February 7, 2003
Meeting of the General Faculty and the Faculty Council
Friday, February 7th, 2003 at 3:00 p.m.
The Pleasants Family Assembly Room in Wilson Library
Chancellor James Moeser and Professor Sue Estroff, Chair of the Faculty, will preside.
3:00 Call to Order. The Secretary of the Faculty.
DISC 3:00 Chancellor’s Remarks and Question Time.
- Chancellor James Moeser invites questions or comments.
DISC 3:10 Update on the Academic Plan.
- Executive Vice Chancellor and Provost Robert Shelton.
INFO 3:30 Remarks by the Chair of the Faculty.
- Professor Sue Estroff.
- Including: Annual Report of the Executive Committee of the Faculty Council.
INFO 3:38 2003 Senior Class Gift.
- Paymon Rouhanifard, President of the Senior Class.
INFO 3:40 Annual Report of the Advisory Committee.
- Professor Frederick P. Brooks Jr., Chair.
INFO 3:45 Annual Report of the Scholarships, Awards, & Student Aid Committee.
- Professor Charles Daye, Chair.
INFO 3:50 Annual Report of the Advisory Committee on Undergraduate Admissions.
- Senior Associate Dean Karen Gil, Chair.
ACT 3:55 Resolution 2003-3 to Establish a Committee on Appointments, Promotions, and Tenure.(Second Reading.)
ACT 4:00 Resolution 2003-4 Concerning Gender Equity in Faculty Salaries.
ACT 4:20 Resolution 2003-7 Endorsing Certain Recommendations of the Task Force on Appointment, Promotion, and Tenure.
DISC 4:45 Open Discussion of Topics Raised by Faculty Members.
ACT 5:00 Adjourn.
Joseph S. Ferrell
Secretary of the Faculty
ACT = Action
DISC = Discussion
INFO = Information
Present (67): Admiora, Allison, Ammerman, Bachenheimer, Bollen, Bouldin, Bowen, Cairns, Carelli, Chenault, Colindres, Cotton, Daye, Elter, Elvers, Files, Fishell, Foley, Fowler, Gerber, Gilland, Gollop, Granger, Henry, Kessler, Langbauer, Leigh, McGraw, Meece, Metzguer, Moran, Morris-Natschke, Nelson, Nicholas, Nonini, Orthner, Owen, Panter, Parikh, Pfaff, Pisano, Pittman, Poole, Porto, Reinert, Retsch-Bogart, Rippe, Rock, Rong, Rowan, Salmon, Schauer, Shea, Sigurdsson, Simpson, Smith, Straughan, Sueta, Tauchen, Toews, Tresolini, Tulloch, Vandermeer, Vick, Watson, Weiss, Willis.
Excused absences (18): Bane, Barbour, Carter, Crawford-Brown, D’Cruz, Holditch-Davis, Janda, Kagarise, Kjervik, Lohr, Malizia, Meyer, Molina, Reisner, Strauss, Wallace, Wilson, Yopp.
Unexcused absences (4): Kelley, McQueen, Miller, Sams.
Chancellor’s Remarks and Question Time
Chancellor James Moeser commented on the university’s response to the imminent threat of war with Iraq. He said that he expected voices to be raised in strong opposition as well as in support of the pending military action, and that he had been thinking about how this is affecting the lives of those on our campus and community. He knew of at least two undergraduates who were part of a special Marine Corps training program and have been called up for active duty. Others in the reserves fact the prospect of activation. We have specific policies for tuition refunds, academic eligibility, and job leave that have been communicated widely across campus in recent weeks. As the debate intensifies, he said, we at Carolina remain prepared to defend academic freedom if it comes under attack either from the right or the left. As an institution we must maintain essential objectivity and neutrality in both national and international partisan issues, and a place where discussion and disagreement about important and controversial issues can occur in an atmosphere of stability and mutual respect, he said.
