April 25, 2003
Meeting of the General Faculty and the Faculty Council
Friday, April 25th, 2003 at 2:30 p.m. Reception begins at 2:00
The Pleasants Family Assembly Room in Wilson Library
Chancellor James Moeser and Professor Sue Estroff, Chair of the Faculty, will preside
Agenda
2:30 Call to Order. The Secretary of the Faculty.
ACT 2:30 Memorial for Deceased Faculty
DISC 2:35 Chancellor’s Remarks and Question Time
- Chancellor James Moeser invites questions or comments
INFO 2:50 Presentation of the 2003 Thomas Jefferson Award
INFO 3:00 Remarks by the Chair of the Faculty
- Professor Sue Estroff
INFO 3:20 Recognition of the 2003 Advising Awards
- Executive Associate Provost Bernadette Gray-Little
ACT 3:25 Resolution 2003-8 on Curriculum Revision for the College of Arts and Sciences.
- See Memorandum from the Educational Policy Committee
INFO 4:10 Annual Report of the Administrative Board of the Library
- Professor Richard Pfaff, Chair
INFO 4:15 Annual Report of the Buildings and Grounds Committee
- Professor David Godschalk, Chair
INFO 4:20 Final Report on the Faculty Salary Equity Study
- Executive Associate Provost Bernadette Gray-Little
ACT 4:25 Resolution 2003-9 on Amending the Instrument of Student Judicial Governance
DISC 4:30 Open Discussion of Topics Raised by Faculty Members
ACT 4:45 Resolution of Appreciation
INFO 4:55 2003 Faculty Election Results
ACT 5:00 Adjourn
Joseph S. Ferrell
Secretary of the Faculty
KEY:
ACT = Action
DISC = Discussion
INFO = Information
Minutes
Attendance
Present (60): Adimora, Allison, Bachenheimer, Bane, Barbour, Bollen, Bouldin, Bowen, Carelli, Carter, Chenault, Colindres, Crawford-Brown, Daye, D’Cruz, Elter, Elvers, Files, Fishell, Foley, Gerber, Gilland, Gollop, Kagarise, Kelley, Kessler, Langbauer, Leigh, Lohr, Malizia, McGraw, Metzguer, Molina, Nonini, Orthner, Owen, Panter, Parikh, Pfaff, Pisano, Pittman, Poole, Porto, Reinert, Retsch-Bogart, Rock, Rowan, Salmon, Schauer, Sigurdsson, Smith, Sueta, Toews, Tresolini, Tulloch, Vandermeer, Wallace, Weiss, Wilson, Yopp.
Excused absences (24):.Ammerman, Fowler, Granger, Henry, Holditch-Davis, Janda, Kjervik, Meece, Meyer, Miller, Moran, Morris-Natschke, Nelson, Nicholas, Reisner, Rippe, Rong, Simpson, Straughan, Strauss, Tauchen, Vick, Watson, Willis.
Unexcused absences (3): Cotton, McQueen, Sams.
Memorial for Deceased Faculty
Chancellor James Moeser read the names of faculty member who had died in the past year. They were:
- Indra Mohan Chakravarti, Professor of Statistics. Appointed9/1/64. Died2/29/03.
- Melvin Arthur Chambers. Professor of Pharmacy. Appointed 1959. Died2/19/03.
- Floyd Wolfe Denny, Jr. Alumni Distinguished Professor of Pediatrics. Appointed 1960. Died12/17/01.
- Everett Harvey Emerson. Alumni Distinguished Professor of American Literature. Appointed 1983. Died7/9/02.
- Dorothy Jane Kiester. Associate Professor of Public Law & Government. Appointed 1963. Died4/11/03.
- Cecil Rhodes Lupton. Professor of Oral & Maxillofacial Surgergy. Appointed 1958. Died7/24/02.
- Richard Edgeworth Richardson. Professor of Oral Diagnosis. Appointed 1952. Died7/2/02.
- Rachel Ann Rosenfeld. Lara G. Hoggard Professor of Sociology. Appointed7/1/81. Died11/24/02.
- David Serrins. Professor of Music. Appointed 1967. Died10/10/02.
- Ann Shepherd Sheps. Lecturer in Dramatic Arts. Appointed 1975. Died11/30/02.
- Ernest William Small. Professor of Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery. Appointed 1971. Died9/5/02.
