January 14, 2005

Meeting of the General Faculty and the Faculty Council

Friday, January 14th, 2005 at 3:00 p.m.

The Cobb Theatre (Room 103) at the Sonja Haynes Stone Black Cultural Center

Chancellor James Moeser and Professor Judith Wegner, Chair of the Faculty, will preside.

Agenda

3:00 Faculty Council Convenes

• Preview of Agenda (Professor Wegner)

3:10 Annual Report of the Faculty Committee on University Government (Professor Elizabeth Gibson)

• Resolution 2005-1 amending the Faculty Code as it relates to the Faculty Grievance Committee
• Resolution 2005-2 amending the Faculty Code to abolish the Committee on Instructional Personnel and related to other matters of appointments, promotion and tenure, including fixed-term appointments

3:50 Report of the Committee on Student Conduct (Professor Wayne Pittman)

• (With this memorandum.)
• Resolution 2005-3  (amending Code of Student Judicial Governance to address fire safety and clarify COSC composition)
• Resolution 2005-4 (endorsing changes to Appendix C of the Code of Student Judicial Governance to address treatment of pending cases and provide for handling of large scale cases)

4:20 Annual Reports

• Committee on Instructional Personnel (Professor Allred)
• Appointments, Promotions and Tenure Committee (Professor Cannon)
• Faculty Executive Committee (Professor Wegner)

4:40 Questions and Comments from the Floor

• Comments from the Chancellor (who will join the meeting in progress rather than at the outset)

5:00 Adjourn

 

Joseph S. Ferrell

Secretary of the Faculty

Minutes

The Faculty Council of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill convened at 3:00 p.m.in the Cobb Theater of the Sonja Haynes Stone Black Cultural Center.

The following 53 members of the Council attended: Alperin, Arnold. Bachenheimer, Bane, Bennett, Blocher, Cantwell, Dalton, Degener, Eble, Foley, Frampton, Givre, Granger, Gulledge, Heenan, Holmgren, Howell, Jonas, Keagy, Klebanow, Kramer, Lastra, Leonard, Matson, McIntosh, Mesibov, Miller, Morris-Natschke, Pardun, Parikh, Porto, Reisner, Renner, Rippe, Rogers, Rustioni, Salmon, Schoultz, slavick, Smith, Strom-Gottfried, Sulik, Sutherland, Sweeney, Taylor, Tiwana, Trotman, Wallace, Weinberg, Whitsel, Wilson, and Yankaskas. The following 27 members were granted excused absences: Ammerman, Anton,Cairns, Chapman, Connolly, de Silva, Elvers, Gasaway, Gerber, Gitterman, Gollop, Kagarise, Leigh, MacLean, Martin, Morton, Nicholas, Pittman, Rock, Sandelowski, Sawin, Simpson, Tauchen, Tobin, Toews, Vandermeer, and Vick. The following 4 members were absent without excuse: Lin, Matthysse, Miguel, and Muller. .

Opening Remarks

Prof. Judith Wegner, Chair of the Faculty, convened the Council. She announced that Chancellor James Moeser would be arriving late due to an important engagement in Raleigh.

Annual Report of the Faculty Committee on University Government

Prof. Elizabeth Gibson, chair of the Committee on University Government, presented and explained Resolution 2005-1. She said that the resolution strikes references to mediation from the charge of the Faculty Grievance Committee in response to a directive from the Office of the President.

Prof. Steven Bachenheimer (Microbiology & Immunology) asked why this change has been mandated. Prof. Wegner said that the term “mediation” is now generally understood to apply to formal mediation in which both parties agree to submit a dispute to a trained mediator and to abide by the mediator’s decision. She said that this is probably not what was had in mind when the Code’s description of the committee’s charge was drafted. Prof. Joseph Ferrell, secretary of the faculty, described a pilot program that the Grievance Committee had tried several years ago in conjunction with the Orange County Medication Service. He said that he understood that the program had not been successful and that the Grievance Committee had concluded that mediation was typically not an option once a dispute had reached the stage of filing a formal grievance with the committee.

Resolution 2005-1 was adopted on first reading. See Appendix A.

Prof. Gibson presented and explained Resolution 2005-2. She said that the resolution responds to several sections of Resolution 2003-7 calling on the Committee on University Government to present legislation to the General Faculty concerning review of tenure and promotion decisions, consultation with the faculty with respect to such decisions, and issues affecting fixed-term faculty.

