Skip to main content

Meeting of the Faculty Council

Friday, December 13, 2013
3:00 p.m.
Pleasants Family Assembly Room
Wilson Library

Chancellor Carol Folt and Professor Jan Boxill, Chair of the Faculty, presiding


3:00  Chancellor’s Remarks and Question Period

  • Chancellor Carol Folt

3:15  Provost’s Remarks and Question Period

  • Provost Jim Dean

3:25  Greetings from Board of Trustees

  • Dr. Lowry Caudill, Chair, Board of Trustees

3:35  Chair of Faculty’s Remarks and Question Period and Faculty Executive Committee Annual Report

  • Prof. Jan Boxill, Chair of the Faculty

3:45 Faculty Assembly Delegation Annual Report and Update

  • Prof. Beth Kurtz-Costes, Chair, Faculty Assembly Delegation

3:50: UNC System Strategic Plan Updates (Focus on the UNC General Education Council’s assessment project)

  • Prof. Valerie Pruvost (UNC-Chapel Hill member of UNC General Education Council)
  • Prof. Abigail Panter (UNC-Chapel Hill member of UNC General Education Council)
  • Prof. Steve Leonard, President-Elect, UNC Faculty Assembly

4:15  Emerging Issues Panel Discussion: Open Access and Scholarship

  • Anne Gilliland, Scholarly Communications Officer, UNC University Libraries
  • Christie Degener, Head of Resources Management Services, UNC Health Sciences Library and a chair of the Libraries’ Scholarly Communications Committee
  • Todd Vision, Associate Professor of Biology

Background reading:

Handout from panel:  Open Access Policy Brief

Other Contextual Reading:

4:45 Vote:  Resolution 2013-18.  On Support for In-State Tuition Status for All North Carolina Residents.

  • Submitted by the Faculty Executive Committee, by request

4:55 Faculty Athletics Committee Monthly Update

  • Prof. Joy Renner, Chair, Faculty Athletics Committee, will make a short statement and be available to entertain questions.

5:00 Adjourn

Meeting Minutes




/* Style Definitions */
{mso-style-name:”Table Normal”;
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;

Journal of Proceedings of the Faculty Council

The Faculty Council of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill convened Friday, December 13, 2013, at 3:00 p.m. in the Pleasants Family Assembly Room at the Wilson Library.

The following 66 members attended: Able, Aikat, Alesii, Anthony, Bachenheimer, Beltran Lopez, Boettiger Cooney, Boulton, Boxill, Brown, Bulik, Cavin, Chambers, Champagne, Chapman, Chavis, Chenault, Copenhaver, Cuddeback, Day, Dean, Dolan, Edwards, Engel, Ferrell, Fisher, Folt, Furry, Gilligan, Gucsacas-Calikoglu, Guskiewicz, Guthmiller, Heitsch, Hirsch, Hodges, Howes, Hsu, Irons, Ives, Joyner, Kang, Kurtz-Costes, Larson, Lee, Liu, Lu, McMillan, Melehy, Mohanty, Moon, Moreton, Palmer, Parker, Persky, Pryal, Reiter, Rodgers, Shackelford, Spagnoli, Stavas, Stenberg, Steponaitis, Tepper, Thompson, H. Watson, and R. Watson.

Members absent with excuse: Adams, Baumgartner, Beck, Bunch, Caren, Chera, Collier, Cook, Cox, Divaris, Fry, Gerhardt, Giovanello, Grabowski, Gulledge, Hackman, Hill, Hobbs, Houck, Koomen, Leonard, Mayer-Davis, T. Miller, V. Miller, Mitran, Paul, Pertsova, Rial, Swift-Scanlan, Viera, Wang, Waterhouse, Yaqub, and You.

Members absent without excuse: Parise.

Chancellor’s remarks and question period

Chancellor Carol Folt said that she is pleased that Kiplinger’s Personal Finance magazine has named Carolina the best value in American public higher education for the thirteenth consecutive year. The magazine annually ranks public universities according to quality, affordability, and outcomes. She said that these achievements would not be possible without the help of the state in allowing Carolina to keep tuition affordable.

The chancellor spent the last month continuing to visit schools and departments. She has been traveling across the state and meeting with leaders in higher education at other North Carolina universities. She recently visited UNC Charlotte, where she met with alumni and administrators. She said there is a strong sense of tradition among North Carolina universities and a desire to work as a community.

