here. The Board of Visitors will make the arrangements. So it’s not a time commitment like you have to set this up. What they will do is work with you, around your schedule, to make this work in your schedule. Any comment about that? Does that seem reasonable to you? Are you willing to do that? Okay, I’m asking you to make a commitment right now. You can fill that out and leave it as you leave today. Do you all have one — blue sheet? Could we pass those out, please? Dick, are you over there? Could you pass them out? Thank you. Do any others of you have anything you want to say right now about what you as individual faculty members would like to be doing, how you would respond to this? I think it is important that we’re speaking about this, and working with our legislators. I’d say if any of you know personally legislators, now is the time to really be talking with them about what we do and about how important it is to continue to support us. That really works. We’ve learned a whole lot more about this in the past couple of years as we’ve been working in Raleigh. And that personal contact really makes a difference.

Professor Barry Lentz (Biochemistry): During the past three or four years this campus has been 1, 2, or 3 in the rate of increase of extramural funds flowing into biomedical research. We’ve done that with cuts in staff. We cannot continue to support biomedical research at the rate which we’re doing it if we’re going to get cuts in staff. The National Institutes of Health has a new policy. They won’t pay for staff. If we’re not getting the funds from the state to pay for our staff, we can’t do the research which is bringing megabucks into this state. Chancellor Hardin: Amen. Professor Brown: Great. And that is clearly a part of this proposal, is a significant cut in staff across the University system.

Professor Steven Bachenheimer (Microbiology): To follow up on this, we are going to see further cuts in the size of our graduate programs, especially in the basic sciences, since we pay for the tuition of our students through our research grants. And if we have to pay more, we’ll have fewer students. And if we have fewer students, we won’t be able to do the teaching, we won’t be able to do the research that allows us to renew our grants, and we’ll have a negative feedback loop. Chancellor: What’s more on that, I understand we’ll have the same number of tuition remissions for graduate students we have now, the same number. The difference will be as this ten percent for three years kicks in, those who don’t get tuition remissions simply can’t come. It isn’t any longer just a matter of tough competition. They won’t be able to come. Professor Bachenheimer: In departments like mine where 95% of our students are out-of-state students, for the first two years we have to pay their tuition. Professor Brown: We aren’t a good sell on graduate education in the legislature right now, and especially out-of-state students. They are not happy about out-of-state students. And so we really have to start educating the legislature about the importance of first of all our graduate students and our out-of-state students as you were saying so eloquently. Chancellor Hardin: That’s why I emphasize undergrad out-of-state students, and the Hugh McColls and the examples all of you know. Do your research in your own departments. Your leaders, wherever they are, who came to this University from out of state — as undergraduates — and now are the movers and shakers of the entire scientific endeavor or whatever. Professor Brown: You can communicate this yourselves. And the other thing that will be helpful for us is to communicate specific stories, anecdotes, the kinds of things that really work when you’re talking individually with people about how this has benefited your department and/or individuals. And you can communicate that to Jim Peacock or Jan Elliott who are the heads of this Legislative Liaison Committee. Just jot notes down. We use those. That’s very helpful. Those kind of data you were just talking about as well.

Professor Bayne: And I totally support the things you’re trying to do with this blue sheet, because we’ve had some success with that in the past. But I’d like to suggest that we might also in the future explore the possibility of including legislators as ex officio members on key working committees within the University so that they can see how we try to solve our problems. To develop a much broader base, then in effect they would become one of our liaisons to the legislature as a whole. Professor Brown: Interesting. Professor Bayne: Would become more an advocate for us. If they just touch base maybe once a year, they may develop some sympathy or whatever by participating in one of these committees, meeting multiple times, going on with the details, and understanding the intricacies and the emotion, and I think maybe they can help us at a higher level. Professor Brown: Interesting. The Carolina Seminars series is already trying to do that. It is through the Institute of Arts and Humanities, brings legislators and real people working in Raleigh together with faculty. And apparently it’s been very successful, setting up nice liaisons. Great. Anything else? Okay, great. I think we all need to keep thinking about how we move on this and to stay in communication. And the good news is that the Governor’s budget is not the final word, so this continues over the next four or five months. And so we keep talking about it.

Professor Bayne: I guess what my concern is is that we might miss the proper timing for this. I mean if we don’t become actively involved right away, all of a sudden we’re into the summer when some key decisions are being made, we’re a little bit more disorganized, and we don’t have so many people, for action. Professor Brown: Well, we’ve got this Faculty Legislative Liaison Committee with this awkward title. But we’re meeting almost weekly, at least biweekly. And I think we’re much savvier about this than we’ve ever been. And we now have contacts in General Administration and in the legislature who help, who keep us in communication about when are the critical times to be over there, who are the critical people to be talking with. So I think we’re much better at this than we’ve ever been. And we can keep you alerted as well I think now, better than we ever have.

Chancellor Hardin: I’m going to add one thing as I decompress. I’ve had a lot of advice to wait until I’ve done a lot of meticulous research and had pages and pages of facts and figures. Don’t forget how important timing is, urgency is. And the general principles that I addressed awhile ago without research, but off the top of my head, are good arguments for you to be making. And you have the advantage of the fact that your committee and many of you have done some solid research that will support my future statements on this and support your own. But don’t wait too long to have perfection in research when there’s so many obvious principles at stake here. Professor Brown: I’d say start writing letters and keep writing them. These people are our representatives. And they need to hear from us.

Professor Bayne: I’m endless. Just one other thought. As you were —- how do the students feed into this equation? Obviously they’re coming from all the counties of the state, they’re connected to the voters firsthand. Professor Brown: Yeah, the graduate students are ready to roll. And so they’re well organized. They’re ready to mobilize. Professor Bayne: And the undergraduate students are in a similar fashion or — Professor Brown: George Jackson is here and we’re getting a student body government soon, and so I’m sure we’ll be working with you about that. Okay, great. So, as you think about things to do, please talk with me, Jim Peacock, George, and let us know. Chancellor Hardin: On all these issues we’re in total rapport with General Administration. Professor Brown: Which is a happy place to be. Chancellor Hardin: The Board of Governors program for faculty compensation was brilliant. Professor Brown: I’d say we’re also in the enviable position of being in support of the state employees at this point as well. So, we’re all going to be working together on that. At this juncture, let me introduce the new Chair of the Employee Forum, Rebecca Wilder [actually Rachel Windham]. Thank you for being with us today and congratulations. [applause.]