- Marian Jane Smallegan. Associate Professor of Nursing. Appointed 1970. Died4/28/02.
- Robert Neal Wilson. Professor of Sociology. Appointed 1963. Died12/20/02.
- Robert Paul Ziff. William Rand Kenan Jr. Professor of Philosophy. Appointed 1970. Died1/9/03.
The faculty stood in a moment of silent tribute.
Chancellor’s Remarks and Question Time
Chancellor Moeser reported on the current status of the State budget, which had passed the House and was under consideration in the Senate. He thought that the Senate’s version of the budget would be more favorable to higher education. He also reported that the most recent revision of the Academic Plan will be presented to the Board of Trustees at its regular May meeting.
The chancellor was pleased to report that Carolina for ranks 17th in the National Science Foundation’s report on federal academic science and engineering research for 2001, which is a jump up of three places from 2002 when we were 20th. Carolina is now one of two North Carolina universities in the top 20, as duke moved up from 21st to 20th. Our faculty attracted nearly $300 million from the Department of Health & Human Services and the National Science Foundation.
Chancellor Moeser congratulated Dean Risa Palm on her selected as executive vice chancellor and provost of Louisiana State University. With respect to filling the position she will vacate, the chancellor said that he and Provost Shelton are agreed that the next dean of Arts & Sciences should be drawn from within our current faculty. It is important, he said, to maintain a balance between the fresh ideas brought in by senior administrators who come here from other institutions and the institutional memory and experience of those whose careers have been based here. He said he planned to discuss this with the Advisory Committee and the provost plans to meet with department chairs in the College in the near future.
The chancellor concluded his remarks by paying tribute to Prof. Estroff whose three-year term as chair of the faculty concludes in June. “Sue and I have enjoyed this entire three-year ride together. She has been a wonderful friend, great colleague, and, in my view, she is an exceptional citizen of this University who has devoted an incredible amount of time and energy to her role as chair. I have seldom known anyone in academe with greater integrity, personal honesty, skill, and, yes, diplomacy. Sue and I have not always agreed. In fact, we have often disagreed. But in our disagreements there has never been a moment of instability in our conversations. We have been able to be friends and trusted colleagues in our interactions, which have been meaningful for me and, I hope, for her. She has represented the faculty with class, with dignity, with wisdom, with great articulation. One of the salutary results of her work has been the new role that the chair of the faculty now enjoys with the Board of Trustees. Working with the chair of the University Affairs Committee, Sue found a middle course, which in many ways we believe is the best solution of all, that the chair of the faculty sits at the table with the University Affairs Committee where all of the business that would concern faculty—academic affairs issues, student affairs issues, athletics—flow through. I will miss her but will continue to count on her as friend, advisor and colleague.”
Presentation of the 2003 Thomas Jefferson Award
Prof. Richard Andrews, a member of the Committee on Honorary Degrees and Special Awards, announced the recipient and read the following citation:
“The recipient of this year’s Jefferson Award is an able embodiment of the hallmark of Jefferson’s public discourse, his idea of the public happiness. This theme is echoed in this University’s charter with its mandate to ‘consult the happiness of the rising generation’ and in this University’s status and history as a public university, serving the state and the world for over 200 years. The life and works of Joseph Stevens Ferrell present an exemplary allegory of this Jeffersonian idea. Joe Ferrell’s devotion to the public’s happiness is manifest in his education, his vocation to the profession of law as student, teacher and scholar, in his service to local governments of this state and the North Carolina General Assembly and to this faculty as one of its long-term leaders.
“Born in Elizabeth City, North Carolina, he came to the University here and received a Bachelor of Science in Science Teaching in 1960. Having been inducted into Phi Beta Kappa in 1959, he continued here as a student of Law, receiving the J.D. degree with honors and as a member of the Order of the Coif in 1961. After receiving the LL.M. degree at Yale in 1964, he became a member of the North Carolina Bar that same year. Joe’s entire professional career has been as an active member of this faculty which he joined in 1964 as an assistant professor of public law and government. His passage through the ranks was productive and steady. He became professor of public law and government in 1973 and in 1989 he became the Alfred Coates Professor of Public Law and Government, a professorship with a venerable lineage to which his tenure is a felicitous addition.