Chancellor Folt said that she is looking forward to December commencement and invited the faculty to attend with or without regalia. She announced that Prof. Kevin Guskiewicz (Exercise and Sport Science) will be the keynote speaker.

The chancellor opened the floor for comments. There were no questions for the chancellor.

Provost’s remarks and question period

Provost Jim Dean told a humorous story to illustrate the opportunities that Carolina provides to students who transfer from community colleges. He was walking past the Old Well on his way to an educational leadership program dinner at Hyde Hall. He saw a young man talking on his phone. When the young man saw the provost, he asked Provost Dean “Hey, are you a dean?” Provost Dean remarked that there were a number of ways that he could have responded, and he replied, “I used to be.” The young man walked with the provost to Hyde Hall and during the course of their walk the provost learned that he had just been admitted to the School of Business. He explained that he had transferred from a community college to Carolina as an undergraduate student and was then able to earn admission to the School of Business for a master’s degree in business administration. As the two parted, the young man said “You look a lot better than your picture,” referring to recent article he had seen with the provost’s photograph. The Council members laughed.

Provost Dean said that the experience reminded him that Carolina’s mission of accessibility and affordability provides opportunities for students with diverse backgrounds to work hard and succeed. 

The provost said that one recent initiative that his office has been working on is creating a framework for academic performance goals. He has received input from the Faculty Executive Committee, deans, and center directors. He would like to continue gathering feedback and to bring a draft of the document to the Faculty Council. The measures under consideration are related to student placement, faculty research, and community impact. He hopes that by the end of the academic year his office will have the framework in place. He would like the measures to address performance, quality, and service to the state, nation and world.

Prof. Greg Copenhaver (Biology) suggested that the performance data be accessible at the unit level, especially for people who are writing grant proposals.

The provost said that he intends for the data to be accessible.

Greetings from Board of Trustees chair

Prof. Boxill introduced Dr. Lowry Caudill, current chair of the Board of Trustees. Dr. Caudill thanked Prof. Boxill for the invitation and for her work as Chair of the Faculty. He explained that he has a long history at Carolina. He met his wife at UNC-Chapel Hill and his three children have attended school here. He said he built his pharmaceutical company in Research Triangle Park and hired students from the university. In fall 2007, he became adjunct faculty and began teaching Introduction to Entrepreneurship. He said that faculty are the greatest asset at Carolina. He understands the challenges that faculty face, and he appreciates the work that faculty do to boost the reputation of the university and to attract high achieving graduate and professional students.

Dr. Caudill gave a brief update on the Board of Trustees’ activities. The board organized in July with a new chancellor, new provost, six new members, and a new chair. He said the first order of business was creating an orientation program and setting goals for the year. As a part of the new orientation program, students and faculty presented information about Carolina. The orientation provided an opportunity for the members to get to know each other. He said that the board meets six times a year for twelve days total.

Dr. Caudill said that the trustees have set four goals for the year. The first is to ensure the effective transition of Chancellor Folt and her senior leadership team. He believes that part of this goal has been accomplished by assembling a great team of advisers. He said that recent hires of Provost Jim Dean, Vice Chancellor for University Development David Routh, and Vice Chancellor for Communications Joel Curran, will help Chancellor Folt as she gets established in her new position.

The second goal is to develop strategies to educate the public about the work of the university and build stronger external relationships. Trustee Alston Gardner is developing a strategy for effectively working with the citizens of North Carolina, members of the legislature, the Board of Governors and UNC President Thomas Ross.

The third goal is to build a sustainable approach to enterprise risk management. Dr. Caudill said that the university is a $4.5 billion enterprise and that by examining operations and activities, the university can learn where it is at risk and where it might seize new opportunities in the future. The board has created a task force chaired by Trustee Sallie Shuping-Russell to formulate a plan for long-term risk management.

The final goal is to mature and consolidate the University’s entrepreneurial activities and to demonstrate their impact on the state of North Carolina. The board has created the Committee on Innovation and Impact, chaired by Trustee Phillip Clay, to identify opportunities to publicize innovation and entrepreneurship.

Dr. Caudill said the board currently has four committees: University Affairs, Finance and Infrastructure, External Relations, and Innovation and Impact.

He invited questions from the floor.

