MINUTES

Faculty Assembly of the University of North Carolina - 116th Meeting

April 20, 2001 - UNCGA Building

I. First Plenary Session (10:30-12:00 Boardroom)

A. Welcome and Call to Order

The meeting began at 10:37 a.m.

B. Announcements and Introductions

Chair Howell welcomed everyone back and asked first-time attendees to stand. These included Ann Newman, UNCC and Robert Collins, NC School of the Arts.

C. Approval of minutes of November 17, 2000 and February 16

The minutes of the November 2000 and February 2001 meetings were approved, with no changes.

D. The Chair's Report

Chair Howell reported on tasks that he had undertaken, on behalf of the Assembly.

1. Involvement of faculty in the planning of buildings, esp. those being supported by the bond money. He has talked with Pres. Broad and Kevin McNaughton--Assoc. VP of Finance, responsible for bond issue construction. PB expressed concerned, had assumed faculty involvement. Currently each campus has a representative on the Alliance for Bond Building, but they are not necessarily faculty. There is support for faculty involvement and he has been asked to share specific concern. He will prepare a list and pass on to Kevin McNaughton.

2. Chair of the Faculty Assembly becoming ex-officio member of the Boaard of Governors. Actively employed faculty are not allowed to serve, and there is a real possibility that a student may be given voting rights on the Board. If the Faculty Assembly wants to do this we will need to have legislation to authorize it. The Faculty Governance committee will need to suggest a plan of action that we might take. Some are concerned that if faculty are included then other campus groups may also demand/request a place at the table.

3. Faculty involvment in Board of Trustees--Chair of the Senate on each campus to serve as non-voting member. President Broad’s position is that this is a Campus perogative--how they structure Board of Trustee membership, but we may communicate directly with the Chairs of Boards of Trustees, asking for such representation. The Governance Committee should indicate how they would like the Faculty Assembly to proceed with this resolution. President Broad does not consider it her role to direct Boards of Trustees to include faculty.

4. Review of administrators on all campuses. This item has not been discussed as yet. Procedures currently exist for the evaluation of Chancellors. He will discusses the resolution relating to this issue, with President Broad, as soon as he gets the opportunity.

5. Number of campus representatives to the Faculty Assembly. There will be changes in the number of representatives from each campus--based on number of full-time equivalent faculty members from each campus. Those campuses with up to 300 will have two representatives; 301-600, three representatives; 601-900, four representatives; and those with over 900 fte positions will have five representatives. A few campuses might have changes. This information will be forthcoming. About fifty percent of campuses have already selected delegates for next year’s Assembly.

E. Presentation by Senior Vice President Gretchen Bataille (11:00-11:45 p.m.)

Chair Howell introduced Snr. VP Bataille to review the past year and to share upcoming issue.

1. During the year, she visited all the campuses--spending fifty-five days on campuses--visiting facilities and attending meetings and other events. These are very diverse campuses so we should not adopt a ‘one size fits all’ posture. We have a great group of students who so proud of their campuses and their learning experiences.

2. The retirement of some long-time staffers allowed her to reorganize the unit. The unit now includes Research and Sponsored Programs, Academic Planning, and Student Affairs. She is continuing to build the unit.

3. The program development process has been streamlined. The process is on the Web. The Graduate Council has been reconstituted and is now more focused on Masters and Doctoral programs. A Web portal is being set up for eLearning so students will know where the degrees are and where specific courses are available. A Request for Proposal has been sent to campuses, for moving site-based distance education programs into the eLearning portal--due May 4, 2001.

4. Other academic initiatives included: collaboration on campuses to offer foreign

programs. On many campuses it is low performing--not enough majors so effort to

work together.

There is new focus on improving minority presence on the campuses. Strategies to improve diversity must move from efforts to recruit to include efforts to retain. Responsibility lies with the campuses, but the system is seeking support for its minority doctoral students program--to produce minority Ph.Ds. Students who benefit from the program will be asked to serve for at least three years, with a fair and competitive offer on one of the UNC campuses.

5. The research agenda includes the marine sciences project and other efforts. There is need to develop partnership; assess campus technology transfer capability, access more Federal funds, and find more ways to collaborate.

6. Initiatives with Uraguay, Mexico, Germany, Nigeria and Sweden are ongoing as the UNC campuses strengthen their international focus.

7. Phased retirement planning and fine-tuning continues. The emphasis is on the campuses. Recommendations have been reviewed and faculty responses have been considered, also chairs’, deans’ and provosts’.

8. Post Tenure Review is still on the agenda.

9. UNC Leadership Institute is being formed and will offer more chair workshops and more faculty development. Short workshops being planned for June, for chairs and deans. Each campus will send two or three representatives to participate in the leadership institutes, then go back and share with the campuses.