Two other important things I wanted to do today were to introduce two new task forces. You’ve already read about them. The news works fast around here. There’s a new task force on the recruitment and retention of minority students and faculty. I’m excited about this. This comes out of a Council resolution last spring where we spoke about our continued commitment to recruit excellent minority students who we would hope would go on to graduate school, who we would hope would be in the pool to select into our faculty. This task force is designed to help make sure that we have the programs in place to make that happen. Part of what happens here is we have good things going on in different units around campus and sometimes we don’t know what the other unit is doing. So this task force is first charged with looking at all that we’re already doing, which is quite a lot. And assessing what we’re doing, evaluating it, looking for how we might coordinate it in a way that is most effective. It’s a star-studded cast of characters and the co-chairs are Linda Lacey, who is here, from City and Regional Planning — could you stand, please, Linda? Thank you for being here. And Harold Wallace. Thank you for being here. And thank you for taking this on. As the Chancellor said, these are generous people to take on yet another task force. And I appreciate that.

The second group will be the task force on women at Carolina. This task force actually was initiated by students, who came and said, we think there are a lot of programs for women on campus, but we don’t know what they are. And there’s not effective communication about what we’re already doing for women students, and we’ve learned also as we’ve thought about it, for faculty and staff as well. So this task force is also designed to look at what we’re already doing, to come up with an inventory of what we’re already doing, and begin to look at how we might more effectively communicate it, and coordinate our activities. And look for, if there’s something missing, what else we need to be doing. And Noelle Granger, who’s here from the School of Medicine, and Barbara DeLon — is she here? No. — are the co-chairs of that task force. Thank you very much, Noelle. These are both called task forces so that they do have an ending point. They are not on-going committees. Noelle said, yes, thank you very much. And so we’ve gotten some excellent people to be on these task forces. I’m sure they will also be open to any suggestions and comments from everyone about how they’re moving on those important issues.

IV. Resolution of Gratitude: Jane D. Brown.

I’ll end on a more somber note. I wanted to say somewhat personally I found the beginning of this year one that reminds me of our mortality, the fragile nature of human being. On New Year’s Eve I learned of the death of a former student. She’s a young mother of two who died of cancer. Shortly afterward the University community learned of the untimely death of our first African-American student body president, Richard James Epps, Jr., of Wilmington, North Carolina. And then we, and the nation, were shocked by the shooting of Kevin Reichardt and Ralph Walker on Henderson Street. We respond in different ways to the loss of our friends, leaders, and to violence. Sometimes it takes a while to fully comprehend what has happened. I found in the case of the Henderson Street shooting that I didn’t understand how significantly that would affect us. And I was heartened to then see how others here and in Chapel Hill responded both as the shooting occurred and afterward.

The resolution of gratitude offered today is to thank those people and organizations for their quick, appropriate, and caring response to that tragedy. So I’d like to offer that resolution of gratitude at this point. Do I need a second for that? And do the whole thing? And George will read that. I think that would be appropriate at this point.

Professor Lensing: I believe that you all got a copy of the resolution in your mailing.

In response to the tragedy that claimed two lives on Henderson Street on the afternoon of January 26, 1995, many persons in the University community responded with extraordinary dedication, sensitivity, and courage. William C. Leone, a senior undergraduate, put himself in the line of fire and sustained an injury in a courageous move to intercept the assailant. The University Police, working with the Chapel Hill Police Department, acted decisively and at personal risk to terminate the violence.

The Division of Student Affairs, under the leadership of Interim Vice-Chancellor Edith M. Wiggins, offered immediate care and professional service in the hours and days following the tragedy. The Office of the Dean of Students, the Office of Greek Affairs, the University Counseling Center, and the Student Psychological Services and Health Education of the Student Health Services performed invaluable services for the benefit of students and others.

We, the Faculty Council, taking note of the high level of humanitarian response to which these many persons lifted our community at a time of trauma and distress, hereby resolve to extend to them and all contributing parties our formal acknowledgement and gratitude.

Professor Lensing: And if I may, I may invite a motion from the floor for approval of the resolution. Professor Brown: Is there a second? All those in favor? Thank you very much. [The resolution was adopted unanimously.] Professor Brown: I’m sorry; I didn’t ask for any discussion. If you’d like to discuss that, any comment on that. Thank you. The Dean of Students also reminds us that such incidents often have long-term consequences and that we should offer support to our students who may still have, be suffering from that. Thank you. Now, to our three committee reports.

V. Annual Reports of Standing Committees:

A. Administrative Board of the Library: R. Ann Dunbar, Chair.

Professor Dunbar: Good afternoon. When this final report of this annual report was written a couple of months ago we hadn’t heard some of the momentous budget proposals that we’ve heard about in recent weeks and most eloquently this afternoon from Chancellor Hardin. I would like to just say, “Amen to that!” and make two comments, fairly brief, that can emerge somewhat from the body of the report and then return to the conclusion of the report. If we look at the nature of funding and the nature of the proposed cuts, the library, which serves all departments and all schools across the campus, is particularly vulnerable. Like other university units who rely primarily on EPA non-faculty and SPA positions which were not exempted from the Governor’s proposals, it will be especially affected by cuts of the magnitude envisioned.

And the second point is one can allow me to call your attention to two attachments in the report, attachments one and three, specifically to the propositions of non-recurring, one-time funds, and to the recent increased cost of serials. Any of you who have been associated with book budgets in your own departments or served on the Administrative Board of the Library over the last several years know of the virtually astronomical increases in serial costs. Even since this report was written, more recent projections of serial cost increases for the coming year are as high as 13%. These increases are coupled with the amount of the budget that in recent years has been increased, but increased by one-time funding. And no guarantee that these one-time funds will be increased or be maintained. Plus any further projected funds is going to significantly cut into the library’s capacity to maintain, much less to improve, the quality of its work, and of the work that underlines all of the work that the library does. With this in mind, the Administrative Board, together with the library staff, have already begun to develop a process which will reach your desks before long, requesting that all departments identify serials constituting 20% of their serials budgets, that if necessary, will be cancelled. If necessary because of the implementation cuts or the non-restoral of non-recurring money. These serial cuts and the personnel consequences of the proposed budget cuts will in the very near future then affect all of us, both students and faculty, at the institution. And together with personnel, even deeper.

With that, I would simply like to turn to the last paragraph in the report and read a few of the last phrases to try to lend support to Chancellor Hardin’s eloquent speech here this afternoon. “…the Board wishes to remind our faculty and student colleagues, public officials, and the citizens of North Carolina of the fundamental contribution the Library at The University of North Carolina makes to the quality of research and training in both the public and private sectors of the state. The development of its physical and human resources must be sustained. The Administrative Board will continue to work with all concerned to devise internal strategies that will result in more effective use of monies available; we call on all Library users to be attentive to these issues and to share with us ideas that will further such efforts. The obligation to insure appropriate and continuing funding levels from all available sources remains a challenge we must not ignore.” Thank you. If there are any questions, I’ll try to answer them, or the Librarian, Joseph Hewitt, and the Senior Associate Librarian, Larry Alford, are here to give you further information.