Chancellor Moeser said that he continues to be concerned about the well-being of foreign nationals in our university community. We have 1,254 foreign students on campus, and another 1,000 researchers and scholars here on visas. Just this week our international center has official become part of a new federal student exchange and visitor system under the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS). The system has been put in place to monitor and track international students and scholars as a result of Congressional legislation enacted after the attack on the World Trade Center. Our international center as been working diligently to inform students and scholars about the requirements of the new system as well as working to safeguard their personal information and their ability to study and work freely in Chapel Hill. The information that we are sharing with INS is that same data that we have been reporting in the past. The principal change is that it is now being assembled in a database and transmitted electronically. The chancellor said that the university will comply with the law in this regard, but we plan to continue to do all that we possibly can to protect the privacy rights of our students and scholars consistently with legal requirements. We have also moved to enhance campus resources such as the international center and our counseling and psychological services.
Prof. Bobbi Owen (Dramatic Art) said that she has been teaching this semester in a building that is being renovated. While the contractor has been trying to do heavy construction during hours when classes are not being held, in the past week she encountered two occasions when the noise made teaching very difficult. She asked whether anything could be done to accommodate both construction needs and educational needs. Chancellor Moeser said that he would see what he could do.
Remarks by the Provost
Provost Robert Shelton asked for questions and comments on the academic plan. He said that it was important to remember that the plan will serve as a template for budget allocations over the next few years.
Prof. Kerry Kilpatrick (Health Policy & Administration) said that his analysis of the university’s overall financial resources indicates that roughly one-third comes from State appropriations, one-third from contracts and grants, and one-third from clinical receipts. He did a word count of the academic plan and found that only 5% of the document addresses research and that patient care is not addressed at all. He said that if the document is to be used as a planning guide, it should address the whole academic enterprise in a more balanced way.
Prof. Steven Bachenheimer (Microbiology) said that the document tries to address future resource allocation but acknowledges that growth in resources is likely to be near zero. He said that the document does not acknowledge that future resource allocation is likely to negatively affect some existing programs. He hoped that the provost would bring the plan back to the faculty from time to time. Provost Shelton replied that he thinks there will be some capacity for increased funding coming from extra-mural sources and private giving. State appropriations are much more problematic, he said.
Prof. William Smith (Mathematics), speaking to the document’s identification of various metrics to assess progress toward realization of the goals it sets, said that the university needs to be looking not only at measures of progress toward stated goals, but measures that may reveal areas in which there may be decline. Any set of metrics should be continually reviewed, he said.
Chair of the Faculty’s Remarks
Prof. Sue Estroff said that she would be remiss if she did not mark the palpable despair, apprehension, and chagrin on campus about our nation’s hostile intention in the Middle East. She said that it is more and more apparent day by day that the free and respectful exchange of information and knowledge which we hold so dear is need of our protection and nurture.
Prof. Estroff introduced Paymon Rouhanifard, President of the Senior Class. Mr. Rouhanifard said that the Senior Class has chosen as its gift to the university the Class of 2003 Library Endowment. The endowment will be officially unrestricted, but it is the Class’s hope that it would be used to renew the library’s resources, whether that might be rebinding books or upgrading the media resources room or similar uses. Because of the nature of the gift, and its importance to the faculty, the Senior Class is inviting the faculty to participate in contributing to the endowment. The suggested amount is some variation on the year 2003, such as $20.30, or $200.30, or even $2003.00.
Executive Committee of the Faculty Council.
Prof. Estroff presented the annual report of the Executive Committee of the Faculty Council by title. There were no questions or comments.
Prof. Fred Books, Chair of the Advisory Committee, presented the committee’s annual report by title and offered to respond to questions. There were none.
Prof. Karen Gil, Assoc. Dean for Undergraduate Education and chair of the committee, presented the committee’s annual report. She highlighted the following activities since the last report:
- Review of the decision model used in undergraduate admissions;
- A recommended increase in the number of slots for out-of-state athletes in Olympic sports and a commensurate reduction in the number of at-risk cases allowed;
- Approval of over-awarding of slots for Music and Drama; and
- Review of the early admission program, which was eventually dropped.
Prof. Bachenheimer noted that the academic plan calls for an effort to increase the number of out-of-state students. He wondered how this meshes with efforts to keep a cap on enrollment. Mr. Jerry Lucido, Director of Undergraduate Admissions, said that we are required by a regulation of the Board of Governors to limit out-of-state undergraduate admissions to 18% of the total. He said it is unlikely that we would ask for an increase in out-of-state admissions at the expense of in-state students. At the same time, some enrollment growth is anticipated.