10. Faculty salary studies are continuing--gap between private and public continues to

widen.

11. Several legislative initiatives will impact higher education, and UNC in particular.

They include a bill to abolish the SAT and use end of course tests as admission requirements instead. There will be further study of what variables are predicative of performance in higher, before a decision is made; still in committee. Another bill will stop UNC campuses from offering remedial courses, and another aims at eliminating campus jurisdiction over setting tuition and fees, giving it to the legislature; voted out of committee.

Where do we go next?

1. The strategic planning process continues--memo just went out asking our campuses to be responsive to the long-range plan.

2. There will be a more systematic review of Tenure and Promotion policies. The goal is to work with Chief Academic Officers to develop policies that are true to our mission and fair to young faculty--understandable, fair, and clear.

3. Leadership training will be expanded and there will be a strong portal to support the

4. Efforts will continue to expand the Optional Retirement Plan and to include any position requiring a national search.

Questions/Comments

1. It doesn’t seem that we are going to throw tenure out the window and hire more part-time faculty.

No. This is not being considered at all.

2. There are concerns about eLearning--acceptance of credit gained by distance learning, e.g. will a Ph.D. earned through eLearning will be acceptable in the UNC system?

Student credits are acceptable and campuses make their hiring decision.

3. Can Trustees be trained regarding their role in the Tenure and Promotion process?

New Trustee orientation will include a session on their role in tenure and promotion.

F. Nominations for 2001-2002 Faculty Assembly Officer Positions

Delegate David Claxton was introduced. He made brief comments about why it is important to serve on the Assembly and what he sees as the benefits. He expressed appreciation for those who volunteered to serve on the Executive Board.

He read the nominees, and asked for additional nominees. Hearing none, nominations ceased.

G. Brief statements by Nominees for 2001-2002 Faculty Assembly Officer Positions

Each nominee rose to make give a brief introduction and statements regarding interest in the position. Before lunch the Assembly heard from:

Jeff Passe, for Chair

Richard Veit, for Chair

Allen Rosenburg, for Vice Chair

Ralph Lee Scott, for Secretary.

After lunch the nominees for committee chairs shared, as follows:

Henry Ferrell--Governance

Beryl McEwen--Faculty Development

Don Lisnerski--Faculty Benefits and Welfare

Norman Caotes--Faculty Benefits and Welfare

Mary Adams--Academic Freedom and Tenure Committee

Paul Williams--Academic Freedom and Tenure Committee

Steve Lilly--Planning and Programs Committee

II. Lunch and Presentation on Status of Employee Health Insurance (12:00-12:45 p.m.) Boardroom (Ginny Klarman, State Health Plan's Legislative Liaison)

In her presentation, Ms. Klarman shared the following:

A 30% premium increase is expected for family and for employee-child premiums. They are trying to negotiate lower reimbursement rates to doctors, etc. Hospital contracts will terminate at end of June, with new contracts on July 1. If hospitals don’t re-contract, we may need to go to a nearby hospital, or the hospital will bill the patient directly.

Currently, they are considering a $400.00 deductible. Had deductibles kept up with medical inflation, it would have been about $450.00. Maximum out-of-pocket is expected to increase from $1000.00 to $1500.00--amount paid before one begins to get 100% coverage from plan.

Members of Well Path will be covered through the end of the contract--9/30. If the lawsuit fails, there will be coverage through June 30. After that, there will probably no HMOs for state employees.

Self-funded HMO are being considered. She gave much details about how various elements, including pharmacies, will affect how much we pay for insurance coverage.

A Great deal of effort is being made to provide affordable health coverage for state employees, teachers, and retirees. This includes keeping generic drugs at $10 and adding $10 to the other tiers. Costs are tiered. Drug list will be on the Internet.

Questions

· If everyone comes back into the plan, shouldn’t the premium go down?

It should but it won’t, because of deficits for other years.

· What is the state doing to work with disease prevention?

Portion of Pharmacy contract is to do preventative health care or follow-up. They are also working with a case management company--diabetes and stroke. There is also an asthma prevention program and pediatrics program.

· Were results available for the online questionnaire about preference for health care coverage?

The researcher was present and responded that the study found that the increases will create an increase in the number of uninsured children. The Presenter requested the results and offered to share them with the legislature.

People preferred having choice of plans--more important than other factors. People were hugely against changing plan and rates for retirees. People were also against mandatory case management for people with debilitating illnesses.

· Which hospitals will have contracts changed?

About 33% or so will have their contracts changed. Some will only have inpatient rate changes.

· Are legislators under the same health plan as other state employees?

Yes, they are under the same plan, and after they become vested, they can remain in the plan even when they leave office.

· What is being done to make the plans better in the longer term or will things continue to get worse?

