October 14, 2011
Meeting of the Faculty Council
Friday, October 14, 2011
Hitchcock Multipurpose Room
Sonja Haynes Stone Center for Black Culture and History
Chancellor Holden Thorp and Professor Jan Boxill, Chair of the Faculty, presiding
3:00 Chancellor’s Remarks and Question Period
- Chancellor Holden Thorp
3:20 Provost’s Remarks and Question Period
- Provost Bruce Carney
3:40 Chair of the Faculty’s Remarks
- Prof. Jan Boxill
3:50 Invited Guest: Dr. Bettina Shuford, Associate Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs
3:55 Announcement from Provost’s Task Force on the Stewardship of Digital Research Data
- Prof. Tom Carsey, Director, Odum Institute for Research in Social Science
- Prof. Andrea Biddle, Chair, Educational Policy Committee
- Prof. Jay Smith, Chair, Honor Subcommittee
- Prof. Joseph Ferrell, Secretary of the Faculty, on behalf of the Committee on Honorary Degrees and Special Awards
The Faculty Council of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill convened October 14, 2011, at 3:00 p.m. in the Hitchcock Multipurpose Room of the Sonja Haynes Stone Center for Black Culture and History.
The following 53 members attended: Bachenheimer, Bagnell, Balaban, Boulton, Boxill, Brice, Bulik, Cavin, Chambers, Cohen, Copenhaver, Eaker-Rich, Earp, Gerhardt, Grabowski, Grinias, Guskiewicz, Hackman, Hayslett, Hill, Hodges, Irons, Ives, Janken, Koomen, Kramer, Linden, Lothspeich, Lund, Mayer, Milano, Miller, Moracco, Morse, Nelson, Olcott, O’Shaughnessey, Palmer, Parise, Parreiras, Persky, Powers, Reiter, Renner, Rodgers, Spagnoli, Steponaitis, Stewart, Swogger, Szypszak, Thrailkill, Tisdale, and Webster-Cyriaque.
Call to Order
Chancellor Holden Thorp called the Council to order at 3:00 p.m.
Chancellor’s Remarks and Question Period
Chancellor Thorp introduced Mr. Lawrence R. (Bubba) Cunningham who will begin work as director of athletics on November 14, 2011. The chancellor said that Mr. Cunningham had demonstrated in his previous positions at the University of Tulsa and Notre Dame that he understands the proper role intercollegiate athletics in the life of the university. Mr. Cunningham spoke about his experience in higher education and of his family background. His father was a public school principal and his mother an English teacher.
Chancellor Thorp said that the University Day Convocation had been a great success, and that he is happy working with UNC System President Tom Ross, whom he characterized as a “strong leader.” He mentioned the dedication on University Day of a marker commemorating student resistance to the Speaker Ban legislation of the 1960s. The marker is located on the north edge of McCorkle Place at the site of a speech organized by student leaders in defiance of the law. The speakers would have violated the law by speaking on campus, so they stood on the public sidewalk and addressed a large assemblage of students, faculty, and staff gathered on the University side of the low rock wall. The chancellor said that it had been decided to list on the marker only the names of those students who joined as plaintiffs in the lawsuit that eventually overturned the law as an unconstitutional abridgement of the First Amendment.
The chancellor announced the posting of his annual address about the state of the university on the Chancellor’s website. He said there is a long version and short version with a video that highlights successes with grants and scholarships and discusses Carolina’s strategy for coping with state budget cuts. He pointed out that in the past few years Carolina has lost 556 class sections, and in recent months we have been unsuccessful in retaining 110 faculty members out of 200 who have gotten written offers from other institutions. To raise more revenue for faculty retention and resources, we will be looking a tuition increase. Although that is an undesirable alternative, he said, we must be attentive to the fact that three years of budget cuts have placed our academic reputation at risk.
Chancellor Thorp said that he will be working hard during the upcoming “short” session of the legislature to make a case for faculty and staff raises. The last general increase was four years ago. He thought the prospects are encouraging due to reports of good state revenue collections in the most recent report.
Prof. Ken Janken (Afro and African American Studies) expressed his disapproval of the expansion of the Atlantic Coast Conference to include Syracuse and Pittsburg. He said the expansion will increase the amount of travel and out-of-class time for student-athletes, especially those on non-revenue teams, and will dilute even further our traditional rivalries with sister in-state institutions. He acknowledged that the expansion will generate more revenue from lucrative television contracts and it may provide more TV viewing options for fans of generic college football and men’s basketball, but he asserted that it adds nothing of value for fans of our university’s teams. He said he does not share Chancellor Thorp’s enthusiasm for a “big-time” football program. He asked for comment on whether the expansion will increase the cost of operating the Athletics Department and whether they is any connection between that and a recent proposed increase in the student athletics fee.