Prof. Richard Pfaff (History) expressed concern at the extent to which academic program requirements are waived for athletes as compared to the student body at large. The committee’s report indicates an index of 1.7 in this measure for athletes as compared to an index of 5.3 for all students. He suggested that there might be an effect on the part of high school counselors to advise student athletes to take courses that offer the least challenge. Prof. Peter Coclanis (History), a member of the committee, said that the numbers reflect the overall applicant pool.
Scholarships, Awards, and Student Aid.
Prof. Charles Daye (Law) presented the committee’s annual report and commented on several aspects of the written report.
Resolutions Amending the Faculty Code of University Government
A resolution entitled “To Establish a Committee on Appointments, Promotions, and Tenure,” having been considered, amended, and approved on first reading on Jan. 17, 2003, was placed before the General Faculty for approval on second reading.
Prof. Paul Farel (Cell & Molecular Physiology), co-chair of the Task Force on Appointments, Promotions, and Tenure, moved to amend the resolution by transferring from the Advisory Committee to the Committee on Appointments, Promotions, and Tenure responsibility for “review of school and departmental statements of criteria for appointment, promotion, and tenure.” The motion was seconded by Prof. Fred Brooks, chair of the Advisory Committee. Prof. Farel said that over the past two weeks consultations had been on-going among the Chair of the Faculty, the Advisory Committee, members of the Task Force, and the Office of the Provost as to the best locale for review of departmental promotion and tenure criteria statements. A consensus has developed that the new APT Committee is the appropriate venue for that function.
The amendment was adopted.
Prof. Estroff moved to amend the resolution to delete the proposed apportionment of four members to the College of Arts and Sciences, four members to the School of Medicine, and four members to all other professional schools and to substitute language apportioning six members to the Division of Academic Affairs and six members to the Division of Health Affairs. She said that she was offering the amendment on behalf of the Executive Committee of the Faculty Council to address concerns that the proposed apportionment does not offer adequate representation to the smaller professional schools. Prof. Barbara Foley (Nursing) seconded Prof. Estroff’s motion.
Exec. Assoc. Provost Bernadette Gray-Little observed that because of the size of the College of Arts and Sciences in comparison with the professional schools in the Division of Academic Affairs, the actual effect of Prof. Estroff’s amendment could actually be contrary to its intended effect.
Prof. Joseph Ferrell, secretary of the faculty, reported that the College of Arts and Sciences has 865 members of the voting faculty while the professional schools in the Division of Academic Affairs total fewer than 300.
Prof. Pfaff observed that to offer the electorate the range of choice among candidates that enabled all faculty members in Academic Affairs to vote for someone from their own unit would require identification and recruitment of a very large number of candidates. He was not sure which method would provide the better outcome at the nomination stage.
Prof. Estroff said that the fewer the constraints, the easier it should be easier to find candidates.
Prof. Dennis Orthner (Social Work) opposed the amendment. He felt that it is important to have members on the committee from the professional schools.
Prof. Barbara Moran (Information & Library Science) also opposed the amendment. If the amendment were to be adopted, she asked how easy it would be to change it in the future if all of the Academic Affairs members were to come from the College.
Prof. Bachenheimer said that the key seems to be putting together a slate of candidates that is distributed among the various schools. He added that it might be possible for the APT committee to associate ad hoc consultants when reviewing particular cases if the committee felt it lacked the necessary expertise. Prof. Ferrell observed that the Advisory Committee had not done so, but that the Code would not prohibit it.
Prof. Thomas Shea (Medicine) said that he thought the original plan actually guarantees more diversity than the amendment. He thought it quite possible that all six seats allotted to Health Affairs could go to the School of Medicine.
Prof. Barbara Foley (Nursing) said that she supported the amendment.
Discussion having concluded, the amendment was defeated on a voice vote.
There being no further discussion, the resolution, as amended, was adopted on second reading by a voice vote and will be enrolled as Resolution 2003-3.
Resolution Concerning Gender Equity in Faculty Salaries
A resolution entitled “Concerning Gender Equity in Faculty Salaries,” having been introduced, discussed, and postponed at the Jan. 17, 2003, Council meeting, was placed before the Council for further consideration.