“Much of Joe’s public work for the state has been through the multiple offices and services of the School of Government, formerly the Institute of Government. From this base, he has served as instructor, consultant and scholar to the Legislative Research Commission which included work on the revision of the North Carolina Constitution. He served as staff counsel to the House and Senate Committees on Local Government. This field is one of his scholarly specialties. Such services to local and state government agencies have been consistent and vital over many years. Of Professor Ferrell, we can say that “he wrote the book” as general editor of the first edition of County Government in North Carolina and author of The General Assembly of North Carolina: A Handbook for Legislators, now in its seventh edition. Rarely has scholarship been so consistently and relevantly translated into policy and procedure for the public good. If Joe’s publication list is long, the chronicle of his services to this faculty is as extensive. He has brought mastery of the law’s craft, informed by a learned prudence and enlightened by a gentle wit, to his many offices and tasks. He has served on the Committee on University Government since 1974, working as its Chair for two terms. It is no exaggeration to say that Joe has had a helpful hand in almost all faculty legislation during this period. He has served as chair of search committees for major university posts and headed key task forces and study groups. The list of works is too long to recite. His election as Secretary of the Faculty in 1996 is a capstone to his career of service to the Faculty and to this University.
“The great legal historian, F.W. Maitland, observed that justice is secreted in the interstices of the law. Joe’s knowledge of the intricacies of our institutions of government, of faculty legislation, of our traditions of faculty governance, of the rules and precedents is guided by his finely honed sense of justice and fairness. His unfailing good humor and ingenious savvy make him a resourceful and approachable secretary. He is our virtual memory. We honor in this Council today on behalf of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Joseph Stevens Ferrell as Servant of the Public Happiness, a true legatee of Thomas Jefferson.”
Professor Ferrell responded to the award and citation in the following words:
“When Charles Kuralt’s papers arrived at the Southern Historical Collection, there were two boxes of awards, one labeled ‘major awards,’ the other ‘minor awards.’ If I needed two boxes to hold awards, which I don’t, this would definitely belong in the major awards box. Of all the honors I might have dreamed of coming my way, your Thomas Jefferson award is the dearest to my heart. Carolina has been the focus of my life for as long as I can recall. Some of my earliest memories are leafing through the pages of my father’s Yackety-Yaks from the 1930s. The first family trip we took after the end of gasoline rationing in our shiny new Dodge was to Chapel Hill in 1948 for the Carolina/William and Mary football game. It was the only game that year they didn’t win. It was a 7-7 tie. I thrilled my fourth grade class by bringing back to show and tell a rock and a jar full of red dirt, something that no child in Elizabeth City had ever seen.
There was no family discussion about whether I would go to college and very little about where. When the time came, I would go to Carolina. It was settled. I applied to the University and no other. (In my family, and to everyone else I knew in Elizabeth City, there was no ambiguity whatever in the term “the University.”) Lucky for me, admission standards in 1956 were not what they are now. I spent the happiest seven years of my life here as an undergraduate and a law student. I treasure the memory of such inspiring teachers as O.B. Hardeston, Norman Eliason, Clifford Lyons, Loren McKinney, Alfred Brauer, Fred McCall, and Maurice Van Hecke. I’ve had the rare privilege of shaking the hand of Frank Porter Graham and blurting out like the schoolboy I was, “My father thinks you’re the greatest man who ever lived.”
I’ve served for 39 years on this faculty. It is the only job I’ve ever had and the only one I ever wanted. It has been my privilege to serve in various aspects of faculty governance under six chancellors and ten faculty chairs and as your secretary for the last seven years. The honor you do me today touches me deeply. But it would not have come my way but for the support of my partner of 37 years, Joe Fama, and the many friends and mentors who have encouraged me along the way, among them John Sanders, Henry Lewis, Lonnie London, Janet Mason, Boca Hadzija, Jim Peacock, Harry Gooder, Jane Brown, Pete Andrews and Sue Estroff, to mention only a few. To them and to all of you, thank you from the bottom of my heart.
Chair of the Faculty’s Remarks
Professor Sue Estroff delivered her valedictory as chair of the faculty in these words:
Members of the Council, members of the Faculty, Chancellor Moeser, Provost Shelton, and all assembled here, it is time for me to bid you farewell as Chair of the Faculty. I do so with a very full heart. And while with a somewhat weary head to boot, there are some thoughts and recollections which I wish to convey. Three years ago just at this time, I was enjoying the annual white asparagus harvest in Leipzig, Germany, while I was lecturing there. I sent my greetings by Joe Ferrell and in those remarks promised that I would make mistakes but that with your help, they would be the right ones. I think it’s fair to say that we’ve been a great success. What a time we’ve had. And what a pleasure it has been to represent you. Now, we spent a lot of the time on an agenda that was actually developed by the Executive Committee in the summer of 2001. It included the Academy, the University as a workplace, and the University as a community. And in each of these areas, we have together made significant progress.
