Skip to main content

Minutes of the General Faculty and Faculty Council.

Friday, October 11, 1996, 3:00 p.m.

[An edited transcript of the proceedings is available on the campus World Wide Web: Campus Sites and Services; Governance Bodies; Faculty Council.]

Faculty Council Attendance

Present (62): Anderson, Andrews, Barefoot, Beck, Beckman, Bentley, Bose, Lubker, Bromberg, Brown, Chambers, Conley, Conover, Crumley, Dalton, Dodds, Eckel, Estroff, Farel, Favorov, Fletcher, Foshee, Fox, Frankenberg, Gless, Hattem, Herman, Hodges, Hogue, Holmgren, Howard, Irene, Jenkins, Johnstone, Lentz, Leonard, Loeb, Matson, Mauriello, G. McNeil, L. McNeil, Owen, Pagano, Panter, Passannante, Peacock, Pielak, Platin, Rabinowitz, Rinehart, Rutledge, Searles, Shapiro, Shea, Skelly, Stidham, Strauss, Tauchen, Tysinger, Weber, White, Yankaskas.

Excused Absences (17): Anderson, A. Bailey, L. Bailey Jefferson, Bangdiwala, Brink, Danis, Evens, Jackson, Ji, Lachiewicz, LeFebvre, Maffly-Kipp, Mandel, Mill, Salgado, Stuck, Williams.

Unexcused Absences (5): Crimmins, Loda, Pike, Renner, Rosenman.

Memorial Resolution

Professor Joseph M. Flora presented a memorial resolution for the late Robert Addison Bain. Adopted.

Hettleman Awards

Chancellor Hooker presented the 1996 Hettleman Awards to Cori E. Dauber, Associate Professor of Communication Studies; Shannon C. Kenney, Associate Professor of Medicine; H. Holden Thorp, Associate Professor of Chemistry; and Jianqing Fan, Associate Professor of Statistics.

Chancellor’s Remarks

Academic enhancement funds.

Chancellor Hooker reported on the use that the University will make of the academic enhancement funds made available to UNC-CH in the 1996-97 state budget.

The 1995 General Assembly included in the 1995-96 budget act a special provision authorizing UNC-CH and NC State to increase tuition by up to $400 per academic year for all students. The special provision also authorized an additional tuition increase of up to $2,600 for students in law, medicine, dentistry, pharmacy, and the business schoolís MBA program. Our board of trustees accepted this invitation by increasing tuition across-the-board by $400 per year for all students. The legislation earmarked 35% of the revenue generated by this increase for student aid; the remainder was used for faculty salaries and library resources. The Law School added to the general $400 increase another $600 and the Business School and the Pharmacy School added another $2,600. The revenue generated by those increases was earmarked by the legislation for enhancing those schools.

At the Universityís urging, the 1996 General Assembly matched the additional money that students and their parents were being asked to pay in the general $400 tuition increase with a special appropriation for ìacademic enhancement.î The total appropriation of $17.8 million was divided between UNC-CH and NC State in proportion to tuition increases. Our share of the total is $9,149,200. Since this appropriation was funded from recurring revenue, it is intended to be a permanent addition to our budget.

For the 1996-97 fiscal year the University has allocated the $9 million in academic enhancement funds to four areas: (1) faculty salaries, (2) graduate student health insurance, (3) academic technology, and (4) outreach to the public schools. The faculty salary component made available an additional $773,000 for faculty salary increases effective September 1, which is equivalent to an average increase of 0.5%. The cost of graduate student health insurance has not been finally ascertained, but will be between $2.5 million and $4 million. One million dollars has been earmarked for projects that will enhance the ability of the public schools to use computer technology and to reduce the attrition rate among new school teachers. The amount available for academic technology will depend on the cost of graduate student health insurance, but it could be as much as $4,876,000.