Chancellor Thorp responded that Syracuse and Pittsburg are peer institutions that share our view of the proper balance between athletics and academics, and that the Athletics Department has devised team schedules that do not increase the amount of travel time. He said that any increased costs would be offset by higher revenues, and that he does not anticipate that conference expansion will entail big changes for the Olympic sports.
Prof. Vin Steponaitis (Anthropology) asked if there are positive reasons for expansion other than increased revenue.
Chancellor Thorp responded that the ACC is already a strong league from the standpoint of academic reputation. He cited Duke, Virginia, Maryland, and now Syracuse and Pittsburg as examples.
Prof. Lloyd Kramer (History) expressed concern about the impact on graduate students of the proposed increase in the student athletic fee. He pointed out that graduate students’ stipends have been frozen for 3 years, and that they are already paying about $1,800 annually in fees. He asked whether graduate students could be exempted from the proposed increase.
Chancellor Thorp responded that many graduate students are avid Carolina sports fans. He said that the Chancellor’s Cabinet has been discussing how to manage the impact of increased tuition and fees on graduate students whose stipends have been frozen, but he felt that the proposed fee increase now on the table is not unreasonable.
Provost’s Remarks and Question Period
Provost Bruce Carney reported that interviews with finalists for the position of vice provost for multicultural affairs and diversity are nearing an end.
The provost said that student fees will not be increasing dramatically this year; four proposals to increase fees have already failed. However, tuition will be increased by the maximum allowable 6 percent. He said that everyone is beginning to understand the consequences of the budget challenges that Carolina is facing. He said that an undergraduate student had remarked that Carolina must keep the promise of quality education and experiences beyond the classroom. The provost noted that The Daily Tar Heel has come out in favor of tuition increases to preserve educational quality. That came as a pleasant surprise to President Tom Ross, he said.
Chair of the Faculty’s Remarks
Chair of the Faculty Jan Boxill welcomed Bubba Cunningham as new athletics director. She thanked the members of the search committee and others who provided input. She said she is confident we have found the right person for this position. Prof. Boxill gave special thanks to Dick Baddour, a good friend and colleague, who will be helping with the transition. She announced a Faculty Council athletics forum on Wednesday, November 2, in the Anne Queen Faculty Commons beginning at 3:30 p.m. to discuss the roles of the director of athletics, the faculty athletics representative, and the Faculty Athletics Committee.
Prof. Boxill updated the Council on her progress in reactivating the Faculty Honor System Advisory Committee. She has appointed five faculty members to the committee, which will be chaired by Sr. Lecturer Donna Lefebvre (Political Science). She is now contacting colleagues to participate in the Honor System Task Force, which will be charged to undertake a comprehensive review of the Honor System, building on the study recently conducted by the Educational Policy Committee.
Invited Guest: Dr. Bettina Shuford, Associate Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs
Dr. Bettina Shuford, associate vice chancellor for student affairs, introduced herself to the Council, noting that she has been at Carolina for six months. She said that she is happy to be back in North Carolina, her native state. Her role is to provide leadership around student life issues and to create opportunities for students to make connections with things they are learning in the classroom. Dr. Shuford said that she wants to partner with faculty to find ways to make these connections. She is happy to see in the General Education curriculum an emphasis on making critical connections through seminars, undergraduate research, learning communities in residence halls, the Campus Y, community work, and leadership opportunities.
Prof. Victor Schoenbach (Epidemiology) asked if there were any Student Affairs initiatives that focus on graduate and professional students.
Dr. Shuford answered that there have been workshops on financial literacy but that her office has only recently begun to focus on graduate student activities.
Prof. Greg Copenhaver (Biology) pointed out that the Scholars at Risk Program could be a good resource for the Scholars in Residence Program.
Announcement from Provost’s Task Force on Stewardship of Digital Research Data
Prof. Tom Carsey (Political Science), director of the Odum Institute for Research in Social Science and a member of the Provost’s Task Force on Stewardship of Digital Research Data, spoke of the work of the task force, which is charged with developing recommendations for long-term and short-term approaches to handling research data. He said that the task force will soon be distributing a survey to the faculty in an effort to gather information about the nature and extent of digital data being gathered here. He urged the faculty to respond to the survey.
Extending the Time for Evaluation of Priority Registration
Prof. Andrea Biddle (Education), chair of the Educational Policy Committee, reported that the committee needs more time to complete its evaluation of the Priority Registration Policy. She submitted a resolution to that effect on behalf of the committee. The resolution was adopted without dissent and is ordered enrolled as Resolution 2011-5.
Final Report of the Education Policy Committee Subcommittee on Student Conduct
Prof. Boxill introduced Prof. Jay Smith (History), chair of a subcommittee of the Educational Policy Committee that has been working issues related to the Honor System.
