October 9, 1998
Meeting of the General Faculty and Faculty Council
Friday, October 9, 1998, 3:00 p.m.
103 Bingham Hall
Chancellor Michael Hooker will preside. Attendance of elected Council members is required.
INFO 3:00 Remarks by Chancellor Hooker
INFO 3:15 Question Period. [The Chancellor invites questions or comments on any topic.]
ACT 3:20 Proposal to Establish an M.A. Degree Program in Russian/East European Studies.
- Professor Laura Janda
ACT 3:25 Annual Report of the Faculty Grievance Committee Professor John Rubin, Chair
- Resolution 98-10. To Request a Study of Introducing Mediation into the Faculty Conflict Resolution Process.
ACT 3:30 Recommendations of the UNC-CH Copyright Committee. Professor Robert Peet, Chair
- Resolution 98-11. To Establish a Standing Committee on Copyright
- Resolution 98-12. To Endorse Creation of an Office of Scholarly Communication
DISC 3:45 Issues Under Consideration by the Task Force on Enrollment Planning.
- Provost Richard Richardson, Chair
ACT 5:00 Adjournment
Joseph S. Ferrell
Secretary of the Faculty
ACT = Action
INFO = Information
DISC = Discussion
Present (62): Angel, Bandiwala, Bender, Bluestein, Bowen, Carl, Clegg, Cordeiro-Stone, Covach, Cravey, Dalton, Daye, Debreczeny, Eckel, Foshee, Gasaway, Graves, Grossberg, Harrison, Haskill, Hattem, Holmgren, Huang, Hyatt, Johnson, Kaufman, Kjervik, LeFebvre, Lentz, Levine, Lord, Lubker, Ludlow, Madison, Maffly-Kipp, McKeown, Meehan-Black, Melchert, Molina, Moreau, Newton, Nord, Owen, Panter, Pfaff, Plante, Postema, Powell, Rabinowitz, Raper, Rosenfeld, Schaller, Sekerak, Shea, Straughan, Strauss, Taft, Thorp, Tysinger, Vevea, Weiss, White.
Excused absences (23): Adler, Blackburn, Bolas, Collins, Devellis, Daye, Elvers, Estroff, Fishman, Fox, Graham, Hooper, Jackson, Margolis, Marshall, Mill, Pagano, Passannante, Platin, Raab-Traub, Steponaitis, Werner, Williams.
Unexcused absences (2): Black, Favorov.
Chancellor Hooker praised the search committee whose work led to the choice of Derek K. Poarch as our new chief of police. The search was thorough, professional, and extensive. Prof. Estroff did a “phenomenal job” in chairing the effort. The chancellor then introduced Chief Poarch who said that he is “deeply committed to the philosophy of community-oriented policing,” an approach to police work that emphasizes customer service, problem solving, and partnerships.
The chancellor had little to report about the status of the state budget negotiations beyond what has been reported in the press. He expressed special thanks to Senator Howard Lee who has been “a great stalwart in defending this campus” as well as higher education generally. He is pleased to report that President Broad will be making faculty salary increases her first priority for the 1999 legislative session. The president is asking for a 6% increase in each year of the 1999-2000 biennium.
The chancellor reported that Prof. Julia Wood (Communication Studies) has been named this year’s CASE and Carnegie Professor of the Year for North Carolina. One of our faculty has received this distinction in three of the last four years.
Chancellor Hooker reviewed in detail a draft document entitled “Areas of Focus in Serving University Priorities.” The document was developed by the chancellor’s cabinet at a one-day retreat held in July. [The document will be found on the Faculty Governance web site.] He regretted that the full agenda did not allow time for in-depth discussion of the document, but he invited comments via e-mail, telephone, or letter.
Prof. Jack Sasson (Religious Studies) asked whether priority is being given to finding a gathering place for faculty. The chancellor replied that plans are being set in motion to include a faculty lounge in the renovation of the YMCA Building.
Proposal to Establish an M.A. Degree Program in Russian/East European Studies
Prof. Laura Janda (Slavic Languages and Literature) presented on behalf of the Graduate School a proposal to establish an M.A. program in Russian /East European Studies. She said that this will be the first degree in the nation to facilitate the combination of language and area studies with scientific, technological, and professional training. It will prepare students for careers that address such issues as chemical, biological and nuclear weapons; international terrorism; economic development and international business ventures; environmental degradation and international public health; transnational utilization of internet technologies; inter-ethnic strife; and diversity in cultural awareness.