UNC-CH response to enrollment increase. General Administration estimates that the University System will need to absorb 40,000 more students by the year 2010. Each constituent institution has been asked to indicate how it plans to meet this challenge. We have indicated that UNC-CH has very limited capacity to increase our day-time student population. We can, however, make better use of our physical plant in the evenings and on weekends. To that end, we have begun working to develop a bachelor of liberal studies program that would be offered at those times. We are also working to develop courses and degree programs that can be offered at distant locations in North Carolina via digital technology. We will be challenged, however, to ascertain whether traditional liberal arts disciplines can be effectively taught in this matter. Much of the vitality and vibrancy of a liberal arts education stems from personal interactions in the academy. Nevertheless, we recognize that digital technology is changing the ways in which the academy interacts with the world at large.

School construction bond issue.

Chancellor Hooker urged support of the state bond issue for public school construction.


The on-going study of ìprivatizingî or ìout-sourcingî some of our staff support functions has been particularly troubling to our housekeepers and groundskeepers. The University already depends on the private sector for many, many services. The University cannot refuse to consider privatization because we have been directed to do so by the General Assembly. We must, however, be acutely aware of the human cost of this effort. At some point, the damage done by anxiety and disruption will be greater than any potential savings. That is already the case with respect to our housekeepers and perhaps other employees as well.

Environmental program.

Professor Carole Crumley asked about rumors of a new environmental program. Chancellor Hooker replied that the University intends to create an environmental program with a strong undergraduate component, but that funds have not yet been identified.

Classroom improvements.

Professor Miles Fletcher asked about progress toward renovating and upgrading classrooms. Chancellor Hooker reported that approximately $7 million has been made available to the University from the state reserve for repairs and renovations. Some of this will be used for classroom renovations. As for retrofitting classrooms for technology, we are focusing on wiring new buildings correctly and equipping several ìsmart classroomsî in strategic locations.

Professor George Rabinowitz observed that, quite aside from technological improvements in classrooms, many faculty are dismayed at the conditions of existing classrooms: fixed seating that does not allow students to interact with each other, blackboards no longer capable of sustaining chalk. Although he supports upgrading classrooms for new technology, he observed that ìit is almost a prior condition that our classrooms can be used for everyday efforts.î Chancellor Hooker replied that the administration is aware of the problem and is moving as rapidly as we can.

Remarks by the Chair of the Faculty

Professor Brown called attention to the work of the Legislative Liaison Committee headed by Prof. Dirk Frankenberg (Marine Sciences) and Prof. Jan Elliott (Journalism & Mass Communication). This is an ad hoc group that helps to present the facultyís view to the General Assembly. She asked that faculty members who have an interest in joining in this effort contact Prof. Frankenberg or herself.

Professor Brown next touched on a number of issues that the faculty will be asked to address in the coming year. Chancellor Hooker has initiated a series of conversations with the Executive Committee of the Faculty Council about the impact of impact of technology on the university and how the university might more effectively go about reallocating resources to respond to the challenges of the external environment. Prof. Pete Andrews and Ms. Carol Jenkins, both ECFC members, are working to develop a statement that responds to these issues, especially to the question of resource reallocation. The faculty are also involved in this institutionís response to several initiatives from General Administration. One of these is development of appropriate performance measures for higher education as part of the Office of State Budget and Managementís move toward presenting the state budget to the General Assembly in a format that emphasizes measures of performance rather than line items. Another is how to facilitate the transfer of academic credits from UNC constituent institutions to the community colleges and vice versa. A third is the question of post-tenure review. This was advocated by our own recent self-study. President Spangler has recently initiated a process that may lead to the development of procedures for post-tenure review throughout the University System.

Remarks by the President of the Student Body

Mr. Aaron Nelson spoke to the Council about several of his initiatives. The Out-of-State Student Association has been formed to address issues of particular concern to out-of-state students, such as transportation to and from the airport, how to make do during university holidays when the dormitories and food service close, and where to store belongings over the summer. The Ambassador Program has been formed as a means of establishing liaison between students and the state at large, and especially with members of the General Assembly. A student audit fee committee has been set up to monitor student fees and how they are spent.

