2. In response to her meeting with Dr. Howell, the President expressed her willingness to address the issue of non-tenure track faculty.

3. The President presented the highlights from her workshop on the previous day with the Board of Governors regarding the competitiveness of faculty salaries. The Legislature had asked the Board of Governors to study faculty salaries and overall compensation and evaluate these for each institution in comparison to peer institutions within the state, region and country. The Board is to make recommendations for appropriate adjustments to salaries and other compensation, and to identify revenue options for funding such adjustments. The current study focused on faculty salaries of four professorial ranks. The non-salary portion is more difficult to address, although the optional retirement program may be one area that might be considered.

The study stresses the University’s goal to maintain the highest level of academic excellence, and the need to have competitive compensation to be able to recruit and retain faculty to meet that goal. After discussion with the Chancellors, the goal to be in the top 20% of all institutions was established.

The key to the study was benchmarking. For each of the sixteen campuses, a comparison group of 15 or 16 peer institutions was identified, based on an array of characteristics including mission, research character, and other standard measures. This was done twice. The first set of comparison groups was chosen from comparable public universities as the primary benchmarks. When compared against this benchmark group, it was found that to bring faculty salaries for every campus into the top quintile of public institutions, the cost would be 28.3 million dollars. Each of the sixteen campuses required additional funds to reach this level.

In a second phase, each campus was compared against a cohort that went beyond public institutions to include a sample of private institutions selected nationwide. Each campus agreed to the peer institutions selected for it. When compared against this benchmark group, nine of the campuses would need even more funding to bring them up to the top quintile. For the other campuses, no additional funding would be needed to raise salaries to the top quintile of this peer group. The total cost to match this benchmarking group would be almost 39.2 million dollars.

The strategy is to select the higher of the two results as the target. It may be that State sources will be used to reach the level of public peer institutions, and that private or non-state funds may be required to reach the level of selected peers. The Chancellors and the Board seem receptive to these recommendations.

The plan was presented to the Board on November 18, 1999, and further discussed today. In January, revenue sources and an implementation plan will be presented to the Board of Governors during a workshop. The report will identify sources of revenue that might address faculty salary issues, including any recommendations for tuition changes. Following the workshop with the Board in January, the Board will make its budget request to the General Assembly in February.

4. The second major initiative was to address student financial aid. North Carolina is one of the few states not to have a state financial aid program. Students’ debt has increased. The university has recommended to the Board a plan to introduce a program of student financial aid, which will leverage all sources of aid for students. Federal aid, such as tax credits, could be combined to increase support. The program is built on the expectation that students will provide some self-help. Freshmen would be expected to supply less help than upper division and graduate students.

5. The President responded to Keith Howell’s question about how the Faculty Assembly might be more involved in the university’s legislative efforts. Mr. J. B. Milliken, Vice President for Public Affairs and University Advancement, responded that the University is interested in using all its resources, but that the efforts must be coordinated in terms of both message and timing. Efforts are underway to initiate communication networks on each campus. The goal is to have a cadre of informed advocates on each campus. Vice President Milliken outlined one initiative coming up in the Legislature: The Joint Select Committee on Educational Needs, a twenty member committee appointed to study university and community college needs is being formed. This is a group that we need to inform. To do this, all groups, including faculty must be informed about the key initiatives, talking points, and messages that the University wants to convey to all constituents. The Vice President suggested that we form a communications group to convey these messages among faculty. The University will prepare information about our needs, talking points, and messages. The faculty may be one of the most informed and effective advocates for the University.

The President responded that the AAUP guidelines require that the salary data include only those faculty who meet the AAUP definition of full time faculty. The goal was to have only professorial ranks, nine-month appointment faculty whose major effort is teaching.

2. Would it be possible to break the peer institution salary data down by rank and discipline?

The data were broken down by rank, and the mix of disciplines was incorporated to the extent possible. The intention was to select a fair average for comparison, but recognizing that the allocation of any resources would be specific to the mix of disciplines on each campus.

3. Would money be allocated just to bring the campus average up to the norm, or would it attempt to bring each rank up the norm.

Each campus would have the freedom to allocate money, but the intention is to bring each campus up to the norm.

4. The campuses that joined the system in the 1970’s have always lagged their older peers. To compound matters, the effect on inflation has been great, such that faculty salaries often have less buying power now than when individuals were hired in the 1960’s. There may be a scarcity of faculty in the future. The older members of the system may be able to compete for replacement faculty, but attention must be paid to those schools at the bottom of the list, because they will be unable to survive unless salaries are raised. Raising institutions up to their peer group may not be sufficient for some of our campuses to survive.

5. Three items: a) Regarding the initiatives for technology and for professional development, including instructional teaching centers: Although the technology initiative has received support, development has not. Faculty, teaching, and learning seem to be taking second seat to technology. What has happened to the recommendations from the professional advisory committee?

These were not funded, and we are also stymied by the change in leadership with the retirement of Judith Stillion. This is a real concern, but will not be addressed until Roy Carroll’s replacement is named. One of the action items taken by the Board today was to approve the appointment of Gretchen Bataille, Provost and Academic Vice President at Washington State who will replace Dr. Carroll.

Secondly, given disaster relief funding, what effect will this have on the university budget next year?

The President has worked with the legislature because the University’s budget is at risk given the needs to meet disaster relief. The one-percent reversion for flood recovery has been reduced to about thirty million, so that no additional reductions are anticipated. Hopefully the funding for each campus will be released, although if Congress fails to address our needs, the head of the State Budget may be forced to take further action.

Finally, the President addressed an issue specific to ECU’s salary data.

6. The Salary data seem to address only a snapshot salary data and not include issues related to retirement and other competitive issues. Will the staff and the Board address the larger compensation issue. This is particularly important given the large number projected retirements.