Professor Richard Pfaff (History): It’s understandable and good strategy to emphasize the obligation we have to the citizens of North Carolina. But we also have an obligation to the community of learning, and this is an area where the cancellation of serials which are really fast breaking … sort of casual imperative of universities and everyone — all our peer institutions cancel all their serials and have document delivery. … So I hope we can remember the expression about library funding. Professor Dunbar: I hope I included the community of learning in the faculty and students.

Professor Bayne: I don’t want to see any journals cut in the library. I just want to find ways to come up with more money. The problem you’re dealing with though in the last two weeks which is going to also have some impact on long-range planning is that there’s a paper shortage in the United States. The cost of printing journals is going to go up dramatically. Printers that I’m working with in six journals have already asked for 30% increase in prices immediately, which might translate into a 20% increase in your costs in this next year. So, between increased costs there and a 20% cutback, we’re talking about a major change in our collection. I don’t know what the answer is, but we’ve been struggling with this now for three or four years. Professor Dunbar: For longer than that because one of the things that I didn’t mention here is that many of you will remember that in the mid 80’s we already cut 10% of serials. And for the first time — I mean one of the things we had to celebrate here in this report, however brief in its celebration, was that we had for the first time in seven years been able to offer new money for the purchase of new serials as opposed to relying only on cancellations. The effect of these proposals will virtually eliminate that. Professor Bayne: Unfortunately I don’t come to this discussion with any answers just enthusiasm, but I guess what I’m really worried about is if we wait another year to try to implement any action plans — it seems to me that this is a really critical issue and it would be nice to have some feedback in three months, Jane. Has this committee, and maybe even — Professor Dunbar: What kind of feedback? Professor Bayne: Well, trying to come up with some creative, long-range strategy because I think it’s just going to continually get worse if we don’t find a constant source of funds that will keep up with the need. We’re going to have to look at an alternative that’s acceptable to our faculty. Because as far as I’m concerned, we can cut everything else a little bit, but I really don’t want to cut the library. To me that is the most critical resource that I depend on absolutely every day. So I would feel like I was disenfranchised at everything I was trying to accomplish — teaching, research, whatever, as that diminishes. Professor Dunbar: This is an issue I would say that has been the subject of discussion and of reflection of virtually every meeting this year, and to some extent the meetings last year when I was also a member. I wondered — I would like to invite either Joe or Larry, if they would like to say anything in that regard.

Dr. Joe Hewitt (Director, Academic Affairs Library): Well we recognize that it’s a, an increase in the cost of scholarly communication is a long-term problem, and we don’t see without a fairly fundamental change in the way scholars communicate. And one of the problems, as many of you may know, is that commercial publishers have a very large stake in publishing scientific and professional journals in particular. And they are making very great profits from this publishing. The academic community turns over, the scholars like you, turn over your copyrights to those articles for nothing, free, and then they’re sold back to the University at very great costs. It’s not uncommon for us to subscribe to scientific journals for $2,000 or $3,000 a year for a quarterly, that may total 1,500 to 2,000 pages. And it’s a systemic problem in scholarly communication in my opinion, and what we’re doing now are simple coping strategies. But we have to continue as best we can until there’s some kind of long-term solution.

Professor Bayne: Just a follow-up question. One of the things I never understood, and in some cases it benefitted me, but an institutional subscription to a journal is often two to three times the cost of an individual subscription to a journal. What’s the rationale for that? Dr. Hewitt: The rationale from the publisher’s point of view is that a subscription to a library is used by many people and is a shared resource for the entire community. And they feel that that is something that is cutting into the market for individual subscriptions. But in fact it’s not, because nobody is wanting to pay the cost from their own pocket for the journals. But that is the strategy.

Professor Michael Salemi (Economics): This is a standard economic strategy, when you can divide your purchases into two groups: one group which really cannot afford to substitute away from the product and one that can. It’s the same thing with airline tickets. Business travelers are charged higher — Professor Bayne: That’s what I was thinking of when I asked the question. Professor Salemi: That is the answer.

Professor Dunbar: And I might add that it’s also expanding now to the electronic media, where you’re either required to purchase both the print and the electronic form or the licensing arrangements for the electronic media are an additional expense, not a supplement or not a compensatory expense.

Professor Howard Reisner (Pathology): I was glad to note your mentioning the contributions our library makes to the private sector of this state and perhaps also other states. Those of us who work late afternoons will see representatives from many of our local companies in our libraries using our resources — quite appropriately. I wonder how much of an effort has been made to see whether those members of the private sector might not help us and by doing so help themselves. Professor Dunbar: Among some of the strategies that we’ve been considering recently are the development of another kind of packet of information both about the good things that are going on, but also in particular what the consequences across the board may be for the state. Chancellor Hardin: Let’s don’t lose that last idea. Not just in terms of an appeal to a particular corporate friend to give us a gift, but what about some organized effort to get the corporations of North Carolina, particularly the Triangle area, who use our resources, particularly this is justified now that we’re [busy giving them?] so much, and the information highway is going to make this available throughout the state, to help us maintain a superb research library here. And an organized consortium of some sort. I just think this needs to be pursued. Professor Brown: Are you already working with the Development Office? Do they work with you in planning? Professor Dunbar: Yes. Dr. Hewitt: Yes. The Library overshot its goal for the Bicentennial campaign. It raised $12 million. I forgot the goal — $10 million. Mostly from the private sector. Now the whole corporate sector is something that we haven’t developed, cultivated, to the extent that I think we should. And we would want to work with central Development to try to get some programs going in that direction. Professor Dunbar: But there is someone working with the Library. Michelle? Professor Brown: Thank you.