Prof. Ferrell reported that the Committee on the Status of Women had revised the resolution in light of the Jan. 17 discussion. Prof. Margaret Leigh (Pediatrics) moved adoption of the committee substitute, seconded by Prof. Moran. The motion to substitute was adopted and the substitute resolution replaced the original resolution as the motion on the floor. In response to a procedural question, Prof. Ferrell pointed out that the resolution required adoption on only one reading.
Prof. Ed Halloran (Nursing) spoke in favor of the resolution. He said he would encourage the committee that is to be appointed if the resolution is adopted to be as thoughtful and deliberative as the committee which gave rise to the gender equity study in the first place. He hoped the new committee would address high salaries as well as low salaries. He said he has done a study which indicates that departments with the highest average salaries tend to be predominately male, while departments with the lowest average salaries tend to be largely female. He suggested that this is a systemic problem. Prof. Estroff said that she intended to charge the Faculty Welfare Committee to look into this specific issue, but that she thought that it is a separate matter from the issue of gender equity.
Prof. Kerry Kilpatrick (Health Policy & Administration), referring to Section 4 of the resolution, said that he found the level of detail of data to be reported to be too prescriptive. He moved to amend the resolution on page 2, line 4, by striking out “at least” and substituting “for example.”
Prof. Pisano opposed the amendment. She said that this was considered to be the most important part of the resolution by the women who were consulted in its drafting.
Prof. Noelle Granger (Cell Biology & Anatomy) said in her personal experience the lack of the specified information has been a problem for two decades. She said she has been on several committees who have wanted to have this kind of information and have been unable to obtain it.
Prof. Estroff said that the reason the resolution goes into such detail is that not specifying this level of detail in the past has been ineffective. The resolution sets out a checklist of data that should be consistently available.
Prof. Pisano added that the list of information requested is exactly what is now specified by the Association of American Medical Colleges. She hoped the amendment would be defeated.
Prof. William Smith (Mathematics) said that although he had seconded the motion to amend, he would speak against it. He thought that the specified information should be routinely available to the provost.
The amendment was defeated on a voice vote.
Prof. Pfaff moved to amend the resolution on page 2 by striking out all of lines 25 and 26 [Sec. 4(8)]. He said that requiring reports of the percentage of faculty time spent in teaching, research, committee work, clinical work, and other activities brings back unpleasant memories of an attempt by the legislature several years ago to require the faculty to give detailed accounts of our time, the apparent assumption being that we do not work hard enough.
Prof. Peter Rock (Anesthesiology) said that the information is now being collected in the School of Medicine at least twice each year. He did not think the resolution imposes any new requirements in this regard.
Prof. Pfaff replied that the resolution applies in Academic Affairs units as well where this type of reporting is not customary.
Prof. Moran said that, speaking as a former dean, the information would be difficult to assemble. She asked whether the faculty would be expected to self-report.
Prof. Pisano said that she realized that the information could be put to more than one use, but eliminating this requirement does strike at the heart of the resolution because it is trying to get at how women are valued on this campus for what they do. It has been her experience that in some units women are disproportionately assigned more teaching and more committee work and that these activities are undervalued in comparison to other types of work. The only way to shed light on this issue is to look at how these women are spending their time compared to their male colleagues, she said.
The amendment was defeated on a voice vote.
Prof. Charles Poole (Epidemiology) said he would like to vote for the resolution, but that he had three questions: (1) by voting for the resolution, would one be saying that gender is the only reason for unfair compensation; (2) would the resolution prevent or discourage a department from paying premium salaries to women because they are more in demand due to small numbers of women in that field; and (3) although the title of the resolution refers to salary, it seems that a number of items on the list of things to be reported have little to do with salary, such as the composition of search committees.
Prof. Pisano replied that gender is not the only factor influencing salary, that there is no reason to think that higher salaries could not be offered to “superstars” because of this resolution, and that the issue underlying the question of such things as composition of search committees is to have a means of evaluating the climate for women on this campus.