In the Academy, we have put in motion major changes to our appointment, promotion and tenure process. But we still need to address the oxymoronic question appointment to tenure-track positions “subject to continued availability of funds” that is so prevalent in the Schools of Public Health and Medicine. And we still need to make part-time tenure track appointments possible. We put a watchful lid on grade inflation. We’re on the verge of making significant changes to the General College curriculum. We’ve reviewed almost every dean and vice chancellor with more and better faculty input in the process. We finally saw a return of a more civilized productive, i.e. normal, academic calendar. Our honor system has been reviewed and revised and soon the Faculty Code will be as well. Commencement is much more dignified and orderly.
The most ominous threat to a flourishing future for Chapel Hill lies in the noxious mix of enrollment growth and recurring budget reduction. We have to resist both, dislodge them from each other and get them off our backs. It is upon the vibrant and deliberative nature of this body, of this Council, that our future depends in some good measure. We meet here, not to provide a platform for the chair or the administration, but to debate, discuss and decide. I know these agendas can be numbing. You see me squirm and I see you squirm. But we’ve come a long way back to active government and I plead with us to continue in that vein.
In the workplace, we have had less success, but not because we’ve expended less effort. We will hear today the final report on this year’s salary equity study, and the response of deans and chairs. I say “this year’s” deliberately because it’s clear that the process of ensuring equal compensation and equal opportunity among the faculty requires vigilant and continual attention. We should engage in these analyses regularly and often. This is a start; it’s not a finish. Our salaries and benefits continue to rank far below our individual and collective achievements and the rankings of our schools and departments. I cannot emphasize enough how important it is to keep this issue at the forefront. It is my view that we cannot attain that to which we aspire within a system that’s as shackled, stifled and undernourished as ours is. I hope that I and you will see the day when we are free of the state’s health non-insurance plan and when we actually have not just flexibility but freedom as an institution of the people.
Despite failing to convince the Board of Trustees that the faculty chair should have a non-voting seat on the board, we made a critical first, and I emphasize first step, by creating the standing seat on the University Affairs Committee. You know, we speak often of shared governance, and usually that means we have every type of person on the ark at the table. But it has a new meaning for me. Shared governance marks the covenant that we share with each other as faculty colleagues. We all share the responsibilities for doing the hard work of wise decision making and taking calculated risks with each other. There is a sharing of governance amongst us that also has to be evoked by that concept.
The Community: as a community, we have celebrated, deliberated and grieved together. Who can forget the majestic silence of our September 12, 2002 gathering or the poetic calls of the one-year anniversary. Vivid also in my mind is the debate about a campus in Qatar that we held in Gerard Hall. Seldom have I been so proud of this faculty and this University. As a community, we categorically and fiercely rejected attempts to limit our and our students’ rights to explore the Koran. In my view, it is incumbent upon us now to call upon the Carolina Activities Board to reverse its decision to censor the Leather and Lace photography exhibit. We didn’t focus enough on the imperative of making a living wage a reality for all employees on this campus, and I don’t think we solved all the downtown tensions. Well, I guess there are a few more left. But they’re improving and I think we’re doing the right thing by the tiered parking permit prices.
We selected and greeted new leaders and have engaged in the reciprocal process of getting acquainted or refining the truth that we tell one another. We have certainly had our disagreements at moments of unease, but I would be remiss if I didn’t remind all of us that Chancellor Moeser and Provost Shelton could have slowed and could have blocked most of what we were able to accomplish over the last three years. Instead, they enthusiastically and energetically agreed to virtually every major change initiative we proposed. They stayed engaged in each projects, often providing material support as well as support in principle.
Come July, I’m eager to reintroduce myself to my colleagues and students in Social Medicine and Anthropology who have taken up way too much slack for me over the last three years. And I’m going to clean up my office which has never been messier and is a complete disaster at present. And I’m eager to reintroduce myself to myself. I’m tired, but I’m not weary. I plan to have a very small appointment book. There are two toddlers and two lonesome yellow retrievers who deserve more of my attention. I’m going to save what I was going to say about the next Chair until later.