B. Black Faculty: George W. Noblit, Chair.

Thank you. Those of you who have the report in front of you let me thank Provost McCormick’s office, and Vicky Gless in particular, for helping us correct our arithmetic. Actually, I’ll say “helping” — we’re still in the helping process here because the data bases on campus don’t agree, so I’m going to give you the numbers that we think are now correct, and you’ll get an adjustment in the report when we finally shake down how all our different numbers are different. The numbers we’ll work with now — we’ve increased the number of black faculty in Academic Affairs from 36 to 47, in Health Affairs, from 12 to 15. Like I say, you’ll get an update, a weekly update, on how we juggle our data bases to get these. The important thing, though, is that the conclusions remain the same. Last year we reported that we were doing better, in fact, in black faculty recruitment than we ever had, and this year we’re doing even better than that. The Committee on Black Faculty is heartened by these and commends the faculty for their efforts. We encourage, of course, a redoubling of our efforts. We’re still only at somewhere like 4, 4-1/2% of our faculty are black in a state that could support 4 to 5 times that in the demographic sense. We also, three years ago, started tracking graduate student admissions, figuring, consistent with the earlier notion to the task force, to try and increase the pool of potential black faculty. This year we’ve had a doubling of black Master’s students, from 135 last year, to 277 this year. That’s wonderful. At the doctoral level we’ve had a decrease, from 154 to 129. The Committee thinks this is a pipeline problem. If we have Master’s students, this should shake out in the future. But it’s worth worrying about. But we’re heartened by the number of black Master students that we’ve been able to recruit. You can read the report for yourself. There are some things the Committee is clear about. One is that this University has to be explicit about [the] admission for diversity. And two, that the people who make decisions in the University need to have evaluation criteria related to them. And we would encourage that the University to consider both of those endeavors. We also think the pre- and post-doc minority fellowship programs need a lot more funding and a lot more attention. We have excellent young scholars in those programs, and we need to build on that. Finally, I wanted to just end with thanking the faculty for their concern and efforts in this regard. Since I’ve been on the Committee on Black Faculty oh lo these many years we’ve gone from not much action to action to be happy about. Thank you.

Professor Brown: George, I know you’re stepping down as Chair of the Committee, and I appreciate your long years of service on the Committee. Professor Noblit: Thank you. Professor Brown: Any comments for George? Thank you very much.

C. Faculty Welfare: James L. Murphy, Chair.

Professor Murphy: The Faculty Welfare Committee report you have. The report specifies a little on the operations of the Committee within its prescribed purposes. One of these is communication to faculty on the status of our salaries and benefits. Another is to work on improvements in benefits. I’ll start with the first. The Committee report says that salaries are below what we need, and were improving somewhat the last year or so, and that our benefits are relatively far below what we need and have not been changing much.

The Committee has asked that I make a little bit more statement about the salaries since we have some new information. And on the matter of salaries, we all know that our faculty are very active and give a top 20 performance year after year. We think this brings a measure of recognition and status to the state, and we sort of take for granted that some reasonable salary increases will therefore follow. Rather, each year this seems to be threatened. And so on behalf of the Faculty Welfare Committee and if other faculty wish to go on record as supporting the Board of Governors’ request for faculty salaries, to say that we are disappointed with the recently announced 2% proposed salary increase. Relatively such an increase would move us lower in our competitive position, a position that’s already below that which is needed to maintain a high national and international ranking in higher education for this University and this state. Professor Brown: Do you want to move that? Professor Murphy: It’s just a….

On the matter of benefits, the Faculty Welfare Committee is a bit frustrated that our employer contributions to our fringe benefits package continues to be funded at only about two-thirds the average level of employer funding for benefits at peer institutions. This has been true for a decade at least. The frustration comes from being unable to get attention focused on the many needs for improvements in benefits when almost annually we must address the primary need again and again of gaining even an average salary increase relative to our peers. I guess I would say to the people across the state, if we had the opportunity, to our public officials, elected representatives, an erosion of reputation can occur much more swiftly than what can be earned, or that it can be recreated once lost. For better or for worse, but being realistic, the reputation and ranking of the University depends crucially on the ranking of its faculty, of their teaching and their research. And ultimately the value of every degree granted by this University depends on that reputation and ranking. There are many persons across this state that own such a degree, themselves or someone in their family, and I believe they should take notice of what can happen if this trend were to go on. They want a degree that people can be proud of, that’s respected when it’s evaluated by others throughout their life. So they should not want, and they cannot afford, to underfund this University, its faculty, and its staff. The risk would just be too great.

Now back to the report that we have at hand, although it’s even a little bit out of date on the 25 or more specific points that the Committee has considered over the past year. These are not exhaustive. We’ve still been working since mid December, and there are some other little things we could talk about that will be on next year’s report I presume. The Committee itself does not accomplish much, but it does encourage and thank those who do. Regarding the activity of the Committee, we would appreciate your comments on any of these items or questions, where to focus our resources since sometimes we think spinning wheels isn’t worth it, and we noted that on the items, if that was the result we came to. You may have some comments on what issues should be studied, or maybe how to have some more direct influence on things that are needed. So I will leave that open to questions and comments.

Professor Brown: You deal with a wide variety of topics. Professor Murphy: Yes we do. Professor Brown: Are there priorities you’ve set for the Committee in the coming year, anything that you would need our support on? Professor Murphy: The Committee is continuing to look at those that were sort of open-ended on that last schedule, some leave considerations, overall sabbatical program, family leave problems, some careful, some little details on what it means to have a half-year leave — is that really a semester or is that six months? And things of that sort that we will continue to pursue. And there’s always a myriad of benefit things, from the health — and we try to keep up with what’s happening on behalf of the faculty, but we could use your input when you have something to provide us. We’re very happy to receive it. In closing I should also thank the — we were grateful for the expertise and determination of Kitty McCollum, the Benefits Officer down at General Administration. She really acts wonderfully on our behalf and for the whole system now. And also the benefits officers on our campus. Thank you. Professor Brown: Thank you.

VI. Resolutions Concerning Basketball Tickets: Ronald C. Link.

Professor Brown: Okay. The item I have been dreading. Well, Congress has to talk about baseball. I guess we have to talk about basketball. Does everybody have a copy of these resolutions? What I’d like to do is to ask Ron to introduce them individually. We’ll do the first on, Resolution #1, and then Resolution #2. After Ron introduces the Resolution, I want to say a few words about clarifying, or adding some more data to this mix, and I would also ask us all to keep this conversation civil and as short as possible. So, Ron, if you’d like to introduce this first resolution.

Professor Ron Link (Law): Thanks, Jane. I think Carolina basketball is more important than major league baseball. And I hope this group is more intelligent, and I think it is, than the Congress. Perhaps it’s serendipity that after Jim’s report, I turn to a topic that for many of us compensates for the poor fringes, namely Carolina basketball tickets. So I have, as Jane says, two resolutions to offer for your consideration. This, of course, seems to be a favorite topic in the newspapers — faculty basketball tickets. I hope the press won’t sensationalize our debate, but if the press does, at least we’ve gotten Newt Gingrich off the first page. But the press would do well to concentrate on the Chancellor’s courageous statement. I’m confident we can deal with tickets in a civil manner. I do thank you, Jane, and you all for allowing me to have my day in court.

I make no apology for bringing the matter of basketball tickets to the Faculty Council. One of the underlying premises of these resolutions is that Carolina basketball is important. Basketball is played with the grace of a Walter Davis, the poise of a Phil Ford, the quiet intensity of a Bobby Jones, the brilliance of a Michael Jordan, the strength of an Eric Montross, the leadership of a George Lynch. Basketball as coached with the genius of a Dean Smith is an incomparable experience. Carolina basketball is one of the magical ties that bind us to this place and to each other. In Chapel Hill four corners is a mythic universe not a mere geographical location.