Prof. Timothy Taft (Orthopedics) noted that the proposal apparently depends on obtaining a $450,000 grant, and asked what happens if the grant does not materialize? Prof. Janda said that she is working on other funding sources, and that it is possible that the program could be offered for less than the full requested amount. However, if sufficient funding is not obtained, the proposal will not succeed.
Prof. Marila Cordeiro-Stone (Pathology) asked about compensating the History Department for participating in the program. Is there a precedent for that kind of payment? Prof. Janda did not know about precedent, but she said that the payment to the department is in return for a commitment to offer a particular course every Fall rather than every other year as is now the case.
On motion of Prof. Levine, seconded by Prof. Weiss, the Council approved the proposal unanimously. It now goes to General Administration for final approval.
Annual Report of the Faculty Grievance Committee
Prof. John Rubin (Institute of Government), chair of the Faculty Grievance Committee, presented the committee’s annual report and moved adoption of Resolution 98-10. The resolution requests the Faculty Grievance Committee to study the feasibility of introducing mediation by trained mediators into the conflict resolution process regarding issues that the committee currently handles. Prof. Rubin said that the committee has become concerned that by the time many disputes have matured to the point that the issues are sufficiently identifiable for committee action, positions have become so hardened that it is nearly impossible to reconcile differences in a way that is mutually satisfactory to all parties. The committee thinks that mediation at an earlier stage would be highly desirable. There are many issues to be considered however, among them being whether trained mediators are available, how they would be compensated (if at all), and how mediation would relate to the overall grievance process.
Resolution 98-10 was adopted unanimously.
Recommendations of the UNC-CH Copyright Committee
Prof. Robert Peet (Biology), chair of the UNC-CH Copyright Committee, presented an overview of the committee’s report. For the past two decades prices paid by academic libraries for scientific journals have increased at roughly three times the rate of inflation, owing largely to monopolistic practices by large, for-profit publishers. In essence, faculty give away copyright to their scholarly work in exchange for publication of that work, and universities buy that work back at extraordinarily high prices. The resulting crisis in library funding has led to numerous efforts to develop new models for scholarly publication wherein the rights associated with copyright ownership would be managed to protect the universities from unreasonable prices and to preserve for the faculty certain rights to use and distribute their work. The UNC-CH Copyright Committee was formed by the provost to examine models for copyright ownership proposed in 1994 by the Task Force on Intellectual Property Rights in an Electronic Environment, sponsored by the Association of American Universities, and to investigate other issues related to copyright policy of importance to the University.
Much has happened since the 1994 Task Force Report was released. In particular, the development and maturation of digital communication has created a host of new issues with respect to both ownership and use of copyrighted material. Class and faculty websites, distance learning, and multimedia instruction are among the developments that present a bewildering set of legal issues about which faculty and staff are at best poorly informed and with respect to which the University is exposed to potential litigation. The Committee examined these issues in detail.
The final report of the UNC-CH Copyright Committee contains fourteen specific recommendations. Six of these recommendations appear appropriate for endorsement or approval by the Faculty Council. Briefly, the proposed actions are:
- Endorsement of proposed University principles with respect to fair use.
- Endorsement of the National Humanities Alliance principles for managing intellectual property in the digital environment.
- To establish a University Office of Scholarly Communication.
- To establish a Standing Committee on Copyright
- Endorsement of a proposed University Copyright use policy for faculty, staff and students .
- Endorsement of a proposed University policy on multi-institutional initiatives on copyright ownership
At this meeting, the committee presented to the Council resolutions addressing the recommendations for an Office of Scholarly Communication and a standing committee on copyright. The remaining recommendations will be presented to the Council in November.
Prof. Peet presented Resolution 98-11, calling for establishment of a standing committee of the General Faculty that would address copyright issues. In response to a question from Prof. David Kaufman (Pathology & Laboratory Medicine), Prof. Peet said that the committee does not propose at this time any change in the management or ownership of copyright of faculty publications. The committee hopes to position the University to work with other institutions to adopt and develop a new set of policies that would be used on a national level. There is no expectation that any local committee would review individual publications.
Resolution 98-11 was adopted unanimously as presented.