Prof. Mary Ann Salmon (Social Work) said that in the light of the discussion on Prof. Pfaff’s amendment, she would move to amend the resolution on page 2, line 8 by inserting the word “approximate” at the beginning of sec. 4(8).
The amendment was adopted on voice vote.
Prof. Camilla Tulloch (Dentistry), referring to page 1, line 13, asked if it is the intent that all members of a school or departmental review committee must be elected. She thought that there should be flexibility to include appropriate administrators on the committee, and that it should not be an absolute requirement that all members be elected.
Prof. Pisano said that the resolution is worded in this way because some units now have appointed committees whose membership is now known to the faculty. The purpose is to make the process open.
Prof. Tulloch chose not to offer a formal amendment.
The discussion having concluded, the substitute resolution, as amended, was adopted and will be enrolled as Resolution 2003-4.
Report of the Task Force on Appointment, Promotion, and Tenure
Prof. Ferrell, on behalf of the Executive Committee on of the Faculty Council, placed before the Council a resolution entitled “Responding to the Recommendations of the Task Force on Appointments, Promotions, and Tenure.” He explained that he had drafted the resolution as a means of enabling the Council to endorse or reject each specific recommendation of the Task Force.
Prof. Ferrell proposed that the Council discuss and act on Sections I.1 through I.5 of the resolution individually; that Sections II.1 through II.12 be discussed and acted on as a whole; and that Sections III.1 through III.3 be discussed and acted on individually. Prof. Brooks asked that Section II.2 be considered separately. With the modification proposed by Prof. Brooks, the Council accepted Prof. Ferrell’s suggested procedure.
Sec. I.1 was placed before the Council for action. Prof. Gray-Little asked for comment on the relationship, if any, between the proposal for a system of paid parental leave and provisions stopping the tenure clock for recent family needs.
Prof. Farel said that the proposal for parental leave is in addition to provisions for stopping the tenure clock. Such leave would be available to tenured faculty as well.
Prof. Pisano asked if the proposal is for parental leave in addition to what is already available. Prof. Farel said that was the intent of the Task Force. Prof. Ferrell replied that the resolution does not reach that level of detail.
Prof. Shea asked what duration of leave is had in mind. Prof. Ferrell said the resolution leaves that detail to be worked out.
Prof. Pfaff said that he is concerned at the potential impact on small departments of an expanded system of parental leave. The metrics outlined in the academic plan suggests that a unit’s productivity will be measured and may have an important impact on future resource allocations. The smaller the unit, the greater the impact of one or two leaves.
Prof. Farel said the Task Force had in mind a leave of one semester.
Prof. Smith said that he thought the resolution appropriately worded and that we should adopt this provision and put our problem-solvers to work on getting support for it and fine-tuning the detail.
Prof. Harry Watson (History) asked about the prospects of getting funding. Provost Shelton said that the prospects of getting State support are low, and that we would need to add this request to our list of priorities and identify what to drop in order to accomplish such a program.
In response to a question of whether an assistant professor taking parental leave would still be on the tenure clock, Prof. Estroff said that it is her understanding that this would be personal leave, not professional leave, and that therefore the tenure clock would be stopped.
Prof. Adaora Adimora (Medicine) asked whether the faculty member would have a choice as to whether the tenure clock would be stopped.
Prof. Ferrell said that under the current tenure regulations, a faculty member must specifically request that the tenure clock be stopped for reasons of this nature. The resolution as currently drafted does not change that with respect to parental leave.
Prof. Shea asked whether paid leave would be at the same salary level. Prof. Ferrell said that this detail is not addressed by the resolution.
Prof. Pfaff said that he was still troubled by the wording that calls on the university to “seek appropriate funding” for a parental leave system. He thought that such leave must be an entitlement or else should not be offered at all. Otherwise, one might be told that the department had already used up its pregnancy quota for the year!
The discussion having concluded, Section I.1 was adopted on voice vote.
Sections I.2. and I.3 were placed before the Council for discussion.
Prof. Pisano asked for clarification as to the intent of Sec. I.3. Prof. Farel said that the Task Force wanted to emphasize that a faculty member who has requested and received “stop the tenure clock” time should not be expected to accomplish more over a seven-year period that includes “stop the clock” time than he or she would have been expected to accomplish over a five-year period that did not include “stock the clock” time.