Let us consider the resolutions separately. The first one concerns implementation of the new faculty-staff ticket policy. And the first page of the resolution describes the legislative intent of the Faculty Council, which clearly was to protect existing faculty ticket holders from the new formula. However, the formula was applied retroactively to the great disadvantage of some and the aggravation of many. I also included on the table some materials regarding the resolutions if you want the precise language of the October 1993 resolution and the February 1994 resolution. And on the back if you want to see where the faculty-staff seats are located. The February 1994 resolution of the Council recognized one of the key premises of law and life: namely that reasonable expectations should be protected. After all, what’s tenure, but the reasonable expectation that if one does her job well, she will not lose it for some arbitrary reason. Mr. Justice Holmes put it somewhat differently in a letter to William James: “Man, like a tree in a cleft of a rock, gradually shapes his roots to his surroundings. And when the roots have grown to a certain size, cannot be displaced without cutting at his life.” Now how did this September group, intelligent people acting in good faith, friends, misapply the February resolution? I think what happened was this: The September group badly wanted to draw to a close Faculty Council consideration of the basketball ticket formula, which in the view of many had damaged faculty-staff relations. They apparently forgot the February 1994 discussion and adopted the plausible theory that the retroactivity language was an inadvertent carryover from the first offering of the resolution at the October 15, 1993 Faculty Council meeting. However, as I pointed out when I first raised the retroactivity issue last fall, apparently nobody in the September group actually went back and read the October 1993 resolution. I did. There’s nothing in it concerning retroactivity. So the retroactivity language was added sometime over the winter of 1993-94, and it had to mean exactly what Towny Ludington, the Chair of the Faculty Athletics Committee, told the Council it meant. People were not supposed to get zapped by the new formula. I might mention Mike Salemi played a key role in that February 1994 discussion, and he met with the September group. I think his term as a member of the Council has expired, but he’s kindly consented to be here today to answer any questions you might have about his thinking. Now I expect that proponents of the September group will not advance their original rationale again today. But let me say that you’re going to hear some very intelligent, very sincere arguments that the group carried out the intent of the Faculty Council. But those arguments must yield if the keeping of minutes is to have any meaning. So I would conclude with these points: 1) Basketball tickets are important, if not to you personally, I assure you that they matter to many of your colleagues. 2) The February 1994 minutes are clear. And 3) Reasonable expectations should be protected as the Faculty Council wisely intended. So I move, as the second page of Resolution #1 says, “That the Council reaffirms its original resolution and resolves that the new ticket formula be administered [in 1995-96 and thereafter in accordance with the February 1994 resolution that existing ticket holders as of 1993-94 not be disadvantaged by the new formula.] in the future in accordance with the intention of the Council.” Thanks, Jane.

Professor Brown: The reason the Agenda Committee agreed to have this come back to Council is that we agree there is some ambiguity about the word “retroactivity.” And that’s what this debate about the first resolution should focus on. As Ron suggested, reasonable people interpreted that in two different ways. The people who administered the ticket policy interpreted it to mean that rank would be taken out of the formula for the duration. And that it wouldn’t be applied in that year’s ticket allocations. Now that’s a little crazy because there weren’t any more ticket allocations to be done that year. So that was kind of silly. But the ticket office, and more importantly, the Employee Forum, both interpreted that resolution to mean that rank was going to get taken out of the formula and from hence on everybody, the formula that was to be applied did not include rank. And if people had benefitted from rank in the past, they would not benefit now. They would benefit only from two criteria: how long they had ordered tickets and how long they had worked at the University. And that’s the other major point here. As some of you will remember, what this conversation turned into last time was a significant conversation about whether the faculty are going to show respect for staff. And that is the context in which we debated this at the last meeting. For three meetings we have debated this. And so what I would encourage you to do is to remember that. That this isn’t only about basketball tickets. This is about how faculty want to treat staff. And do we want to give them the same opportunity to enjoy the pleasures of basketball that we enjoy? The other thing that I did was to ask the ticket manager to look into how the allocation of tickets did affect faculty and staff this year. It was done without rank in the formula. The people most upset are those people who were moved from downstairs to upstairs. And part of the problem that that’s so upsetting is because when you move from downstairs to upstairs, you don’t go right to the mezzanine, to that nice place where you sit right on the edge like that. You get moved beyond that. So you move rather dramatically back upstairs. That affected 19 people as far as we can tell. Now 19 people out of 3600 tickets allocated, were significantly affected in that way, moving from downstairs to upstairs. There was other movement this year, more than usual. But every year there is some movement because, as I have learned, the technical details of this. Every year tickets are allocated in blocks of seats, so people who have the same priority score are randomly allocated in blocks of seats. So you may move two rows up or down, or 8 seats over. I’ve had comment from people who are very upset because they moved 8 seats over. Well. So. Okay. So that’s the information I have right now that may help us in this conversation. The other thing I want to mention, though, is that the other thing that has occurred in the meantime since this debate all began, is that the Employee Forum is fundamentally involved in this conversation. And if we vote in favor of Ron’s resolution, that resolution will have to go back to Employee Forum or to a new committee to reinvestigate this whole thing. Because the Employee Forum has to have say in this. Because we cannot, as faculty, be saying how staff’s tickets should be allocated. And we agreed to that last time. So, let’s keep all that in mind. So now I’ll open conversation about this.

Professor Brown: I’m sorry, yes, the resolution should be seconded. Does anyone want to second the resolution? Seconded by Carl Bose.

Professor Harry Gooder (Microbiology): I’m going to make some general comments, not only about this resolution but the succeeding one so as to save time. Opinions differ as to what Nero, a Roman emperor was doing when Rome burned. My colleagues have made it sure that I knew what they felt we should be doing at Faculty Council under the circumstances described by the Chancellor in his remarks this afternoon. And what we’re doing now is not high on the list. I must admit that over the last decade I’ve probably spent more time than anyone in this room in debates on athletic policy, operations of the Smith Center, Kenan Stadium, financial support of athletes, and so on, including chairing two special open-ended meetings which went on for hours. Much of the debate that’s occurred in the past has been more emotional than logical. I would hope we can only encompass new ideas this afternoon that weren’t raised last year or the year before or the year before that. And as such, I suggest, no, I will propose, that the discussion on each of the resolutions of Professor Link in item # VI be limited to ten minutes each, so as to keep the discussion within reasonable bounds. Professor Brown: So you’re moving that we limit the time of debate? Professor Gooder: In other words, an automatic question after ten minutes of discussion on each of the resolutions. And that will need a two-thirds majority. Professor Brown: Okay. That’s seconded by John Halton. And I understand we need a two-thirds vote to limit debate to ten minutes on each of the resolutions. Any discussion? No, we don’t need discussion on that. Only a two-thirds vote. Are we willing to limit the debate to ten minutes on the first resolution and then the second resolution? All of those in favor, say aye. Any opposed? I think that’s a two-thirds. Okay. Great. So, George, will you keep time, ten minutes.