[In October, 2000, Chancellor Moeser appointed an ad hoc Committee on Faculty Appointment, Promotion and Tenure and charged it to review practices, procedures, and policies regulating faculty appointment, promotion, and tenure in order to “ensure that these practices, procedures, and policies are equitable and consistent with the educational, scholarly, and service mission of the University.” The committee presented its report to the Faculty Council on December 6, 2002(hereafter referred to as the Farel/Harris Report). The report was presented and discussed at Council meetings on Jan., 2003, and Jan. 17, 2003. A resolution creating a new standing committee on Appointments, Promotions, and Tenure was adopted on February 7. On Feb. 28, 2003, the Council began deliberations on Resolution 2003-7 which collected all of the committee’s recommendations for legislation into a single resolution with 21 sections. Each section was debated and acted upon separately. The Council completed action on Resolution 2003-7 on March 28, 2003. Several sections of the resolution called for development of legislative proposals for consideration by the Faculty Council or the General Faculty. On Jan. 16, 2004, the Advisory Committee introduced three resolutions calling for amends to the Trustee Policies and Procedures Governing Academic Tenure. These resolutions, which responded to portions of Resolution 2003-7, were enacted as Resolutions 2004-1, 2004-2, and 2004-5. Subsequently, the Board of Trustees approved the requested changes. Today’s report by the Committee on University Government completes action on those portions of Resolution 2003-7 calling for faculty legislation. The full report of the ad hoc Committee on Faculty Appointment, Promotion, and Tenure is posted at http://www.unc.edu/faculty/faccoun/reports/APTFinalReport.htm. Detailed accounts of action on its recommendations will be found in the Minutes of the Faculty Council for the dates cited above.]

The portions of Resolution 2003-7 to which the resolutions presented today respond are:

“II.1. The Faculty Council requests the Committee on University Government to prepare for consideration by the General Faculty an amendment to the Faculty Code of University Government establishing an elected standing committee on Non-Tenure Track Faculty. [Adopted2/28/03.]

II.6. The Faculty Council requests the Committee on University Government to prepare for consideration by the General Faculty an amendment to the Faculty Code stating the expectation that all appointments and reappointments to fixed-term faculty positions, whether full-time or part-time, will be made with the same consultations within the appointing unit as is the case for appointments to tenure-track positions. [Adopted2/28/03.]

III.1. The Faculty Council requests the Committee on University Government to prepare for consideration by the General Faculty an amendment to the Faculty Code expressing the expectation that deans and department chairs will consult all tenured faculty in the appointing unit in appointments and promotions that have the effect of conferring permanent tenure, except initial appointment at the rank of professor for which consultation with the professors alone is sufficient. [Adopted3/28/03.]

III.2. The Faculty Council requests the Committee on University Government to prepare for consideration by the General Faculty an amendment to the Faculty Code establishing a University-wide system for review of all appointments and promotions that have the effect of conferring permanent tenure and all promotions to a higher rank of persons holding permanent tenure at the rank of associate professor or assistant professor. The system should culminate with the Committee on Appointments, Promotions, and Tenure.  For the College of Arts and Sciences, the School of Medicine, the School of Public Health, and any other professional school that may hereafter be organized in departments that initiate faculty appointments and promotions, the dean should seek the advice of an elected committee of the College or School faculty before acting on a department chair’s recommendation. For professional schools that are not organized in departments, the dean should seek the advice of the entire assembled faculty who are qualified to consult on the action in question or an elected committee of the unit’s faculty, as may be appropriate to the size and complexity of the school. [Amended3/28/03; Adopted as amended3/28/03.]”

Prof. Gibson said that the Committee on University Government understood the policies underlying this request (Sec. III.2 of Res. 2003-7) to be (1) procedures for review of faculty appointments and promotions should uniform throughout the University, and (2) in formulating recommendations for tenure or promotion, deans and department chairs should consult either the entire assembled faculty or an elected faculty committee. She said that the committee had come to realize, as did the Farel/Harris Report, that completely uniformity is not possible because some colleges and schools are organized into departments and others are not. For departmentalized units, there is necessarily a second level of review between the department and upper-level University-wide review. Once a recommendation is approved at the school or college it is possible, however, to have a uniform system throughout the University, she said. Currently, the intermediate level of review beyond the school or college is not uniform. Recommendations of the Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences, formulated in consultation with the elected Dean’s Advisory Committee, are sent directly to the Committee on Appointments, Promotions, and Tenure (hereafter, APT Committee). Those originating in the professional schools in Academic Affairs are reviewed first by the Subcommittee on Professional Schools of the Committee on Instructional Personnel (SCOPS) before going on to the APT Committee. Those originating in the Division of Health Affairs go first to the Health Sciences Advisory Committee (HSAC), a body appointed by the Provost.