On the academic front, student government has proposed a number of priorities for use of funds that may become available for technological improvements on campus. One of the most exciting is an interactive graduation plan that would allow students to establish a specific academic goal and plan the course work needed to achieve it over a four-year period. Student government is also interested in expanding the number of available minors. Finally, student government is committed to gender equity in faculty hiring and promotion and in building community among students, faculty, and staff.

Remarks by Undergraduate Honor Court Representatives

Ms. Susanna Maxon, Chair of the Undergraduate Honor Court, spoke of her commitment to make the Honor Code one of the strongest underpinnings of the intellectual climate at UNC. She has worked with the Office of Undergraduate Admissions to include greater emphasis on the Honor Code in materials sent to high school guidance counselors, and with campus tour guides who will be giving greater emphasis to the Honor Code. Other activities have included plaques in strategic locations across campus, printing the Honor Code on Student Stores receipts, and distributing Honor Code pencils. Ms. Maxon emphasized that cooperation among the faculty, the attorney generalís staff, and the Honor Court is absolutely essential.

Ms. Maxon introduced Ms. Lane Dill, a member of this yearís Honor Court. Ms. Dill asked for the facultyís help in getting students to think daily about what honor is, and how it affects their daily activities. Members of the Honor Court and the attorney generalís staff will be seeking out members of the faculty to talk about the influence of the Honor Code in the classroom. Some of the matters to be raised include statements in syllabi and classroom introductions. The Honor Court earnestly seeks the facultyís cooperation and assistance in this effort.

Remarks of the Secretary of the Faculty

Professor Ferrell pointed out that the Office of Faculty Governance has a new telephone and voice mail system. It is now possible to dial direct and leave voice mail messages to the chair of the faculty, the secretary of the faculty, and either of the administrative assistants in the office. He stated that it is his intention to move rapidly toward distributing memoranda and other documents of interest to the faculty via email and the Universityís Internet homepage.

Copies of the Faculty Code of University Government were not routinely distributed to new faculty members this year and perhaps not last year as well. Copies can be obtained by telephoning or emailing the Office of Faculty Governance.

In response to question about excused absences for the September Council meeting which was canceled due to Hurricane Fran, Prof. Ferrell declared that there would be ìplenary indulgence for all.î

Final Action on Faculty Code Amendment

On April 26, 1996, the General Faculty approved on first reading an amendment to the Faculty Code extending faculty voting and office-holding privileges to certain fixed-term faculty members. This matter was now before the General Faculty for second reading. Professor James Peacock, Chair of the Committee on University Government, moved approval, which was duly seconded. Professor Paul Farel moved to amend ß I.D., which is the portion of the amendment specifying the criteria for determining when a fixed-term faculty member gains voting privileges. As presented, one of the criteria was that ìthe duties of the position are primarily teaching, research, or both.î Professor Farel moved to amend this clause to read ìthe duties of the position include teaching, research, or both.î Professor Ferrell observed that the clause with this amendment would be redundant because there are no fixed-term faculty who undertake no teaching or research at all. Professor Farel disagreed. He knows of instances in which persons whose duties are primarily administrative hold fixed-term faculty appointments with no teaching or research duties. Professor Rich Beckman asked Prof. Ferrell if the reason for the original wording was to exclude some people from voting and office-holding. Prof. Ferrell replied that the intent was to include among the voting members of the General Faculty ìonly those persons who are primarily engaged in teaching or research.î Prof. Stuart Bentley noted that there are a number of faculty members in the Medical and Dental schools whose primary responsibilities are clinical service. He thought they should have faculty status equivalent to the research faculty, and that the Code amendment as originally presented accomplished that. He knew of no faculty who do no teaching or research. Prof. Philip Bromberg suggested that Prof. Farel thinks that there are ìworthy individuals who donít do teaching or research.î Prof. Farel disagreed. He was referring to persons whose duties are primarily ìservice.î Prof. Bromberg then suggested that instead of mentioning only teaching and research, the criterion should speak of the three categories of teaching, research, and service or any combination of them. Prof. Farel stated that he ìwanted to restrict membership as a voting member of the faculty to people who are involved in teaching or research, at least to some extent.î Prof. Bob Golden said there are some faculty members in Health affairs who do not contribute to our teaching or research missions. He mentioned Kaiser Permanente physicians as an example. Prof. Bromberg pointed out that the criterion that requires ìfull-time serviceî would exclude those individuals. Several members then discussed whether clinical faculty would qualify under the amendment either as originally proposed or as amended. Prof. Ferrell stated that the Committee on University Government had discussed that issue at length before proposing the amendment in its original form. He said ìit was the understanding of the Committee on University Government that to the extent that clinical practice in the University involves the training of students, it constitutes teaching.î He also pointed out that the determination of who qualifies for faculty voting privileges is done at the school or department level. Therefore, if the department considers an individual as part of the teaching or research faculty that person is added to the list of voting faculty. Otherwise, he or she is not included.