Prof. Steve Bachenheimer (Microbiology and Immunology) said that he has recently become sensitized to issues surrounding the governance of intercollegiate athletics. He pointed out that the Rawlings Report recently recommended minimizing the conflict of interest between boards and booster clubs. He asked Dr. Caudill if there should be changes in the way that the university manages athletics.

Dr. Caudill said that he is aware of ongoing initiatives to improve the management of athletics. He said that the provost and athletic director are studying student-athletes’ experiences on campus. He said that the university hasn’t avoided addressing athletics issues. He likened the process that the university is using to address athletics issues to firefighting. He said that the key is prevention, early detection, and firefighting. The end result is learning from the causes so there’s no fire again in the future. He said he wants student-athletes to have a great experience on campus.

Chair of Faculty’s remarks and Faculty Executive Committee annual report

Prof. Boxill thanked Dr. Caudill for his service. She said that she shares the chancellor’s excitement about the university being named the best value in American public higher education. She said that rankings provide valuable information for the public and demonstrate our commitment to accessibility and affordability.

Prof. Boxill said that the Council will hear an update on the strategic plan later in the meeting. Now that two core competencies have been approved, the next steps are how to assess these competencies. The General Education Council (GEC) is seeking faculty input through an online survey. The definitions of the core competencies are due to President Ross and the Board of Governors in January for approval.

Prof. Boxill announced that the Faculty Welfare Committee is planning to draft a new Faculty Handbook in the spring. The Office of Faculty Governance is hiring a graduate research assistant to help with the project. She also announced that the Water Theme Steering Committee has been meeting this year to plan the transition to a new theme.  

Prof. Boxill said that she is excited that “Spotlight on Campus” was launched this week. Aaron Keck will be contacting twenty faculty members to be interviewed about their research on WCHL. The first person interviewed was Dr. Anne Whisnant, deputy secretary of the faculty and curator of the digital humanities project “Driving through Time.” She said that the purpose of the program is to highlight positive stories about faculty research and publicize them throughout the state.

Faculty Assembly Delegation annual report and update

Prof. Beth Kurtz-Costes (Psychology), chair of Faculty Assembly Delegation, reported that the delegation has discussed a number of issues surrounding grievance procedures across the university system, distance learning, and the articulation agreement. Members of the delegation and the UNC-Chapel Hill faculty have been working on the implementation of the strategic plan. A system-wide faculty welfare and benefits committee was recently convened a result of a request by Prof. Tim Ives, chair of the Faculty Welfare Committee at UNC-Chapel Hill.

Prof. Kurtz-Costes said that the Faculty Assembly recently passed two resolutions. Resolution 2013-13 supports the full-time status and benefits eligibility of non-tenure track faculty and Resolution 2013-12 requested that faculty be involved in decision-making about program closures for low enrollment programs.

UNC System Strategic Plan updates

Prof. Valerie Pruvost (Romance Languages), Prof. Abigail Panter (Psychology), and Prof. Steve Leonard (Political Science) gave a brief update on the implementation of the strategic plan. The first survey sent to faculty in October identified core competencies. The General Education Council (GEC) met in November to define the competencies. They considered all the suggested definitions, but they would like to receive more input from faculty across different disciplines to refine the definitions. They encouraged the faculty to fill out the online survey so they can finalize their proposal for the Board of Governors.

Prof. Kristen Reiter (Public Health) asked if the definition will impact how the competencies will be assessed.

Prof. Pruvost said the assessment will be based on the definitions that are approved.

Prof. Bachenheimer asked if the Faculty Council will be given the opportunity to provide feedback during the development of the assessments.

Prof. Panter said that the Engaging Experts Subcommittee of the General Education Council has recommended partnering with Educational Testing Service to design the assessment. She said that the Council understands the need for flexibility and the partnership will allow faculty to be involved.

Prof. Steponaitis asked if the assessment will be designed to measure knowledge gained from courses or if students will be required to prepare separately for the assessment.

Prof. Panter said that the assessment is supposed to measure critical thinking and writing skills that are relevant to the General Education Curriculum.

Prof. Bachenheimer asked what the Board of Governors is going to do with the assessment results.

Prof. Panter said that the BOG is looking for program improvement and accountability. She said the assessments could be helpful for improving the curriculum and identifying issues with it. 

Prof. Leonard said that once the costs of designing and implementing the assessment are known, the BOG may be discouraged.