Prof. Peet then presented Resolution 98-12 calling for the creation of an Office of Scholarly Communication. Prof. Timothy Taft (Orthopedics) asked about the source of funding. Prof. Peet said that the Academic Affairs Library has agreed to underwrite half of the cost. Funding for the remaining half has not yet been identified. Prof. Tim McKeown (Political Science) asked whether the proposed attorney position would be staffed by someone who specializes in intellectual property. Prof. Peet said that this is his expectation. Prof. Deborah Bender (Health Policy & Administration) asked about the relationship between the proposed standing committee and the proposed administrative office. Prof. Peet replied that the office would provide advice to faculty and staff on both ownership and use of copyrighted material. The standing committee would work to develop guidelines and policy and would be a source of faculty advice to the office. Prof. Tony Molina (Dentistry) asked whether other institutions in the UNC System, such as NC State, could be asked to share in the cost. Prof. Peet said that his committee thinks there is more than enough work on this campus to justify the new position.
Resolution 98-11 was adopted unanimously as presented.
Discussion of Issues Under Consideration by the Task Force on Enrollment Planning
Provost Richard Richardson summarized the background leading to establishment of the task force and the current state of its deliberations. General Administration is projecting an increase of 44,750 in enrollment throughout the System over the next ten years and has asked each institution in the System to indicate what portion of that increase it is prepared to absorb. Chancellor Hooker established the task force to make recommendations as to our response. The task force is addressing four questions: (1) by how much should this campus grow and over what time period, (2) how should growth be distributed among undergraduate, graduate, and professional students, (3) what guiding principles should be followed, and (4) what is the projected cost. UNC-CH now enrolls 15.43% of the System total. If we continue to take that share of the total, we would add between 5,000 and 6,000 students over the next decade. This is often characterized as the “fair share” approach. On the other hand, a projection based on interviews with the deans totaled about 3,000. Of those, 2,000 would be graduate and professional students. This would enable us to absorb only about 5% of the projected increase in undergraduate students. Chancellor Hooker has asked the task force to consider what the political implications of that strategy might be. Would we be disadvantaged by becoming the third or fourth largest institution in the System, perhaps trailing UNC-Charlotte and East Carolina, rather than ranking second in size after NC State? Would reducing the percentage of North Carolina undergraduates that we enroll put us at more of a disadvantage in competing for funds in the General Assembly?
Provost Richardson thought the most basic guiding principle in this matter is that growth should be tied to receiving the necessary resources as the growth occurs, not afterwards as has been the case in the past. A second important principle, in the view of many members of the task force, is that we should maintain the quality of our student body. Jerry Lucido, director of admissions, advises that we could accept another 200 students each year from our current applicant pool without changing the average SAT of entering freshmen. There is no reason to assume that the projected growth would be in disproportionately less qualified students. The provost thinks, however, that we could actual improve the quality of our student body if we were to improve our track record in attracting the top students graduating from North Carolina high schools. To recruit more of the most outstanding North Carolina high school graduates, we need to provide more merit scholarships, even if they are essentially symbolic. Also, we could usefully involve faculty in our recruitment efforts. If we can focus our attention on the top of the potential applicant pool, an overall increase in undergraduate enrollment could be beneficial for this campus.
The cost of any major increase in enrollment will be great. At the moment, our best guess is that we would need at least $12.6 million in the College and $23 million in the professional schools for new faculty hires alone. We will also need more residence halls, more classroom and laboratory space, more staff, and generally more infrastructure. The task force is now hard at work trying to estimate the total tab.
Prof. George Rabinowitz (Political Science) asked whether the projection of a major increase in graduate and professional students takes the job market into account. The provost replied that the deans have had this consideration foremost in their minds in developing their projections.
The Faculty Council then broke up into five small groups to discuss principles that should guide enrollment growth. A member of the Agenda Committee acted as facilitator and reporter for each group. Upon the conclusion of the small group discussions, the Council reconvened to hear a report from each group.
There was consensus that any enrollment should keep the principle of quality at the forefront. This concern extended not only to maintaining and improving the UNC-CH experience and the intellectual climate on campus, but also to the role the Chapel Hill-Carrboro community plays in student life. There was also strong agreement that there should be no enrollment growth without commitments of resources in advance to accommodate it, including additional faculty and academic support.