The very wise department chair who hired me two decades ago had a credo, that respect was more important than affection for sustaining relationships and for working effectively together. I approach the end of my tenure with ample amounts of both for this Council, this faculty, and this place. I’ve had the rare privilege of seeing Carolina from the inside out, from the outside in. And this familiarity has spread and fed an informed passion within me. It took me awhile, but I have finally fallen in love with Carolina. If there is a light that glows from the top of this hill, it emanates from the collected goodness, the accumulated wisdom, the commitment to truth and principle, and the passion for justice and equity and peace that burns inside you all.
Recognition of the 2003 Advising Awards
Executive Associate Provost Bernadette Gray-Little recognized this year’s winners of advising awards. Each recipient received a cash award and a commemorative plaque. The winners were: Jan Boxill, Robert Kirkpatrick, Karen James, Rosemary Howard, Cheryl Junk, and Barbara Stenross.
Resolution 2003-8 on Curriculum Revision for the College of Arts and Sciences
Resolution 2003-8 was placed before the Council for action. The resolution was adopted unanimously without discussion or debate, having been thoroughly explained at the March 28, Council meeting.
Annual Reports
Administrative Board of the Library.
Prof. Richard Pfaff, chair of the Administrative Board of the Library commented on the board’s annual report. He said that, while we have a superb library, there is much room for improvement, especially in the area of salaries for professional librarians. We now rank 62nd in the nation, which is unacceptable.
In response to a question about the budget for subscriptions to serials, Prof. Pfaff said that while the library had been able to stave off a large cut in the number of serials this year due to the provost’s decision to relieve the library of much of the pressure of immediate budget cuts, there will almost surely be cuts next year. He said the major problem is the tremendous and largely unjustified increase in the prices of scientific serials.
Buildings and Grounds Committee.
Prof. Tom Bowers, a member of the Committee on Buildings and Grounds, offered to respond to questions about the committee’s annual report in the place of Prof. David Godschalk, chair, who was unable to attend. Several Council members remarked about the negative impact that construction is having on pedestrian traffic and urged that the committee give more thought to that issue.
Final Report on the Faculty Salary Equity Study
Executive Assoc. Provost Gray-Little reported on the follow-up school and departmental analyses that have been done in response to the faculty salary equity study. She reminded the Council that the original purpose of the study was to determine whether there was evidence of systematic patterns of salary disparity by gender or ethnicity. The first round of analysis did indicate areas of concern in some areas of the university. Subsequent analyses, using the same data, focused on individual appointing units and even particular programs within those units.
Prof. Gray-Little said that all of the studies used a method of statistical analysis known as multiple regression. She said it must be understood that the regression model employed necessarily predicted salaries imperfectly because we did not have data on productivity. Because of that lack of data, a “negative residual”, i.e., an actual salary lower than that predicted by the model, does not necessarily mean that the faculty member is underpaid. Furthermore, when a residual is small or even positive, the individual in question could also be underpaid. Therefore, she said, it must be accepted that the analyses that have been undertaken are not perfect.
With the above cautions in mind, Prof. Gray-Little said that the study had detected no statistical evidence of salary disparities attributable to ethnicity and only one are in the University in which gender was a significant predictor of salary. In particular she said that neither gender nor ethnicity was a significant predictor of salary in any of the divisions of the College of Arts and Sciences, in any of the professional schools in Academic Affairs, or in the schools of Dentistry, Nursing, Pharmacy, or Public Health. Within the School of Medicine, neither gender nor ethnicity was significant in the divisions of basic sciences or allied health sciences. Gender was a significant predictor on the Medical School’s division of clinical medicine.
