Date: November 13,2002

Taft Botner Room (Killian 104)

  2. The meeting was called to order by Mary Adams.

    1. Minutes of the October 17, 2002 meeting were approved as presented.
    2. (Spencer & Proffit)

    3. Dr. Bardo, Chancellor Dr. Collings reported the following for the Chancellor:
    4. 1. Salary Equity

      In 1998 a salary study was conducted to among our peers institutions. We can get the CUPA data by discipline and rank. We can also get a special peer group report. Using the money from local tuition to pay part-time faculty money from the general faculty salary budget line will be used to give faculty raises. General Administration has said it cannot be an across the board raise. The average salary data was used to figure out an equity raise to eligible faculty.


      1. Is performance factored in? In this case either you have performed well and you get a raise or you didn’t and you don’t get a raise.

      2. Everyone will get a salary letter explanation.

      3. What about people who are above the peer group? Everyone will get something. Out goal is to get everyone to 80% of the average.

      4. Most likely to get faculty raises next year we will have to raise local tuition. Local tuition cannot be used to pay SPA or non-teaching EPA salaries.

    5. Mary Adams, Senior Faculty Assembly Delegate
    6. 1. Delegates need input for the meeting 11/15/02.

      2. Assembly will look at salary equity/merit pay issues.

      Are we high or low in comparison to other region comprehensive universities? We should make a recommendation to bring salary levels up.

      The following motion was presented and it is requested that Mary take it to the Faculty Assembly. Mercer & Philyaw

      Resolution on the North Carolina Teachers and State Employees Retirement System

      Whereas, the Governor of North Carolina has withheld matching funds from the North Carolina

      Retirement system; and

      Whereas, the North Carolina Teachers and State Employees Retirement System has been

      negatively impacted in the financial markets during the last two years; and

      Whereas, in 2002 the North Carolina Legislature voted to withhold contribution into the

      retirement system; and

      Whereas it is estimated based on actuarial figures provided by the State Employees Association

      of North Carolina that current obligations cannot be met without additional funds; and

      Whereas, the employees of the State of North Carolina have sacrificed to help the state through

      difficult economic times, and as major contributors to the well being of North Carolina deserve a

      well-planned and well-funded retirement system; and

      Whereas, lack of adequate benefits poses a threat to the state’s ability to continue to attract and

      retain outstanding faculty and staff; and

      Whereas, lack of adequate funding impedes the state’s ability to improve existing benefits for

      active employees and cost-of-living increases for retirees, therefore, be it

      Resolved, that the Faculty Assembly goes on record as requesting that the newly elected North

      Carolina Legislature and the Governor of North Carolina restore matching funds to the North

      Carolina Teachers and State Employees Retirement Fund and recommends that this resolution be

      forwarded in "good faith" to the constituent university faculty governance groups, Office of the

      President, Board of Governors, and members of General Assembly.



      1. A friendly amendment to edit title to include teachers.

      2. Contributions are only being withheld for one year.

      3. Benefits are being paid at the prescribed rate.

      4. Based on actuarial studies our pension fund is over funded and so contributions can be delayed. Contributions may need to be increased in the future.

      5. The pension fund is earning 7%. Risk levels may be increased

      Vote: Passed unanimously

      D. Lex Davis, SGA President

      No report.

      E. Keith Stiles, Staff Forum Chair:

      1. Approved the creation of an endowed scholarship to be available to children of university employees.

      2. Discussed the adopt a student program

      3. Discussed the campus beautification day

      4. Discussed staff salaries. There is limited money for in-range raises. Money can only be taken from salary reserves.

      F. Nancy Dillard, University Advisory Council Chair

      1. The UAC is presenting a recommendation to the Chancellor concerning the implementation of an alternate ID number for students and employees.

      F. Mary Adams for Newt Smith, Chair of Faculty

      The Faculty Senate endorses and supports the concept of having a Town Hall meeting that brings together the various sectors of the university in order to enhance our mutual respect and community spirit.