Prof. Gibson said that after much discussion and deliberation, the Committee on University Government had come to agree with the original position of the Farel/Harris Report that the intermediate level of review afforded by SCOPS and HSAC adds little value to process and is not needed. Review by SCOPS is largely pro forma and HSAC limits its review to procedural matters. She said that Resolution 2005-2 achieves uniformity by abolishing the Committee on Instructional Personnel, which has no other current function than review of faculty personnel decisions within the Division of Academic Affairs. Review of decisions in the College would continue to be conducted with the assistance of the Dean’s Advisory Committee, which is constituted elsewhere in the Code. Prof. Gibson said that the Committee on University Government also is of the opinion that consultation with HSAC should not be a formally required step in the process. However, since that committee was established by administrative directive and not by the Faculty Code, no Code amendment is proposed that would affect it.

Prof. Gibson pointed out that proposed new Sec. 5-2 of the Faculty Code responds to the branch of Section III.2 of Res. 2003-7 calling for deans of departmentalized units to consult an elected faculty committee in formulating tenure and promotion recommendations. This is already the case in the College of Arts and Sciences. In response to a question, Prof. Gibson acknowledged that this new section will require the School of Medicine to take action to establish such a committee. She said that the Committee on University Government did not feel that it understood the internal workings of theSchoolofMedicinesufficiently to presume to develop such a proposal for enactment by the General Faculty. Instead, she said, the burden of going forward with development of a proposal is left with the faculty of that school.

Prof. Gibson pointed out that proposed new Sec. 5-3 responds to Section III.1 of Res. 2003-7. It states that tenured faculty of all ranks are qualified to consult on appointments or promotions conferring permanent tenure except appointment or promotion to the rank professor, for which consultation with full professors alone is appropriate. She noted that the effect of this is to provide for inclusion of tenured associate professors in consultations for promotion from assistant professor to associate professor or initial appointment as associate professor with permanent tenure. In response to questions, Prof. Gibson acknowledged that this will require a change of practice for some of the professional schools, such as the School of Law. A Council member noted that the School of Medicine is among those schools who do not now consult associate professors in these instances. Prof. Gibson said that the Committee on University Government understands that this has been the practice in the College of Arts and Sciences for a number of years, and that some of the professional schools follow that model as well.

Prof. Bachenheimer asked what recourse there would be if a dean chose not to take the advice of the elected faculty review committee. Prof. Gibson said there would be none unless upon appeal and hearing it were to be found that the decision was based on one of the impermissible grounds specified in the tenure regulations.

The resolution was divided for purposes of voting.

Section 1 was adopted on first reading.

Sections 2, 3, and 4, were adopted on first reading.

Section 5 was divided for purposes of voting.

Proposed new Faculty Code sections 5-2 and 5-3 were adopted on first reading.

Prof. Gibson explained that proposed new Code sec. 5-4 responds to Section II.6 of Res. 2003-7 calling for a Code amendment establishing the expectation “that all appointments and reappointments to fixed-term faculty positions, whether full-time or part-time, will be made with the same consultations within the appointing unit as is the case for appointments to tenure-track positions.” She said that the Committee on University Government recommends legislation that is not as broad. Such a requirement could be burdensome in those appointing units that often need to make quick hires of non-tenure-track part-time faculty to teach additional class sections needed because of high enrollment demand. To avoid this complication, the proposed Code amendment applies only to full-time appointments. (In response to a question later in the discussion, Prof. Ferrell explained that “full-time” means 75% or greater FTE.) The committee also thought it advisable to leave considerable flexibility in the Code provision because circumstances in which non-tenure track appointments are made are diverse and procedures vary widely across the University. For that reason, the new section calls for consultation with an “appropriate faculty committee,” rather than requiring that the procedures normally used for tenure-track appointments be employed. Prof. Gibson noted that if the Council does not agree with this narrower approach, the committee has included in its Annual Report alternative language that would implement the original mandate of Res. 2003-7.