Professor Charles Paull (Geology): When you asked earlier this year to speak with our colleagues, I went out and spoke to 20 colleagues. And 12 of them expressed considerable disgust at the proportion of effort that this body expends on basketball tickets. And I am just passing on the disgust that exists in the community that this is a topic that is being discussed here, and I personally would like to call this measure for a vote. Professor Brown: Right now? (Unidentified speaker): Right now. [applause] There’s been a call for the question. A second. Any discussion of that? No, we vote on that, don’t we? Let’s vote on calling the question at this point. All those in favor of calling the question. All those opposed. I think it carries. That needs only a majority. Okay, great. So now we’re going to vote on the resolution. On Ron’s resolution. If we vote for it, let me get this straight, I’m too nervous. If we vote for it, the people who had rank keep their rank in the future. If we vote against it, we apply it retroactively and we take rank out of the formula. As it was applied this year. Okay.

Professor Bayne: Clarify that, Jane. Voting against the motion leaves in place the existing system. Professor Brown: What we are doing this year. Right. (Unidentified speaker): Priority, not rank. Professor John Halton (Computer Science): A point of information. If we vote for this motion, does it not mean that only the people who could have had rank applied in the past could continue to do so? Not anyone new. Professor Brown: That’s right. Professor Halton: So, just to clarify that. It means we move from the rank system slowly to the unranked system, rather than in steps? Professor Brown: No. It means we take rank out. If we vote for, yes, then it moves much more slowly, because the people who have rank, who had rank last year, keep their rank in. Professor Halton: You mean if you didn’t buy tickets last year then you go into the new system? Professor Brown: That’s part of the problem. We don’t know. Professor Halton: You don’t know? How could we vote for something we don’t—-Professor Brown: The way the resolution reads was it’s where you had rank, it’s those people who had rank, they keep their rank. That’s how it’s reading. Professor Link: In Towny’s immortal phrase, people who had tickets in the past were not supposed to get zapped. Professor Brown: And so if you didn’t order tickets last year you would be under the new system. (Unidentified speaker): So those 19 people who were moved to the upper deck under the current policy would be returned to their seats of power? Professor Brown: If you vote for Ron’s resolution. (Unidentified speaker): Point of clarification. Professor Michael Salemi (Economics): Not necessarily. Point of information — may I? One of the reasons that I myself decided that I would not pursue this further was because in my own mind at that September meeting I couldn’t figure out — there were two things that were done that last year. There was an extra benefit accorded to the emeritus faculty, which is not even under discussion here. And I couldn’t in my own mind ever separate out the effect of being more generous to our emeritus faculty, how much of that generosity explained the shift, and how much of the formula explained the shift. I had no way to do it. So, it’s not clear. Professor Brown: Okay, where are we? (Unidentified speaker): Point of order. Professor Brown: That’s where it was. Professor Paul Farel (Physiology): Well, points of information are usually requests for information, rather than conveying information. The question’s been called.

Professor Brown: The question’s been called. We’re going to vote on it. We’re just trying to be clear about what we’re voting on. Okay. So. If we vote for Ron’s resolution, we are voting for those people who benefitted from having rank in the formula. They get to keep that benefit. It slows the process down of allowing people to move around, of allowing staff more opportunity. If we vote against his resolution, it takes rank out. It takes rank out from those people who had rank in before. It uses the policy that was done this year. It speeds up the process. Got it? Okay, great. This is the vote. All those in favor of Ron’s resolution, say aye. All those opposed to Ron’s resolution, say nay. I think it doesn’t carry. Great, Ron. Now your second resolution.

Professor Link: Harry, I’d like to say I agree with what you say. I agree with what the gentleman further back said. The Faculty Council spends altogether too much time on this issue. I think it’s because of matters addressed in the second resolution, which describes how over time there has been a progressive deterioration of the faculty seats in the Smith Center, particularly as donors were accommodated. That first page of the second resolution is not hearsay. Most of it’s documented in the 1994 report of the Faculty Athletics Committee. Do you realize, for example, there are no faculty seats between the base lines in the lower level, even in the last row, 30? Most of the best faculty seats in the Smith Center are farther from the court than the worst faculty seats in Carmichael. In the upper level at mid court the faculty seats do not start until about the 18th row. And even in the end zone of the upper level they don’t start until about the 8th row. Carolina, a college team which plays 13 home games, has more 9:00 p.m. home games, three this year than an NBA team, the Charlotte Hornets, which plays 41 home games, none starting later than 8:00. This is not an attack on the administration of the Athletics Department. I think Carolina is the best run program in Division 1. Perhaps the Department, however, is too astute. Why? The reason is that all our debates about ticket formulas are really a diversion. The real question is not the location within the pool of tickets but rather the location of the pool itself. And this will be a constant problem until something is improved. The best seat in the nosebleed section is still in the nosebleed section. The Athletics Department quite skillfully diverts attention by saying it merely administers the ticket policy set by the Council. The real question, what seats are available to faculty and staff, is made in camera by the Department. We’ll continue to squabble about ticket formulas until something long range is done to get some fair allocation of seats. And the second resolution’s an attempt to get something started. You’ll note it deals only with improving faculty seats in the Smith Center. That’s a knowing choice. In my view the history shows that all other groups have been able to fend for themselves. On the other hand if the Council wants to amend the resolution to include also the improvement for example of student seating I really would have no objection. After all, as a former president was fond of saying, “A rising tide lifts all boats.” Here’s an interesting juxtaposition. Article I, Section 33 of the North Carolina Constitution: “No hereditary emoluments, privileges, or honors shall be granted or conferred in this state.” Article I, Section 34: “Perpetuities and monopolies are contrary to the genius of a free state and shall not be allowed.” Juxtapose those provisions with the fund raising literature for the Smith Center, and I quote: “List of perquisites: the right to purchase season tickets, amount of gift, $10,000 or more. Additional conditions: forever. Questions and answers relating to the building fund: 14. Question: What does forever mean? Answer: In perpetuity.” In other words, the constitutional question is not frivolous. Why do I take your time and mine to make these points? I will confess. I joined the faculty in 1971. My seat in Carmichael that year was in the 15th row. Now after 24 years on the faculty, 23 years of ordering tickets, I’m in what is effectively the 41st row. In other words, for each year of loyalty I’ve been rewarded by being moved back another row. I move the second resolution. [laughter] Professor Brown: Is there a second to this resolution? Barry seconds the resolution.