    7. Roll Call

    Members present: M. Abel, M. Adams, C. Atterholt, D. Banerjee, K. Bauer, R. Beam, B. Bell, R. Caruso, R. Collings, D. Hale, B. Henderson, H. Kane, P. Kneller, N. Kelenbrander, J. Mallory, G. Mercer, C. Metcalf, R. Noel, T. Oren, K. Pennington, S. Philyaw, A. Proffit, A. Spencer, K. Starr, B. Tholkes, E. Vihnanek, C. Wooten.

    Members with proxies: G. Graham, K. Lunnen, B Shults

    Members absent: J. Bardo, M. Huff, N. Smith, J. Wallace


A. Faculty Affairs (Kathy Starr for Gael Graham)

1. The Council discussed recent complaints about mandatory fifth-week grading and would like to ask the Senators to encourage faculty to use these reports as a means of opening dialogue with students about their progress in classes. Some faculty do not know that the Senate in fact approved mandatory fifth-week reports and may not understand how valuable these are to both freshmen and their advisors.


1. Is there an alternative way to post? No

2. What about an alternative type of grade? For example S or U.

3. There is concern about giving an early letter grade.

4. It is hard to calculate a5th week grade

5. It would help if advisors would work with students at this point.

6. It is not a firm predictor of the end of semester grade.

7. What is important is the advisement.

8. Faculty are concerned that they get something posted so they don’t get the friendly reminder letter.

9. Some faculty have had to restructure their classes/grading to give the 5th week grade.

10. Can we request a 5th week grade/ end of year grade correlation study be done?

11. Can the grades go only to the advisor?

12. 5th week grades are to be used to start conversation about students progress.

It is recommended that the Council study this further and make a recommendation if a change is needed.

2. Motion: The Council recommends that the Senate define a maximum 4/4 teaching load plus office hours as constituting 80% of a faculty load. Instructors teaching at this level are to be designated "full time instructors" and receive full benefits. The 4/4 standard should be flexibly interpreted for those who take on additional duties such as advising, intensive grading or lab work.

The point of flexibility is that the 4/4 load may be inequitable for those teaching nothing but Freshmen Composition or teaching courses with mandatory labs. Department heads could request a lesser load- while maintaining full-time instructor status- from their dean. (Starr & Philyaw)


1. The number of preparations should also be considered

2. Also consider the hour of hours a course is. A three hour course is assumed here.

3. Why 4/4 ? It is the standard across the university.

4. Tenure track faculty have different expectations


Motion passed 25 yes, 3 no, 1 abstain

3. Also discussed was the Social Security as ID number issue.

4. In addition there was discussion on how to limit the growth of part time faculty.

    1. Council on Instruction and Curriculum (Scott Philyaw)
    2. The Council discussed:

      The use of technology on campus

      The student evaluation of faculty tool

      How to reward faculty who teach lower level classes

      Changing the Catalog language for majors and minors

    3. Council on Student Affairs ( Dabasish Banerjee)

No report

    1. Old Business
    2. 1. Restructuring Task Force- Nancy Kolenbrander

      There will be a presentation at the Senate meeting on December 4. The Senate will vote whether or not to send the proposal forward. There will be an open forum for discussion of the structure on Jan 7, 2003. A vote by the faculty will come at a later date. There will be an e-mail prior to the meeting. The information is also on the web page.

      2. AFE/TPR/PTR

      We need to bring the information in the report into the new structure and make changes in the Faculty Handbook.

      This report is only one part of the Restructuring Report.

      The first vote is only on the general structure. The details will be worked out after. A vote on the total package will come later.

      3. Town Hall proposal

      Motion: The Faculty Senate endorses the idea of a University wide Town Hall meeting to discuss issues common to all parts of the university. ( Philyaw & Banerjee)

    3. New Business
    4. No new business at this time.

    5. Curriculum Items

For information only


The meeting adjourned at 4:40PM

Respectfully submitted

Elizabeth Vihnanek