Faculty Code Sec. 5-4 was approved on first reading.

Prof. Gibson presented Section 6 of Resolution 2005-2, which responds to Section II.1 of Resolution 2003-7. Prof. Ferrell spoke against adopting Sec. 6 as presented. He said he hoped the Council would return Sec. 6 to the Committee on University Government without specific instructions as to how such a committee might be constituted. He based his objections on several grounds. First, he wondered whether a separate committee of fixed-term faculty is needed. He noted that fulltime fixed-term faculty have full voting privileges and serve with distinction on the Council and a number of faculty committees. Second, he pointed out that we have a large number of elected committees and that it is becoming increasingly difficult to recruit the large number of nominees needed each year. Third, he feared that many fixed-term faculty have limited time to devote to work outside their classrooms or laboratories. He said that he would prefer to have a special committee of the Council itself composed primarily of Council members holding fixed-term appointments. He thought that the fact that sitting Council members agreed to stand for election and are participating actively in the work of the Council is testimony to both their qualifications and willingness for this work. He said that his motivation in referring this matter back to the Committee on University Government is to enable the committee to consider the idea without feeling constrained to address it by creating a new elected standing committee. That may well be the outcome, but he would like to have the option to consider other models.

Prof. Barbara Jo Foley (Nursing) said that she had attended several of the open forums sponsored by the group that studied the status of fixed-term faculty in the UNC System several years ago. She said that conditions for fixed-term faculty vary widely across the System. While she did not object to the ideas advanced by Prof. Ferrell, she did think that there is a need for a faculty committee on this campus that focuses on issues of special concern to fixed-term faculty.

A member observed that terminology employed for fixed-term appointments and the circumstances leading to appointments of this type are very diverse across the campus and that one of the first tasks any committee would need to address would be how to effectively address this diversity.

A member from the School of Social Work said she was flexible as to the type of committee to be constituted, but she wanted assurances that re-referring the matter to the Committee on University Government is not tantamount to rejection of the underlying proposal. Prof. Ferrell said rejection was not his intent.

Prof. Wegner summarized the discussion as follows: the Council is requesting the University Government Committee go review multiple options as to how to address the needs of fixed-term faculty, including the possibility of a committee of the Faculty Council itself. In preparing that recommendation, members of the Council who are fixed-term faculty might be given an opportunity to advise the committee, and that if possible, the Government Committee would submit its proposals by the end of this academic year.

Prof. Diane Leonard (Comparative Literature) asked whether the committee’s charge would extend to fixed-term faculty who do not receive compensation. Prof. Ferrell said that it would be helpful to have a means of identifying uncompensated faculty because at present all of our faculty data is derived from the payroll database. Prof. Foley remarked that most of the adjunct faculty in the School of Nursing are not compensated. She said that this had figured recently in the School’s discussions about criteria for advancement in the fixed-term ranks. A Council member observed that the title “adjunct” means different things in different departments. She thought that care would have to be taken in addressing issues peculiar to adjunct faculty.

A motion to re-refer Sec. 6 of the Resolution was adopted.

Pointing out that several of the provisions just adopted will require changes in some of the schools and departments, Prof. Bachenheimer asked how the new rules would be disseminated. Prof. Gibson said that this would come through the Provost. The Committee on University Government made the resolution effectiveJuly 1, 2005, in order to allow time for implementation. Provost Shelton said that the proposed changes have already been discussed in the Dean’s Council and will come as no surprise.

See Appendix B for the text of Resolution 2005-2 as adopted on first reading.

Report of the Committee on Student Conduct

Prof. Wegner introduced Assistant Dean Melinda Manning and Student Attorney General Carolina Chavez. Ms. Chavez briefed the Council on the work of the student judicial system and responded to questions.

Prof. Wegner presented two resolutions on behalf of Prof. Warren Pittman, Chair of the Committee on Student Conduct, who was unable to attend.

Resolution 2005-3 asks Faculty Council approval for amendments to the Instrument of Student Judicial Governance to (1) restore provisions relating to fire safety that were inadvertently dropped from the recent revision of the Instrument, (2) clarifying provisions relating to probation, and (3) providing of the six student members of the Committee on Student Conduct, four will be undergraduates and two graduate or professional students and making other minor changes in the composition of the committee.