Professor Bayne: Point of order, Jane. Do we advise the Athletic Department or do we micro-manage and state how the policy should be? What is the real action? We’re advisory, aren’t we? Professor Brown: Jack, is there a member of the Athletics Committee here? It’s a broad charge to the Faculty Committee on Athletics. Jack, would you want to comment on that, who’s on the Committee now. Professor Jack Evans (Business): I don’t know whether I can be responsive to that question. I think we view the role of the Faculty Committee on Athletics as advisory to the Chancellor and to the Director of Athletics. Professor Gooder: That’s according to The Code [The Faculty Code of University Government]. Professor Brown: So it’s advisory to the Chancellor and to the Athletics Department.

Professor Paul Farel (Physiology): I’d like to offer what I hope to be friendly amendments, and that is in the spirit of what Jane said about the increasing spirit of cooperation between faculty and staff. I’d like to suggest that this resolution be altered such that the first sentence read, “The Athletics Committee, in consultation with the Staff Forum, is directed …” Now all the rest, is just to consider, it’s not asking for any action, so that every place in paragraphs 1, 4a, 4b, 4c, and 5, where it says “faculty” that the words “and staff” be amended. Professor Brown: So the Athletics Committee, in consultation with the Employee Forum, is directed:” And that everywhere where it says “Faculty” to do “Faculty/Staff”. Professor Farel: Yes. Is there a second to that amendment? Thank you. Any further discussion on that amendment? It looks like you’re ready to vote. All those in favor of the amendment say aye. All those opposed. Okay, great. So it’s amended. So now we’re going to discuss the amended resolution. So it says, includes the Employee Forum and Faculty/staff now. And we’re going to have ten minutes of discussion about this, if that much.

Professor Barry Lentz (Biochemistry): While I support the intent of this, I have a question whether the Athletic Committee should be the body engaged in this activity. It seems to me that the Athletic Committee’s role at the University should be to protect the academic mission of the University from intrusion by too much athletics. And this is more an issue of negotiation between the faculty and the staff and the athletic establishment about how things are done. And I’d like to comment about what you said before. I agree that the faculty should be appreciative of the staff and the incredible work that they do in support of this University, and that why I think it’s appropriate that staff have an equal shot at tickets. What I think is not right is the way the faculty is treated by the athletic establishment. The faculty is the lifeblood of this Institution, and that’s what’s behind the feelings of the faculty when we’re put in the nosebleed section of the Smith Center. And so I think we should engage in negotiations with the athletic establishment to rectify that situation. But I don’t think the Athletics Committee is the body to do that.

Professor Henry Hsiao (Biomedical Engineering): I think the students are the lifeblood of the Institution. Professor Brown: The students are the lifeblood? Professor Hsiao: I think the students, that the students should be placed ahead of the faculty — but not too far ahead. A couple of points. Just a matter of information. I did a preliminary count, and about 1/7 of the good seats in the coliseum are for students, 1/7. And that includes the band. Another piece of information. If you look at where the faculty seats are in the lower level, and walk through them, you’ll find that 50%, 30 to 50%, are not occupied by those faculty members. The tickets are given to other people. Another point. I think that the retired faculty would also benefit greatly if they are allowed to park in the F lot. There are empty spots in that lot. I think that would be a very nice benefit that someone might consider adding to that. But as to the resolution I think my personal point is that I would support this resolution with respect to student rights. I think those are the rights that have been sold out. Professor Brown: But that’s not said in this resolution. That’s not in this resolution. I mean this speaks to — they’ve gotten the seats and we haven’t, it looks to me. Professor Hsiao: Well perhaps if this was addressed, maybe that issue would be raised. Professor Brown: Okay.

Professor Brown: Anyone else want to speak for or against the resolution? Professor Reisner: There seems to be a certain inconsistency between the first direction and the second. The first direction appears to ask that when an Educational Foundation donor dies, then that person’s seat be returned to the pool. The second seems to imply that an Educational Foundation donor has the right to pass that seat on to the third generation. I think hereditary things generally extend beyond one’s life, and, therefore, the first and second directions are really not consistent. This is really not a consistent resolution. I’d also like to suggest considering the issues of true gravity that we really do limit this, and I would like to call a vote on this issue. Professor Brown: Okay. Do we vote on the question? So the question has been called. All those in favor of calling the question say aye. All those opposed. Okay, we’re going to vote on the question. So we’ll vote on the amended resolution and that includes “in consultation with the Employee Forum” and “faculty and staff.” All those in favor of the motion, say aye. All those opposed to the motion say nay. Whew. Okay, let’s count. Okay, we’re going to count. Only Faculty Council members. All right. All those in favor of the resolution raise your hand. (Unidentified speaker): This is the amendment? Professor Brown: No. We already passed the amendment. All those in favor of the amended resolution raise your hands. Professor Bayne: Jane, the three of you need to vote as well. Professor Brown: We do? 14 + 10. Okay, and all those against the amended resolution, raise your hands. 15. So we don’t need to count. So the second resolution passes. Okay, great. Thank you very much. That was civil. And short.

Chancellor Hardin: May I make a comment? I was determined never to speak to this crew. I don’t know exactly what happens to old chancellors, but probably, Ron, I will move farther back in one year than you did in your entire career. [laughter] Professor Salemi: You may want to swap. Chancellor: But probably I won’t be in the nosebleed section. But if I am, as long as I can climb the steps, I’ll go. The other comment is whatever happens to me, I recommend that all of you learn your way back to Carmichael, and watch the women’s team. [applause]

Professor Philip Bromberg (Medicine): When I keep on hearing about nosebleeds, I’m wondering whether I shouldn’t set up a little business on the side to medically certify that there are members of the faculty, and others, who, for physical reasons, cannot go up to the nosebleed section and have to be seated in a more appropriate— [laughter]. Chancellor: You might need a lawyer to evaluate all that.

Professor Brown: I want to apologize to Rachel Windham. I introduced her earlier as Rebecca Wilder. They’re both in the School of Dentistry and both serve on many committees, and so I’m very sorry. Thank you. Ms. Windham: It’s a nice compliment. Professor Brown: We now have a short presentation by Mary Morrison about the A.P.P.L.E.S. Program.