Prof. Gray-Little said that the analyses that have been done to date have been based solely on variables that were readily available in existing university records; they did not take into account productivity, merit, quality, or performance. She concluded her remarks by summing up the work that has been done to date and that which remains to be done as follows:
When I spoke with you the last time, I indicated that we had sent that information to the schools and departments and asked each unit to form a salary review committee that included members of the faculty who were not involved in the original salary decisions. [Those committees were] to review those faculty members whose salaries were lower than predicted and to establish some way for assessing whether the salary being paid was, in fact, appropriate or whether some adjustment should be made. The schools were asked to respond back to the Provost’s office. Several of the schools, especially the larger schools, requested a delay because they did not have enough time before this meeting to complete that process. To date, we have received reports from only five of the schools. I have to say that my impression is that the schools have taken this process and this task very seriously. They have reviewed each faculty member who was identified as having a salary lower than predicted and, of the schools that sent in their reports, they have identified approximately 29% of the faculty who were identified as having lower salaries than predicted as needing adjustments in salary. The remaining 71% were judged as having salaries that are commensurate with their performance. Those faculty identified as having salaries that need adjustment include both males and females.
We recognize the limitations of studying salary equity in the way that we have done, and even in the final stage that we’re in now (looking at salaries at the department level). We have not been able to control for market effects in individual salaries, and I think that’s especially true in some areas, perhaps in Dentistry and Medicine, where there are huge differences among specialties and in fields where, even within a given specialty, offering a particular procedure or not can make a huge difference in the kind of salary that is earned. Although there are limitations, I agree, as I said earlier, that it is necessary for us to do periodic review of salaries. We are committed to principles of fairness and creating a work environment that is free from discrimination, and I think a periodic and thorough review of salaries is an important part of communicating our dedication to that principle. I also say that the failure to find significant effects of gender and ethnicity on salary in most units in the university does not automatically imply that men and women and members of ethnic and minority groups work in environments that are equally supportive of their success and professional development. For this reason, we believe it is important to give serious attention to the recommendations from the Committee on the Status of Women to examine salary and other equity issues on an ongoing basis.
In response to a question, Prof. Gray-Little said she anticipated receiving reports from the remaining schools before the end of this fiscal year.
Prof. Charles Daye (Law) said that it was his understanding that the membership roster of some of the school salary review committees is not announced to the school’s faculty. He asked if these were the committees Prof. Gray-Little had referred to in her remarks. Prof. Gray-Little replied that she knew who the committee members in each unit were but she did not know whether the roster had been publicized.
Prof. Etta Pisano (Radiology) said that in the School of Medicine, faculty members who had been identified with inappropriately low salaries are not informed of that fact unless they ask their department chair if they are on the list. If they are uncomfortable with going to the chair for that information, they are supposed to ask the dean. Prof. Gray-Little said she would ask about that practice.
In response to a question, Prof. Gray-Little said no decision had been made as to how often gender equity studies would be done. She did not think one would be needed every year, but she thought every three years would be the minimum.
Resolution 2003-9 on Amending the Instrument of Student Judicial Governance
Prof. Ferrell explained that certain minor amendments to the Instrument of Student Judicial Governance can be made on the initiative of the chancellor without formal approval by the Faculty Council or the Student Congress. The document allows either body to object to the amendment within 30 days. If there is no objection, the amendment takes effect. He said that the purpose of Resolution 2003-9 is to offer an opportunity for objection if any member of the Council is so inclined. There was no objection. Resolution 2003-9 was approved unanimously.
Resolution of Appreciation
Prof. Bobbi Owen (Dramatic Art), a member of the Executive Committee of the Faculty Council presented a resolution of appreciation for Prof. Estroff’s service as chair of the faculty.