Prof. Boxill said that many are worried that the assessments are being imposed and she encouraged faculty to work with the GEC and provide input via online surveys.

Emerging issues panel discussion: open access and scholarship

The three panelists, Anne Gilliland, scholarly communications officer for UNC University Libraries, Christie Degener, head of Resources Management Services at UNC Health Sciences Library, and Todd Vision, associate professor of biology, introduced themselves.

Ms. Degener said that she has served as the chair of Library Scholarly Communications Committee and participated in discussions about open access in that context. She explained that there are different levels of open access that are specific to certain disciplines, including gold, green, gratis or libra. In March 2005, the Faculty Council passed a resolution that asserted UNC-CH faculty are owners of their research and should use open access publications whenever possible. Since then, the NIH Public Access Policy has been developed and MOOCs have raised questions about copyright and open access. 

Prof. Vision explained that many universities have adopted a rights retention policy in which the author grants to the university a non-exclusive right to exercise copyright before going to a publisher. The author can request to opt out of the policy. The purpose of the policy is to strengthen the author’s right to retain copyright. The Administrative Board of the Library recently endorsed a resolution to recommend that Faculty Council create a task force to investigate rights retention policies.

Ms. Gilliland explained that the nature of copyright has changed so that faculty have an increasing range of options in how their work is used. A copyright is created as soon as an article is written. This gives faculty an opportunity to think about the ways they wish to use their work. The ability to duplicate articles easily influences the way they are used now. She said that more flexibility is better for faculty when it comes to exercising copyright.  She said that many researchers and faculty want to share full text articles online, but if authors have transferred copyright, they may not be allowed to.

Ms. Gilliland said that the University Committee on Copyright has been following these issues and the litigation over use of scholarly materials at other universities nationally. They have discussed a recent case in which a publisher demanded that faculty remove their articles from the website The University Committee on Copyright will be discussing open access further in January.

Prof. Vin Steponaitis (Archaeology and Anthropology) asked if there is any data on how rights retention policies have worked for faculty at institutions where they have been in place for some time.

Ms. Gilliland responded that she would be interested in knowing what the rate of compliance is among faculty across universities but that information is only recently becoming available because many of the policies have been in place for a short time.

Prof. Vision said that there is a high compliance rate because many institutions require faculty to deposit articles for promotion and tenure decisions. He said that at those institutions the opt-out rate tends to be between five and ten percent.

Prof. Kristen Reiter (Public Health) asked if institutions are negotiating with publishers on behalf of faculty. She said there could be a cost issue if the faculty member is doing unfunded research.

Ms. Gilliland said that costs would need to be considered. Harvard has a number of mechanisms in place to help faculty. She said that in most cases major publishers know which universities have policies in place.

Prof. Joel Tepper (Radiology) said that it sometimes depends on the publisher. He asked how major publishers in the sciences are responding to open access policies.

Ms. Gilliland said that publishers are reluctantly agreeing to the policy. The ability to get a waiver is an option that can be valuable in certain cases.

Prof. Tepper said that faculty must be informed about the policies, otherwise they will be ignored.

Prof. Dorothea Heitsch (Romance Languages) commented that the committee that is formed to look at open access policies should include representation from departments across campus.

Prof. Harry Watson (History) said that he is concerned about the impact of such a policy on scholarship in the humanities. He said that the serials crisis is unique to the sciences. Academic journals in the humanities are often published by scholarly associations that sell the subscriptions as a part of their memberships. The scholarly associations depend on revenue from subscriptions to survive.

Ms. Gilliland said that the university would need to look at model that works for a wide range of disciplines.

Prof. Watson said that if the faculty vote is determined by majority, there could be damages for the minority.

Ms. Gilliland said that there would be careful consideration of how policies in other places incorporate different disciplines.

Prof. Joseph Ferrell (Government) said that law reviews are not peer-reviewed publications. He asked if they would be affected by such a policy.

Ms. Gilliland replied that she recently published a coauthored piece in a law review and her coauthor’s institution had a green open access policy. Her coauthor spoke with the editor and got permission from her institution to deposit the article. The author had the option to get a waiver, but the decision to deposit was ultimately hers. Ms. Gilliland said that whether to deposit should be a question for the author to decide.