VII. Old or New Business:

A. A.P.P.L.E.S. Program: Mary Fanning Morrison, Service Learning Coordinator.

Ms. Morrison: I fully appreciate that I’m standing between you and picking up your children and starting your weekends, so I want to be brief. Thank you for the opportunity to talk with you a moment about a student organized group on campus called A.P.P.L.E.S., Assisting People in Planning Learning Experiences and Service. And I want to personally invite you to a faculty information meeting, you and the people that you represent, next Friday at 2:00 at the Frank Porter Graham Lounge, to talk about the possibility of incorporating community service into your classes and into your curriculum. Meaningful, important community service that can truly enhance your students’ learning and appreciation for their surrounding community. As a person who’s just come to campus for a month, I’ve spent the last 17 years out and about in Orange County in public service. I know that there are tremendous needs out there. And, Chancellor Hardin, based on some of your comments, I just urge you all to let your students be your ambassadors. Not only in Orange County, but Chatham, Durham, and Alamance. As I pass out these flyers that I hope that you’ll share with your fellow faculty members, I’d like Rachel Willis (Economics), who’s taught several APPLES courses, to share with you the benefits to faculty when you engage in service learning as well as to the students that you’re teaching.

Professor Willis: I want to say thank you, and I have a day care [time] coming up real quick, so I’m going to do three times three, or three to the third power of things real fast. I’m going to draw on three things — you’re all totally familiar with them: the Bicentennial, the reaccreditation, and the public service roundtable. I’m going to identify the three parties that absolutely have to participate for this service learning to be effective and successful, and then I’m going to detail the three goodies or the three benefits to the faculty. The three themes are the Bicentennial. This is the birthplace of higher education. We just celebrated it. And as a public institution of higher education, we have a special commitment. Second in the reaccreditation. I was so excited to see the implementation strategies come out, and so many of them focused on how to create the University as a learning
community. Third, I’m pleased and proud to be a relatively new member of the public service roundtable. Dick McCormick just led a UNC team to the American Association of Higher Education meeting. And it was clear to me that UNC was out front, in front of everybody in the academy, in their ability to provide public service to the state and the nation and the world.

The three parties that have to participate to be successful are first and foremost, the students. They want it. They’re desperate. They have given us a mandate. Twice they have voted on this campus. They had two referendums; first for 90 cents, and now $1.50 per student per semester, every student on campus, to pay for Mary Morrison, to pay for the implementation of these programs. They want this from their education. Second, the community. The public service roundtable, November 12, right after the elections, sponsored a remarkable forum. Ernest Lint talked about public service and the need to do it. We had locally Cal Horton, the town manager, Anne Barnes, our local representative, and Secretary of Human Resources Robin Britt, order us to engage in public service and to figure out how to market what we already do to the community. But that’s the key to the funding of public higher education, the image of public higher education. The final member that we have to have to make it work you represent; it’s the faculty. And that’s why Mary asked me to come to the Council. I’ve received so many thanks. I’ve been doing this since ’91. Joel Schwartz and Richard Ulin talked me into doing it. The three benefits to the faculty are those three legs of a stool that we keep talking about: First, the service. We can’t do all this service. We’re not a service agency, and many times we have this debate. We can’t do what needs to be done in this state. We can in training students. They can be the foot soldiers in how the academic goes out to the community. Second is research and a lot of faculty members don’t do this. You certainly don’t realize it going in. The contacts that you and your students make as you do placements, the data, the problems that you can identify, the opportunities to engage in research that’s important and meaningful for the state is there when you do service learning.

And finally, teaching. I can’t do it any better than Peter Ulin — Dick Ulin; I’m sorry, I misquoted. He gave me two bluebooks that came from an APPLES course, and I’m just going to read two quick pieces and let you go. This would be a joy at the end of the semester to find in the end of a bluebook. “As I wrote in my journal my volunteer experience prompted by the APPLES program with my autistic children has quite possibly changed my life.” She details how. And then she says, “Thanks for helping me discern a part of me I did not know was there.” A more poetic student in another bluebook at the end says, “This course has indeed been an agent of change for me. I would have changed anyway, for living without changing, growing, evolving, is pointless. But this class definitely pointed me in a good direction in which to change. As you know from my APPLES report, my volunteer experience taught me the value of community-based outreach programs, and the benefits of every now and again rethinking one’s views on race issues. The experience taught me not to be complacent, but to strive to be more open, more giving, and more receptive of help. This class also allowed me to see these incredible members of our community each week. I knew most of the people in here before this semester. But with their schedules all being even busier than mine it was nice to be able to sit down with them once a week and hear what they think. The students in this class were the main agents of change at this University, and I know they will continue to do so at higher levels throughout their lives. Their example inspires me constantly to do more, to know more, and to one day be more. I guess I’ve changed in that I know now there’s a lot more I want to know. As Thoreau wrote, `I wanted to live deep and suck out all the marrow of life. To live so sturdily and spartanlike I was life.’ That’s what it’s all about. The more experiences we have the better able we’ll be able to find solutions to age old problems. And find contentment and satisfaction. I know I’m only an idealistic fool, but honestly, that is our only tool. Life lies in love, and love lies in action. Only through experience can we know satisfaction.’ You can’t integrate the mission of the academy any better than that. Please come to the session and learn how to do it more easily. Thank you.

Professor Brown: Could you tell us again when it is. Ms. Willis: Next Friday at 2:00 — we’ll make that day care, I’m talking, I’m fast — at the Student Union in the Frank Porter Graham Lounge. Please tell your colleagues that are interested. It may not be for everybody. But please tell your colleagues. Post it. Thank you. Professor Brown: Thank you.

Closed Session

for non-faculty persons

VIII. Presentation of Candidates for Distinguished Alumnus(a) Awards for University Day 1995: George S. Lensing, Secretary, for Beverly W. Long, Chair, Committee on Honorary Degrees and Special Awards.

Professor Lensing presented the names and read biographical sketches for the five candidates selected by the Committee. The slate was approved.

Actions of the Council

Date Action Destination
Sept. 23, 1994 Resolution of thanks to Senator Howard Lee, Representatives Anne Barnes and Joseph Hackney To Senator Howard Lee, Representatives Anne Barnes and Joseph Hackney
Resolution of thanks to General Assembly To Members of General Assembly
Resolution of thanks to Elizabeth McMahan, editor of Faculty Handbook To Elizabeth McMahan
Oct. 21, 1994 No resolutions
Nov. 11, 1994 No resolutions
Dec. 9, 1994 No resolutions
Jan. 13, 1995 No resolutions
Feb. 17, 1995 Resolution of Gratitude William C. Leone II; Alana Ennis, UNC Chief of Police Safety; Edith M. Wiggins, Interim Vice-Chancellor for Student Affairs; Frederic W. Schroeder, Jr., Dean of Students; Ronald S. Binder, Director of Greek Affairs; John W. Edgerly, Director, University Counseling Center; Katherine Ney, Associate Director, Student Health Service
Resolution Concerning the Location and Number of Faculty Seats in the Smith Center and in Kenan Stadium and Related Issues To Fred Mueller, Chair, Committee on Athletics

Print Friendly, PDF & Email