Prof. Smith gave a short overview of the report of the Honor Court Subcommittee. He said that, contrary to assertions in the public press linking the report to recent events related to the NCAA investigation of the football program, the subcommittee began its work in 2009 with a survey designed to elicit faculty attitudes toward and experiences with the Honor System. The survey was distributed in 2010. Based on the results of the survey, the subcommittee developed a set of recommendations for improving the Honor System. These recommendations are intended to accomplish three broad goals: 1) to achieve greater efficiency and communication among the Honor Court, faculty who lodge complaints, and the university community as a whole; 2) to achieve reforms that empower both faculty and students; and 3) to encourage more regular and vigorous contributions to the system by the faculty. The subcommittee’s report urges faculty members to make themselves available for hearings boards, to devote classroom time to discussions of intellectual honesty, to accept service on the Committee on Student Conduct, to serve on the Faculty Honor System Advisory Committee, and to participate in hearings. He said faculty should devote more time, energy and attention to the Honor System and in return, they will have greater confidence in the system.
Prof. Greg Copenhaver (Biology) said that a recent discussion of the report by the Faculty Executive Committee revealed concern that the Honor System is currently entirely funded by student fees and is dependent on annual appropriations by the Student Legislature. He said that the Executive Committee felt that the source of funding should be more stable than that. He also reported that the Executive Committee was supportive of providing broader sanctions, but had some concern that expanding the available sanctions could lead to inconsistency in punishments meted out for similar offenses.
Prof. Smith replied that he supports continuing to fund the Honor System from student fees. He said that the subcommittee felt that the real issue is not the source of funding but predictability and adequacy.
Mr. Jim Grinias (Graduate Student Representative) said that at his undergraduate institution he had been required to sign an honor pledge and was regularly made aware of responsibilities it entailed. He asked whether Carolina students are required to sign a written pledge.
Dean of Students Jonathan Sauls replied that these issues identified in the report have been the subject of much discussion over the years. He said that students do not think monolithically about the honor system and many faculty do not communicate effectively about what they consider to be cheating.
Prof. Deborah Mayer (Nursing) said that she includes a summary of the Honor Code on each course syllabus, but she is not sure if this is universal practice.
Prof. Vin Steponaitis (Anthropology) asked if the subcommittee got feedback on how students feel about the honor system. Prof. Smith replied that the survey had reached only the faculty, but the subcommittee has plans to survey students in the future.
Prof. Beverly Foster (Nursing), a former chair of the Educational Policy Committee, said that the survey was developed with student representation. The intent was that student input would come after the summary of the findings. Because the survey was designed to capture faculty sentiment, there was not as much student input as there would have been otherwise.
Prof. Victor Schoenbach (Epidemiology) said that privacy considerations are so strong with regard to student information that most people do not know what is going on in enforcement of the Honor Code. He felt that there should be feedback for departments because there is so little general knowledge about the prevalence of cheating. Because some academic programs emphasize collaborative work, he has found that students are often used to helping each other and feel that helping others is a moral duty. He said it is helpful to put violations in a broader context of corporate dishonesty and professional ethics violations.
Prof. Beth Moracco (Health Behavior & Health Education) pointed out that the survey shows strong support for the Honor System (over 70 percent approval), but the same percentage of respondents said they do not report cheating incidents. Instead, they resolve the issue directly with the student. This bypasses the Honor System and is probably not desirable. Prof. Smith agreed that the faculty-student resolution option should not be a way to circumvent the system.
Prof. Pamela Lothspeich (Asian Studies) said that there should be more incentives for faculty to report violations. The current perception is negative for two reasons: (1) repercussions to students who stand to incur suspension, and (2) repercussions to faculty who worry that a reputation for referring cheating incidents to the Honor Court will adversely affect student course evaluations. She said that she has reported cheating to the Honor Court on more than one occasion and each has been “an awful experience.” She said that there is no incentive for a junior faculty member to report violations; rather, junior faculty observe that most of their senior colleagues do not report violations. She wondered if department chairs could be helpful in reversing this trend.
Prof. Andy Perrin (Sociology) pointed to 40 examples of negative experiences with the Honor System that were reported in the survey. He said that the majority of respondents expressed the view that the reputation of the Honor System is so bad that they will not participate in it. He emphasized that some department chairs discourage their faculty from using the system. He said that the subcommittee’s recommendation merit close attention. He felt that the faculty needs to exercise more control over the system to ensure that students behave with honor in their academic work.
Dean Sauls replied that faculty members cite two opposing reasons for not reporting violations: they feel that the system is too harsh or that it is too lenient. There is no consensus among the faculty on this. He said that the faculty needs to understand the implications of changes in the system. He said he would be open to re-engaging in conversations about that but that he has found in the past that faculty members have profound philosophic disagreements that must be addressed first. Prof. Smith replied that if the faculty were structurally engaged in the system it might be possible to come to a philosophical agreement about its purposes and procedures.