Sections 1.2 and 1.3 were adopted on voice vote.
Section 1.4 was placed before the Council for action.
In response to a question as to procedure should Sec. I.4 be approved, Prof. Ferrell explained that implementation of this proposal would require a change in the Trustee Policies and Procedures Governing Academic Tenure. The resolution, if adopted, would call on the Committee on University Government to draft a specific proposal for consideration by the Council. If approved by the Council, the proposal would be transmitted to the chancellor with the request that he recommend it to the Board of Trustees for action. The chancellor would have discretion to take that action or not, as he might think best. If the Trustees were to approve such an amendment, it would then be transmitted to the Office of the President for final approval.
Prof. Shea asked whether under the current tenure regulations, a department chair has discretion to extend the probationary period for up to two years in appropriate circumstances. Prof. Ferrell replied that only a one-year extension is now allowed. Prof. Leigh observed that the proposal would appear to give the dean discretion to extend for any length of time up to two years. Prof. Shea said he did not see why an extension of more than two years shouldn’t be possible in truly extraordinary circumstances. He did not favor the proposal because it is too restrictive.
Prof. Farel said that it was his understanding that whether to extend the term in appropriate circumstances is not within the chair’s or dean’s discretion, but that the decision is made by the provost, and that he is also under the impression that such requests are seldom, if ever, denied. He said that few requests are made, however, and that most faculty members are not aware that the option is available. He said the issue here is whether there should be a possibility of extension for up to two years. The general feeling among both administrators and faculty members is that the process toward permanent tenure should be as rapid as possible and should not be slowed down. For that reason, he felt that anyone who asked for an extension would be doing so for truly compelling reasons. He thought that the possibility of abuse is minimal, and that he would regret having regulations that are more restrictive than necessary for fear of potential abuse.
Prof. Shea replied that one could argue just as persuasively that we don’t need the change because a one-year extension seems to have been adequate for the great majority of the faculty.
In response to a question of what instigated the proposal, Prof. Farel said that the subcommittee chaired by Prof. Barbara Harris had engaged in extensive conversations on this issue, particularly with women faculty, and had conducted an online poll on the issue.
Discussion having concluded, Sec. I.4 was adopted.
Section 1.5 was placed before the Council for action.
Prof. Brooks, speaking on behalf of the Advisory Committee, reported that the Advisory Committee unanimously recommends rejection of this proposal. Borderline cases are always difficult, he said, and those are the kinds of cases that would most often be the ones for which this proposal would be invoked. He said that most of us who have been involved in the tenure process find it very hard to deny tenure to a colleague with whom we have worked for five years, much less six years. The Advisory Committee believes that this proposal would often prove too tempting to the disadvantage of the appointing unit. Moreover, after the additional year, when a final decision has to be made, the prospect of near-term dismissal would likely create intense emotional pressure that would compromise the integrity and objectivity of the department’s decision process. A final reason for rejecting the proposal is that there is already in place a mechanism that serves the same purpose. The Advisory Committee reminds the Council, he said, that an appointing unit always has the option of giving notice not to reappoint 18 months before the expiration of the term, only to reverse that decision at a later time and decide to reappoint if there has been sufficient improvement in performance.
Prof. Watson asked if the proposal was intended to apply only to faculty members who have taken parental leave. Prof. Ferrell said that it has no relationship to that circumstance.
Prof. Smith said that he strongly opposed the proposal. It is in direct contradiction of long-standing policies endorsed by the AAUP. The reason for the AAUP’s insistence on one-year notice of not to reappoint is to give the faculty member adequate opportunity to secure an appointment at another institution. Prof. Smith said that we should bear in mind that a decision that a colleague has not demonstrated credentials for permanent tenure at Carolina does not mean that that individual would not make a fine faculty member at some other institution. He feared that allowing an at-risk faculty member to waive the one-year notice requirement would become the norm rather than the exception and would be pursued by some departments in many marginal cases.
Prof. Laurel Files (Health Policy and Administration) said that the debate appears to be focusing on the amount of notice that the faculty members gets rather than a mutually agreed-upon delay. She thought there might well be some exceptional cases where this option could be useful.