Prof. Greg Copenhaver (Biology) said that he has been involved in the open access movement, but shares his colleagues’ concerns. He said that open access is good for disciplines that are federally funded, but open access does not work for all disciplines. He said the deposit requirement creates burden on the faculty to receive an opt-out waiver.

Prof. Steve Leonard (Political Science) said that the BOG recently asked him to present an argument about whether syllabi should be published. He asked if the committee has discussed copyright issues as they relate to syllabi and open access.

Ms. Gilliland said that the publication of syllabi is not a part of the policies being discussed or under consideration.

Prof. Leonard requested that the committee think about issues related to course syllabi in the future.

Prof. Ferrell said that the Chancellor’s Advisory Committee heard a presentation from a faculty member whose syllabi were being used for courses after she ceased teaching the courses. The department argued that the syllabi belong to university, not the individual faculty member.

Prof. Leonard added that distance learning and MOOCs also bring issues about faculty labor and copyright ownership to the forefront.

Prof. Reiter asked if other institutions have reported that open access policies create barriers to collaboration or lead to delays for publications.

Prof. Copenhaver said that these policies generally do not create such obstacles.

Prof. Vision said that he publishes in gold open access journals and pays with grant money. He said that not every discipline will be able to publish in gold open access journals so the green open access is the next best choice. He said there are drawbacks to the green open access policy because it requires a burden on the institution and the individual author, it can create an antagonistic relationship with publishers, and it creates multiple copies of the article. He said, however, that he is open to hearing proposed alternatives that could work better for faculty at Carolina.

Prof. Hassan Melehy (Romance Languages) said that faculty in the humanities benefit from the publisher’s ability to handle copyright infringement claims. He said he has never heard of publisher turning down a request for reuse. He does not think that a university-wide policy is necessary.

Ms. Degener said that different disciplines have different standards and procedures for publication. She manages a serials budget for the University Library and her main concerns are to conserve the budget and ensure that faculty can reuse their work. She does not want to mandate a policy that is not appropriate for faculty at Carolina.

Prof. Copenhaver said that open access has some important benefits, especially to scholars in the developing world who could not otherwise obtain access to medical journals because of their cost.

Prof. Louise Dolan (Physics) said that in many cases, scholars in the sciences already upload their articles to the arXiv archive that is managed by Cornell University. She asked how an open access policy could acknowledge that open access is already a standard in some cases.

Ms. Gilliland said that the policy could take pre-prints into account. She said that pre-prints are unique to physics.

Resolution 2013-18. On Support for In-State Tuition Status for All North Carolina Residents

Prof. Boxill presented Resolution 2013-18 on behalf of the Faculty Executive Committee. She introduced two undergraduate students, Emilio Vicente and Maria Pia Rodriguez, to explain the context of the resolution.

Mr. Vicente explained that a group of students created the One State, One Rate Campaign to persuade the General Assembly and Board of Governors to charge undocumented students domiciled in North Carolina in-state tuition. He is an undocumented student who came to the United States with his family when he was six years old. He was raised in Siler City and matriculated through the public school system. When he applied to UNC-CH, he was required to apply as an international student. He estimates that without his private scholarship, he would be charged $45,000 per year for tuition and fees.

Ms. Rodriguez and Mr. Vicente estimate that there are twenty students at the university who are undocumented and classified as out of state residents for tuition purposes. They said that if the university wants to fulfill its mission of being affordable and accessible, the faculty must advocate on behalf of undocumented students who cannot afford to attend the university after being admitted.

A motion to approve the resolution was made from the floor. The resolution passed without dissent.

Faculty Athletics Committee Monthly Update

Prof. Joy Renner (Allied Health), chair of Faculty Athletics Committee, said that in the interest of saving time on the monthly Faculty Council agenda, she will no longer provide monthly updates on athletics. Instead, she will attend the Council meetings and be available to take questions. The Faculty Athletics Committee meeting minutes will be posted each month on the Office of Faculty Governance website.


Having completed its business, the Faculty Council adjourned at 4:50 pm.

Respectfully submitted

Kathryn M. Turner
Executive Assistant

Joseph S. Ferrell
Secretary of the Faculty

Storify of Tweets from the December 13, 2013 Meeting

We’ve created a “Storify” record of the live-tweets from the December 13, 2013  meeting. This collection includes all tweets carrying the #FacCouncil hashtag and is a good way to get an as-it-happened snapshot of the meeting.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.