On an ongoing basis, the larger issue must be addressed. However, this study is a first step that may gain support of the legislature. The benchmarking process may be used in the future to address other issues. The problem must be addressed in small steps rather than in a single effort that may be open to criticism. The anticipated need for faculty, as replacements for retiring faculty and to meet growth, is a critical need.

7. Are we disadvantaged by be included with other state employees rather than separately?

The benchmarking process may help us define our separate needs.

8. What are the implications for the state system from the actions taken by UNC CH and NCSU to raise tuition?

This is a complex issue. First, NCSU is a one-year proposal to increase tuition by $300 that would be reduced if there were a tuition increase for the system. NCSU does not plan to use the tuition to address faculty salaries, but to identify priorities related to student aid and other services. The proposals from UNC CH and NCSU, although similar amounts, are quite different. The Board will have to address these proposals. The President does not see how small increases in tuition can address the larger issues related to faculty salaries. However, if the legislature does not commit resources to the University, we will be able to address none of the important initiatives.

9. Would it help if legislators would meet with some of the committees of the Assembly?

The staff welcomes the opportunity to meet with committees.

10. As salaries were studied, what was the effect of gender? Was Nursing excluded?

The nursing professions were included in the analysis. The effects of gender were not specifically considered.

11. What are the differences between affecting the public and the legislators?

We probably have contacts with legislators, and we need to use a variety of strategies to get our message out. Key people will be identified to work with legislators.

12. In the last few years, some faculty have expressed concern about the distribution of merit raises to faculty for excellence in teaching. Do you feel that you should communicate to the legislators that the impact of the raise is hurting morale? Specifically, the rule that only 25% of the faculty can receive such raises has caused problems.

The twenty five percent rule is a Board of Governors rule. The legislature does not dictate this. We could probably not convince the legislature that we were targeting teaching excellence if we gave a raise to everyone. This is one instance where we have been treated differently from other state employees. It does cause some issues with morale, however.

The tuition issue was discussed briefly, but will be addressed later. The committee was unable to meet with a representative from General Administration to discuss budget issues, due to conflicts resulting from the Board of Governors meeting being held today.

The instructional technology initiative received $10,000 to examine collaborative campus wide workshops to look at teaching, learning and technology centers. The professional development committee is concerned about the lack of funding for professional development related to teaching and instruction, concurrent with the increase in funding for technology initiatives. Therefore, the committee asks that a letter from the Assembly to the President be written which would: a) support the idea that teachers and students are the keystone of the university, and that the Carolina Colloquy be funded; b) ask that former PDAC members meet with the IT collaborative group to see if professional development concerns can be integrated into the IT initiatives; and c) based on the work of a professional development committee last year, that the committee be provided with an update of the campus work related to teaching centers and professional development.

From the floor, Dr. Ferrell suggested that faculty who teach distance learning classes often must engage in a heavy workload to prepare and deliver them. He suggested that those courses receive more weight in the faculty workload mix and asked to committee to discuss the issue of faculty recognition for engaging in distance learning.
 

An update on the Eva Klein "space study" was presented. Given the Legislature’s rejection of the request to fund the space needs, and the financial burdens brought on by the recent flooding disaster, the initiative is on hold. About one third of the 1.5 billion dollars needed for flood relief will come from the federal government, which means the State may have a significant commitment next year. If the federal government does not increase its contribution, it is unlikely that space needs can be addressed. A joint house/senate committee will work on these problems. The House has asked for a cash flow analysis for project costs related to the space projects. The chancellors were apprehensive about using donations to address space needs, because they do not wish to constrain their flexibility to use these funds in other ways. The future is uncertain. Although direct costs related to the flood may not be as high as originally thought, these needs must be addressed and are top priority for the Governor and legislators.

A third issue to be addressed will be faculty representation on governing boards. There have been few cases where faculty senate chairs have been allowed to sit as exofficio members of boards. The committee wants to suggest another approach, which is that emeritus faculty members or alumni who are faculty members elsewhere be nominated for boards of Trustees because they could represent a faculty perspective. The next call for nominations will be in October 2000, and the committee hopes that we can make such nominations then.

The committee presented two items: A proposed Bylaws revision, which is presented tonight so they can be voted on next time; and a Resolution regarding faculty dispute resolution processes. The proposed Bylaws revisions change the committee names and charges based on the advice of delegates last year. No new committees are proposed and no present committees are eliminated.

The committee brought forth the a resolution expressing faculty expectations regarding effective faculty dispute resolution procedures. Discussion included these points: Whether the first point intruded on the freedom of administrators; who would receive the report (Faculty Assembly and GA); whether the format should be changed; to whom it should be directed.

After the question was called, the motion to accept the resolution passed without dissent. The resolution is attached in its entirety to these minutes.

Howie Neufeld reported that his examination of boards of trustees indicates that most members are male, most are white, and most are individuals who have been successful in business. Therefore, these boards may not represent the composition of our student bodies or faculties. He suggests that perhaps we should encourage chancellors and others to consider these points when constituting these boards.

With regard to the respective two issues being addressed, committee members received copies of the following two papers, the contents of which will be among the things considered at the next committee meeting:
 

The phased retirement plan instructions have been rewritten and will be released later this month. The committee continued to discuss merit raises for excellent teaching, especially how much freedom each campus should have in how to distribute the money.

Finally, the committee did discuss staff and technical support for faculty, and wonders if GA could study the relationship between staff support and faculty performance by discipline. The committee would like Chair Howell to raise this issue. In the future, the committee will examine retirement benefits, the phased retirement plan and its impact on those who do not retire, the issue of giving benefits to part time faculty and the impact of part time faculty on full time faculty.