Whereas, Sue E. Estroff has served as the Chair of the Faculty from 2000 to 2003; and
Whereas she provided distinguished leadership; and she used her quick wit and intelligence in our behalf; and
Whereas she spoke her mind when necessary; and
Whereas she advocated for Faculty involvement in the Dean’s review process; and
Whereas she did not flinch from controversy; and
Whereas she monitored the mounting pressures for enrollment increases, keeping us approved us all apprised about the potential effects; and
Whereas she guarded our right to know the things we needed to know; and Whereas she extended the definition of silver-backed mail; and Whereas she kept the faculty involved in policy and decision making; and
Whereas she was vigilant about the rights of faculty, students and staff; and
Whereas she recognized the need for interaction with the Administration, Student Body, Press, Legislature, Board of Visitors, Board of Trustees and the Chapel Hill Town Council, Board of Governors, and even the Office of the President; and
Whereas she asked hard questions about issues as varied as athletics, the Academic Plan, parking, tuition increases, and performance measures; and
Whereas she maintained her sense of humor; and
Whereas she urged members of the Faculty to be involved with the University and its administration, even going so far as to offer inducements in the form of her basketball tickets, and
Whereas she listened when we spoke; and
Whereas she made the campus feel a little smaller; and
Whereas she made compelling and eloquent remarks every single time she spoke in our behalf; and
Whereas she made us laugh; and
Whereas she pursued reform of the honor system; and
Whereas she opened many opportunities for conversation between faculty from Health Affairs and Academic Affairs; and
Whereas she invariably provided pistachio nuts along with red and white grapes at ETFC meetings; and
Whereas she presided over 26 meetings of the Faculty Council, represented us at six graduations and three University Day celebrations and countless other official events; and
Whereas she tenaciously pursued salary equity; and
Whereas she worried about our declining benefits and increasing responsibilities; and
Whereas whether Carolina blue jackets should be retired and hung in the rafters of South building, or perhaps the upper branches of the Davie Poplar, and
Whereas she fostered a series of reforms to the Appointments, Promotions and Tenure Committee, and
Whereas she doodled over all the documents she received, usually by filling in all of the circles in the letters o, zero and p; and
Whereas she nominated hundreds of faculty members to committees; and
Whereas through all this, she continues to be believe in faculty governance; now therefore
We, the faculty of the University of North Carolina, on the 25th day of April, 2003, on the occasion of her final Faculty Council meeting as the chair, do hereby recognize and celebrate her leadership, count her among our most prized colleagues and friends, and thank her from the bottom of our hearts.
The resolution was adopted by standing ovation.
2003 Faculty Election Results
Prof. Ferrell reported that in the recent faculty elections 2,853 ballots were distributed, but only 727 voters participated, which is a return of 25.5%. He said that voter participation has been steadily declining over the past several years, a trend that is observable in state and national elections as well.
Prof. Ferrell announced that the following persons had been elected to the Executive Committee of the Faculty Council for three-year terms: Prof. Pamela Conover (Political Science), Prof. Noelle Granger (Cell & Developmental Biology), Prof. Laurie Mesibov (Government), and Prof. Ross Simpson (Medicine).
Prof. Ferrell reported that Prof. Judith Welch Wegner (Law) is the newly-elected chair of the faculty.
Prof. Wegner spoke briefly expressing her surprise and humility at being called to the task.
Adjournment
Its business having been concluded the General Faculty and Faculty Council adjourned at4:17 pm.
Joseph S. Ferrell
Secretary of the Faculty
Resolutions Adopted April 25, 2003
Resolution 2003-8. Endorsing the Report of the Undergraduate Curriculum Revision Steering Committee
The Faculty Council resolves:
The Report of the Undergraduate Curriculum Revision Steering Committee (Making Connections: A Proposal to Revise the General Education Curriculum, version 1.4), as presented to the Faculty Council onMarch 28, 2003, is endorsed. It is understood that the General Education Implementation Committee, which will be Chaired by the Associate Dean for Undergraduate Curricula, will include the conditions set by the Administrative Boards of the General College and the College of Arts and Sciences in their report of March 7, 2003, in the development of its implementation plan. The General Education Implementation Committee is directed to begin work as soon as possible with a goal of implementing the new curriculum for the Fall semester, 2006. If the General Education Implementation Committee finds it necessary to make any minor revisions to the approved document, it will follow the usual procedures and submit those revisions to the Administrative Boards of the General College and the College of Arts and Sciences and the Educational Policy Committee of the Faculty Council for approval.
Resolution 2003-9. Amending the Instrument of Student Judicial Governance
Whereas, at its January 17, 2003, meeting the Faculty Council adopted Resolution 2003-6 approving a comprehensive revision of the Instrument of Student Judicial Governance upon the recommendation of the Committee on Student Conduct; and
Whereas the revision was subsequently approved by Student Congress and has been submitted to the Chancellor; and
Whereas the Chancellor has indicated his desire that Section B.3 of Appendix C be revised to eliminate certain limitations on the right of an accused student to required an expedited hearing procedure in specified circumstances; and
Whereas the Committee on Student Conduct has recommended an amendment to Section B.3 of Appendix that accommodates the Chancellor’s preferences in this regard; now therefore
The Faculty Council resolves:
The revision of Section B.3 of Appendix C of the Instrument of Student Judicial Governance recommended by the Committee on Student Conduct and transmitted to the Chair of the Faculty and the Secretary of the Faculty by letter dated March 18, 2003, is approved as submitted.