Chair of the Faculty Jan Boxill reminded the Council that at the beginning of the fall term, she sent an email reminder to faculty to include the Honor Pledge on course syllabi. She said that the Honor System Task Force will seek student input going forward and that the Parr Center is sending a student to a conference on the ethics of academic honesty. The student will report back about what other universities are doing. She stressed that the Task Force does not want to take the Honor System away from the students and is not trying to undermine student authority over the system. Rather, the purpose is to improve the system.
New Communication Technologies Funding and Transition to New Telephone Technology
Vice Chancellor Larry Conrad explained the new model for funding communication technology. See the Appendix for an outline of his PowerPoint presentation.
Distinguished Alumna and Alumnus Awards for 2012
The Secretary of the Faculty moved that the Council go into closed session to consider a special report of the Committee on Honorary Degrees and Special Awards presenting nominees for Distinguished Alumna and Alumnus Awards to be presented on University Day 2012. The motion was adopted.
Prof. Ferrell, speaking on behalf of the committee, presented five nominees. Each nominee was approved.
Prof. Ferrell moved that the Council return to open session. The motion was adopted.
Its business having been completed, the Council adjourned at 5:05 p.m.
Joseph S. Ferrell
Secretary of the Faculty
New Communication Technologies Funding Model and Transition to New Phone Technology
October 14, 2011
Issues with Current Comm Tech Funding Model
- Based on phone service only…no networking charges
- Revenues generated from bundled voice/data charge
- Phone cost = $48.00/month…by comparison the NCSU cost for a phone is $8.00 per month
- Drives departments to remove phones, convert to cell phones or Skype…which is a loss of network infrastructure funding…but network use increases
- The entire cost is on department operating budgets
- No funding for student use (except in residence halls)
- No funding from UNC Hospitals
- No funding for capital refresh or network expansion
Issues with Current Phone Service
- Long term contract with AT&T expired the end of March, 2011
- That contract had punitive language governing removal of phone lines
- Have transitioned to the State of NC ITS AT&T contract for the duration of the migration to VoIP which allows us to ramp down without penalty
- Telephone technology has progressed to provide a viable and cost-effective data network based solution: Voice-over-IP (VoIP)
- Have signed an agreement with Verizon to transition to a VoIP solution over the next two years
- Core services – included in network infrastructure charge
- Wired connections
- Wireless connections
- Off-campus wireless connections
- VLANs and ACLs
- Access control
- Installing fiber and copper
- IP address assignment
- Domain name service
- NTP services
- Monitoring and addressing abnormal network activity
- Optional services – charged on an a-la-carte basis
- Telephones and related services
- Off-campus wired connection
- Wireless refresh in advance of schedule
- Restricted VPN use
- Microwave transport
- Dedicated alarm lines
- Dark fiber and T1
- Cable tv
- Point-to-point video transport
Process to Allocate Cost
- Need to provide $11.3 million/year for Core (network
- Charge on the basis of a % of total salaries
- Use by all member of the campus community – faculty, staff, students – should be paid for on an equitable basis
- Basic charge applicable to all users, with additional charges to special sub-groups
- Pie must be expanded, with no dramatic increases to departments in this budget environment
- Expansion ideally means new sources of revenue for departments as well as sources of revenue beyond departments
- A-la-carte services will pay for themselves
% of Payroll Enlarges the Pie
- Charges to salary source, so direct charge to contracts and grants
- Historically, grants not charged
- Historically not in F&A rate base either
- $1.4 million reallocated to contracts and grants by this rate model based on current salary distributions
- Office of Research found other institutions directly charging contracts and grants for this
- Request to be allowed to direct charge contracts and grants has been submitted by the Office of Research
Funding Model Summary
- Departments – 0.54% x payroll
- Student fee – 0.54% x cost to educate
- 1/3 to 1/2 from reallocated or increased (E&)T fee
- Remainder from central University sources
- ResNet (Housing) – direct cost + overhead
- Affiliated entities (e.g., UNC Healthcare and GA) – as negotiated with each
- Building operating reserve – as appropriated by Legislature
- Capital project fee (non-recurring) – as charged to projects
Estimated Recurring Revenue Stream Transition Plan
- ITS produce a pro forma invoice for the new funding model and an actual invoice for the current model each month for every department
- Same practice as when other utility rate models change
- Allows orderly reallocation of funds among departments by Deans and/or Vice Chancellors
- Student E&T fee decision processed through student fee process that begins in August 2011 for the 2012-13 year
- VoIP Implementation defined and coordinated
Implementation “Bottom Line”
- Phone line charge drops from $48/mo to $14.50/mo
- “Baseline” services are for the network, not the phone
- VoIP transition will begin this fall and is targeted for completion within two years
- New funding model will be effective July 1, 2012
- Pro-forma billing will begin this fall for the new funding model to give units information about their future billings