Debate having concluded, Prof. Brown put amendment #1 to a voice vote. She declared it approved with a few no votes. There was no call for division and so the amendment was adopted.

Professor Farel returned to the question of what constitutes full-time service and asked for clarification. Prof. Ferrell replied that that it means 75% effort, which is the minimum effort for membership in the state retirement system or TIAA. Prof. Farel thought that the amendment would be clearer if the term ìfull-time serviceî in criterion (a) were changed to read ìfull-time employment.î Prof. Peacock, who had moved the main motion, agreed to that change, whereupon Prof. Farel moved the amendment, which was duly seconded. Prof. Brown put amendment #2 to a voice vote. It was approved with no audible dissent and so was adopted.

Debate having concluded, Prof. Brown put the main motion, as amended, to a voice vote. It was approved with no audible dissent and so was adopted on second and final reading.

The text of the amendments is attached.

Resolution on Privatization

The Council endorsed a resolution on privatization recently adopted by the Employee Forum (May 1, 1996). The Forum resolution is attached.

Annual Reports of Standing Committees

Undergraduate Admissions.

The report of the Committee on Undergraduate Admissions asked the Council to adopt a resolution endorsing faculty involvement in Admission Office efforts to recruit the brightest students to Carolina. Prof. Peacock moved adoption of the resolution. Chancellor Hooker said that nothing is more important in attracting bright students than faculty participation in recruitment. He hoped the Council would adopt the resolution unanimously. Mr. Jim Walters, Director of Undergraduate Admissions, said that recent market research done by his office showed that prospective students donít think they had they kind of contact with faculty here at UNC that they got at Duke, Wake Forest, and Virginia, for example. The Admissions Office is working on ways to involve more faculty in contacts with the more than 25,000 prospective students and their parents who visit the University in the space of every twelve months. Prof. Genna Rae McNeil urged support of the resolution. She has spoken to minority students at luncheons for National Merit Scholars who are members of racial or ethnic minorities and has had students tell her that this kind of contact with faculty during the recruitment process was very influential in their decision to enroll at Carolina.

Prof. Ron Strauss noted that most of the effort in recruiting racial and ethnic minorities is directed toward the Black community. He wondered what efforts are being directed at the Latino or Hispanic community. Mr. Walters noted that minority student recruitment goals have been established for UNC-CH by the Board of Governors, and that those goals identify only two racial groups for aggressive recruitment: African-Americans and Native Americans. The faculty several years ago encouraged the Committee on Undergraduate Admissions to take an aggressive stance in recruiting Hispanic students and we have been doing that, but these efforts have not been documented in our formal affirmative action reports.

Discussion having concluded, the resolution was unanimously adopted viva voce.

Athletics Committee.

The report was received as presented.

Task Force on the Intellectual Climate

Professor Pamela Conover called the Councilís attention to a document describing the charge and listing the members of committees of the Task Force on the Intellectual Climate. She urged Council members ìgo out, talk to your constituents, and come back to us and tell us what they think and what you thinkî about the issues being addressed by the Task Force.


The business of the Council and General Faculty having concluded, the meeting was adjourned at 5:18 p.m.