Prof. Farel said that while Prof. Brooks and Prof. Smith have raised good points, those objections were discussed by the Task Force and not found persuasive. He said that the impetus for the proposal comes primarily from disciplines in which publication of one or more books is an indispensable criterion for permanent tenure. With the loss of more and more small presses and with longer and longer delays between manuscript acceptance and actual publication, there is the perception that faculty members in disciplines with that expectation are increasingly at risk.
Prof. Estroff said that she has a rather different perspective on this and other proposals that are focusing on stresses on faculty members during years leading up to the tenure decision. She had hoped that the Task Force would bring forward proposals for the possibility of permanent tenure in part-time positions. Whatever the outcome of the proposals now under discussion, she hoped that this possibility would be under consideration in the future.
Prof. Stephen Weiss (Computer Science) said that he thought that he, as a department chair, already had means to address the concerns that the proposal is trying to address and that the possibility of a faculty member being informed of a negative decision with a month or less of the end of their contract is not acceptable.
Prof. Pfaff asked that if a department chair were to reject a request to waive the one-year notice, would the faculty member have a right to appeal to the Hearings Committee. Prof. Ferrell said that he did not think the Hearings Committee would have jurisdiction, but that the case would be within the jurisdiction of the Grievance Committee.
Prof. Watson said that the free contractual arrangement being contemplated causes him concern. It reminded him of those who argue against the minimum wage by saying that everyone should be able to contract for whatever pay they can command. It seemed to him that if one had the opportunity to forego 12-months notice of non-renewal, there could be sudden pressure on an assistant professor to waive the notice and then produce an unusually large volume of research in order to please those in the department who have high expectations. He felt that assistant professors should be protected from such pressures.
Prof. Pisano said she would like for the Task Force to come back to the Council next year with a proposal for part-time tenure.
Prof. Farel said that he would decline the invitation on behalf of this Task Force, but that he heartily endorsed the proposal that this charge should be given to some other group.
The discussion having concluded, Section I.4 was defeated.
Prof. Estroff asked whether the Council wishes to continue work on the resolution until5:45 pm. There being no enthusiasm for that proposal, the Council adjourned at5:20 pm.
Joseph S. Ferrell
Secretary of the Faculty
Resolutions Adopted February 7, 2003
Resolution 2003-3. Amending the Faculty Code of University Government to Establish a Committee on Appointments, Promotions, and Tenure.
The General Faculty resolves:
Section 1. The Faculty Code of University Government is amended by inserting a new section as follows:
“§4-5.1. Committee on Appointments, Promotions, and Tenure.
(a) The Committee on Appointments, Promotions, and Tenure is composed of twelve members of the faculty holding permanent tenure at the rank of professor. Four members shall hold primary appointments within the College of Arts and Sciences; four shall hold primary appointments in the School of Medicine, and four shall hold primary appointments within professional schools other than the School of Medicine. Members shall be elected by the voting faculty at large for three-year terms. Terms shall be staggered so that at least one term from each of the three constituencies expires each year. Members of the Advisory Committee, the Executive Committee of the Faculty Council, the Faculty Hearings Committee, and the Faculty Grievance Committee are not eligible to serve on the committee. The committee shall hold regular meetings once each month throughout the calendar year. It shall choose its own chair.
(b) The committee is advisory to the provost in any faculty personnel matter deemed important by the provost or the committee, and particularly with respect to:
- appointments, reappointments, and promotions that have the effect of conferring permanent tenure;
- promotions to a higher rank of persons holding permanent tenure at the rank of associate professor or assistant professor; and
- appointments to distinguished professorships that are not restricted by the terms of the endowment to a particular school or department.
Sec. 2. Section 4-5 of the Faculty Code of University Government is rewritten to read:
“§ 4-5. Advisory Committee.
(a) The Advisory Committee shall consist of nine elected members, the chair of the faculty, the secretary of the faculty, and the chair of the Committee on Appointments, Promotions, and Tenure.
(b) The committee shall be advisory to the chancellor in any matter deemed important by the chancellor or the committee, and particularly with respect to:
- proposed amendments to the trustee policies and procedures governing academic tenure;
- review of school and departmental statements of criteria for appointment, promotion, and tenure.