Resolution 2005-4 takes formal notice of changes in Appendix C of the Instrument of Student Judicial Governance that will go into effect without objection. The changes are (1) provision that a student who is a defendant in a pending Honor Court case may not graduate until the matter is resolved, (2) removing a bar to operation of the graduate and professional student court during the summer, and (3) making procedural provisions for large-scale cases.

Resolution 2005-3 was adopted.

Resolution 2005-4 was adopted.

Annual Reports

Committee on Instructional Personnel. The report was received without comment.

Committee on Appointments, Promotions, and Tenure. Professor Janne Cannon, Chair, presented the committee’s annual report. She said that in its first year and a half of operation, the committee has been struck by the differences among departments and disciplines and in the academic culture of different parts of the University. Much of the committee’s time this year has been spent, she said, in becoming familiar with these differences and working out ways to apply fair and uniform evaluation techniques to dossiers from all across the institution. The committee has also met with some of the academic deans, especially those from schools in which scholarship is not necessarily measured by the number of published articles and books. Prof. Cannon said that her experience has been that the committee has worked hard at being even-handed and she has not observed unit-specific bias.

Prof. Wegner asked if there are common areas of concern that apply across the institution. Prof. Cannon said that the committee has recently sent recommendations to the Provost about outside letters of recommendation. She said the committee would like to see a minimum of four letters, two of which can be from people suggested by the candidate and two from people chosen by the chair. Ideally, these letters should be from faculty at other Research I universities. The committee prefers to see evaluations from scholars who are not former mentors of the candidate or close collaborators, but people who have come to know the candidate through their professional activities.

Prof. Leonard asked if the committee would accept letters from abroad written in a language other than English. Prof. Cannon said she would not object, but, of course, a good translation would have to be provided. The only issue that has arisen in this connection is when all of the letters have come from abroad. In that case, the committee has wondered whether those writing the letters are familiar with the expectations of American institutions.

Faculty Executive Committee. Prof. Wegner briefly summarized the report and thanked the committee members for their work this year.

Prof. Karen Booth (Women’s Studies) asked about the current status negotiations with the Pope family with respect to the proposed Western Civilization minor. The Provost said he understood that the proposal is still under development, but that he was not familiar with the details.

Prof. elin slavick (Art) asked why there has been no action on a resolution endorsing academic freedom similar to the resolution recently adopted by the UNC Faculty Assembly. Prof. Wegner replied that she has not thought it effective to move in this direction when the legislature is not in session, and that she has heard of no movement in this State to secure legislative endorsement of the so-called Academic Bill of Rights. To pass a resolution now when nothing is happened wastes the chance to do so when there is a real need. She said that she also had been working closely with representatives of the Faculty Senate at North Carolina State University to craft a unified approach toward responding to this issue if the need arises.

Prof. Trude Bennett (Maternal & Child Health) said that we need to have a discussion of this issue for our own benefit and should not be waiting on others or outside events. She said that colleagues in her department have asked why the Council is taking no action.

Prof. Wegner reminded the Council of the resolution on Academic Freedom and Intellectual Integrity adopted in March, 2004. She said that the record shows that we acted on this topic long before the Faculty Assembly’s November, 2004, resolution.

Chancellor’s Remarks

Chancellor Moeser summarized the recommendations he plans to make with respect to tuition increases for the coming year. He said that the Tuition Advisory Task Force, co-chaired by the Provost and the President of the Student Body, presented to him a unanimous recommendation for a campus-based tuition increase with three options. In addition, he has received a number of school-based tuition proposals. Each of the three options presented by the Task Force was calculated to generate a gross amount of $9.2 million. Of that, 40% would be set aside for student aid. The remaining $5.6 million would be used for teaching assistant stipends, improving the student-faculty ratio, and continuing to improve faculty salaries. The three options were (1) an increase of $350 for in-state students and $800 for nonresidents, (2) $300 for in-state, $1,000 for nonresidents, and (3) $250 for in-state, $1,200 for nonresidents. Chancellor Moeser said that he is recommending the third option. This choice reflects the Board of Trustees’ policies to keep the percentage increase for in-state and nonresidents roughly the same and to keep resident tuition within the bottom quartile of public research university tuition. The chancellor said that he has forwarded to the trustees all of the tuition increases requested by the professional schools.

Adjournment

Having completed action on its Agenda, the Council adjourned at5:00 p.m.

 

Joseph S. Ferrell Secretary of the Faculty

Appendix A

Appendix B

Appendix C

Appendix D