Joseph S. Ferrell

Secretary of the Faculty



Text of Faculty Code Amendments

I. The General Faculty

D. Voting

Except as otherwise provided in this Code, the Voting Faculty comprises (i) all members of the General Faculty having tenured or probationary-term appointments, (ii) librarians who are members of the General Faculty, and (iii) fixed-term faculty whose positions satisfy the following criteria:

a) The position is for full-time employment and is not a visiting appointment; and

b) The duties of the position include teaching or research; and

c) The actual or anticipated length of service in the position is at least three years. This criterion is satisfied if (i) the current term of appointment is for three years or more, or (ii) the appointment is a renewal appointment to the same position and the combined length of the current term and the immediately preceding terms is three years or more.

Only members of the Voting Faculty are eligible to hold officers established by the Code.

[As amended February 23, 1996, and October 11, 1996.]

III. Officers of the Faculty

B. The Secretary of the Faculty

(1) [No change]

(2) The Secretary of the Faculty shall serve for a term of five years and shall be eligible for reelection. The Advisory Committee shall nominate one member of the faculty having permanent tenure to the Faculty Council, which, after opportunity has been given for nominations from the floor, shall proceed to elect a Secretary of the Faculty.

[As amended October 11, 1996.]

IV. Standing Committees

A. [No change]

B. The continuing standing committees of the faculty are of three types: elective, appointive, and ex officio.

(1) Elective Committees. [material not changed has been omitted]

(d) Faculty Grievance Committee

(i) The Faculty Grievance Committee shall consist of ten elected members. At all times three of the members shall have been Professors when elected, three shall have been Associate Professors, three shall have been Assistant Professors, and one shall have held a fixed-term faculty appointment. A memberís promotion in rank during a term of office shall not terminate his or her membership. The term of office shall be three years. One Professor, one Associate Professor, and one Assistant Professor shall be elected each year. One person holding a fixed-term appointment shall be elected in 1997 and every third year thereafter.

[The remainder of this subsection is unchanged.] [As amended October 11, 1996.]

Text of Resolution on Privatization

Resolved that the Faculty Council endorses the resolution on privatization adopted by the Employee Forum on May 1, 1996. The text of the Employee Forum Resolution is as follows:

WHEREAS, the Mission of the Employee Forum is to address constructively the concerns of the employees of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill; and

WHEREAS, the primary purpose of these Employeesí work is to support the Universityís

mission to discover and disseminate knowledge; and

WHEREAS, in fulfilling this mission the University justifiably seeks the most effective and efficient means available, including searching for those opportunities where privatization might be beneficial; and;

WHEREAS, the Administration, faculty, and Employees of the University are in the primary position to determine where these opportunities might exist; and

WHEREAS, the University must balance and blend the values of economic efficiency with values of justice, education, social responsibility and its responsibilities as a model Employer, in order to maintain the positive sense of community that has pervaded campus life;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that in utilizing competitive, market-based privatization efforts four principles must guide the Universityís actions:

Privatization must be based on clearly defined goals including quality and cost-effectiveness criteria rather than ideology. How best to handle or deliver a service must be based on the specific conditions and values served by each program, including both tangible and intangible aspects.

Privatization must be based on a long-term perspective rather than focused on short-term gains. Consideration must be given to the organizational knowledge that long-term Employees bring to the Universityís core educational functions.

Privatization must include adequate monitoring and auditing provisions.

Decisions on privatization must take into consideration not only the impact on the University but also the impact on Employees affected and the public at large. The decision-making process must be open and should include wide participation from the University community. .

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Employee Forum strongly opposes efforts to realize savings through cuts in the wages, benefits or working conditions of University workers resultant from the privatization process.

Text of Resolution on Student Recruitment

That the Faculty Council endorses the value of continuing faculty involvement in Admissions Office recruitment efforts directed toward top student applicants.

Actions of the Council


Date Action Destination

September 8, 1996 ——

October 11, 1996 Seconding reading of Amendments to Faculty Secretary of the Faculty.

Code of University Government to allow

fixed-term faculty to serve on and vote for certain

standing committees.

Resolution on Privatization Chancellor.

Resolution on Student Recruitment Office of Undergraduate Admissions.


Pdf of meeting materials

Print Friendly, PDF & Email