- academic program planning and assessment;
- appointment of vice chancellors, deans, and other senior administrators; and
- recommendations for corrective action
(i) pursuant to a report of the Faculty Hearings Committee with respect to a decision not to reappoint a probationary-term faculty member, or
(ii) pursuant to a report of the Faculty Grievance Committee with respect to a decision not to promote to a higher rank a person holding permanent tenure at the rank of associate professor or assistant professor.”
No faculty member shall serve simultaneously as an elected member of the Advisory Committee and the Executive Committee of the Faculty Council, the Committee on Appointments, Promotions, and Tenure, the Faculty Hearings Committee, or the Faculty Grievance Committee.
(c) It shall elect a chair for a term of one year. The secretary of the faculty shall serve as secretary of the committee.
(d) It shall hold regular meetings once each month, at such time and place as may be fixed by the committee and the chancellor. The presiding officer shall be the chancellor, or, in his or her absence, the chair of the Advisory Committee. Special meetings may be called by the chancellor or the chair of the Advisory Committee. Notice of a special meeting called by the chair shall be given to the chancellor. Whoever calls the special meeting shall preside.”
Sec. 3. Nominations and elections for the initial Committee on Appointments, Promotions, and Tenure shall be conducted at the regular faculty elections in the Spring semester 2003. To implement a system of staggered terms, the secretary of the faculty shall assign one-year, two-year, or three-years terms to those elected in 2003 in the order of the number of votes received.
Sec. 4. Except as otherwise provided herein, this Resolution is effective July 1, 2003.
Resolution 2003-4. Concerning Gender Equity in Faculty Compensation.
The Faculty Council resolves:
Section 1. The Provost is requested to establish an ad hoc faculty advisory panel to assist in reviewing and evaluating departmental reports with respect to faculty salaries that are not predicted by the multiple regression model developed as part of the recent salary equity study conducted by the Office of Institutional Research and to assist in developing appropriate means of monitoring faculty salaries to the end that gender bias is avoided. The panel should include faculty members with appropriate expertise and experience. Those faculty whose salaries are under review by this committee will be so informed.
Section 2. The College of Arts and Sciences, each professional school, and each center or institute that initiates tenure-track or fixed-term faculty appointments shall ensure that gender equity reports submitted by the dean or director to the provost are reviewed by an elected faculty committee which appropriately reflects the demographic makeup of the unit’s faculty. The committee shall make recommendations for correction of any salary inequities disclosed in the dean’s report and shall report annually to the unit’s faculty.
Section 3. The provost is requested to ensure that all publicly available faculty salary information includes all compensation received from the University during the previous year, including distinguished professor stipends, administrative stipends, bonuses, supplements, and any other items in addition to base salary.
Section 4. The provost is requested to require that the annual reports of deans, chairs or directors of all units that make tenure-track or fixed-term faculty appointments include specific data on the unit’s efforts to achieve gender equity. Specifically, annual reports should include at least the following information:
- Salaries, supplements and bonuses of men and women by rank and length of time at rank.
- Percentage of male and female faculty who are tenure-track versus fixed term appointments.
- Percentage of newly hired faculty who are men and women. Percentage of applicants for the position who are men and women. Percentage of those interviewed who are men and women. Percentage of those offered second interviews who are men and women. Composition of all search committees.
- Percentage of men and women faculty who stay in the department through their first tenure review. Percentage of men and women who reach tenure review and who are awarded tenure. Percentage of men and women faculty who are promoted to Professor.
- Percentage of men and women faculty who have been nominated and awarded distinguished professorships, endowed chairs and university and national prizes.
- Description of non-salary compensation in start-up packages, including summary of efforts to obtain employment for their domestic partners, for all new faculty members.
- Description of non-salary compensation provided to all male and female faculty members, including space (square footage provided per dollar of overhead receipts, where appropriate), secretarial support, and discretionary funding, etc.
- Approximate percentage of time spent by men and women faculty, subdivided by rank, doing research, teaching, committee work, clinical work, and other responsibilities.
- Description of retention strategies employed for all faculty who have left UNC in the last year.
The provost is further requested to set benchmarks for success in gender equity over defined periods of time for each administrative unit, based on its unique circumstances.