Anybody can go to the General Assembly and ask for changes in the state plans--medical groups for example. A Legislative Research Commission is looking at mandates and seeking to put a moratorium on additional mandates while doing research on cost/benefits.

· Why not have incentives that reward appropriate lifestyles, e.g., not smoking?

No answer . . . . [politically, it probably won't be well received].

· Are any efforts being made to organize lobbying efforts to state legislators?

Effort is being made to look strongly on what we can do as a body. Maybe there is a will to do that now; in 1993 there wasn’t.

· Can we renegotiate North Carolina Flex?

Yes, that can be done on October 1.

Can we redo for 2001?

No, but effort will be made to put the Flex plan and health care plan on the same year, then both can be done at the same time.

Voting for 2001-2002 Assembly Officer Positions (12:45-1:00 p.m.)

First, voting was done for the three positions for which more than one person was running.

Chair--Jeff Passe and Richard Veit

Academic Freedom and Tenure Committee--Mary Adams, and Paul Williams

Faculty Benefits and Welfare Committee--Don Lisnerski and Norman Coates

Elected:

Faculty Assembly Chair--Richard Veit

Academic Freedom and Tenure Committee Chair--Paul Williams

Faculty Benefits and Welfare Committee Chair--Don Lisnerski

Faculty Assembly Vice Chair--Allan Rosenberg

Faculty Assembly Secretary--Ralph Lee Scott

Budget Committee Chair--Barbara Moran

Faculty Governance Committee Chair--Henry Ferrell

Planning and Programs Committee Chair--Steve Lilley

Faculty Development Committee Chair--Beryl McEwen

Update on The Teaching and Learning with Technology Initiative (1:00-1:30 p.m.)

(Mike O'Kane, Interim Director of TLT)

The Speaker was not able to attend. Jose D’Arruda, Chair of the Ad Hoc Technology Committee shared and briefly discussed a handout provided by the speaker:

· A new Director was identified through a search process, but he declined the position. Additionally, searches are also planned for Program Coordinator and a Project Manager.

· About 160 people will participate in the 2001 TLT conference to be hosted by UNCW on May 23-25, 2001. These will include faculty, Teaching Learning Center Directors, TLT professionals, UNC library professionals, and representatives from academic and continuing education programs, and IT organizations. More information on the conference can be had at http://www.unctlt.org/conference2001.

· UNC will renew its participation in the national MERLOT program for FY 2002. This initiative will provide access to more peer-reviewed online learning materials for UNC faculty. More information is available at http://www.merlot.org.

· A TLT symposium was held at the Friday Center, Chapel Hill, on April 16, 2001. Presentations and discussions focused on structuring, developing, staffing, and managing faculty support for teaching with technology, and included four nationally recognized leaders in the TLT arena.

· The TLT Collaborative is providing a TLT Portal aimed at increasing the range of online resources for faculty and teaching/learning support service providers throughout UNC. The pilot portal is now available at http://www.unctlt.org and materials will continue to be added. Visitors will be able to get an account, online.

· The Faculty Assembly ad hoc Technology Committee representative has been attending meetings and participated in the hiring process for the new director who then declined the position.

· The ad hoc Technology Committee is pushing to have the TLT sponsor a conference where there can be peer-to-peer transfer of teaching that is meaningful.

III. Standing Committee Meetings (1:30-3:15 p.m.)

The Assembly went into standing committee meetings.

IV. Second Plenary Session (3:20 to 6:00 p.m., Boardroom)

Chair Howell (37 present) introduced President Broad, to update the Assembly on various issues. There were 37 delegates present.

A. Presentation by President Molly Broad (3:30-4:15 p.m.)

President Broad began by sharing some late breaking information on state budgets. Her talk focused on issues relating to funding:

· A sobering directive was received from chairs of appropriations committees relating to reductions. In an effort to address a projected revenue shortfall for 2001-02, the co-chairs of the legislature’s Joint Appropriations Subcommittee on Education have directed the University to identify potential reductions totaling $125 million.

· This amounts to about 7% of the University’s budget, and is greater than the entire appropriation of 13 of our 16 campuses. This is approximately the equivalent of closing a campus or eliminating approximately 1800 positions, including over 700 faculty positions.

· A similar directive went to the community colleges and the public schools.

· The President’s Office is now working closely with Chancellors and Chief Financial Officers to put forth budget plans by noon on Monday (April 23, 2001). Chancellors have been asked to protect instructional programs as their highest priorities. However, not all will be able to accomplish cuts of this magnitude without affecting instructional programs.

· Last week they completed a series of hearings before the appropriations committees--review of some 91 programs--everything that was added over the last 10 years. There was good discussion and give and take, assisted by chancellors, deans, business leaders, students who spoke on our behalf. They reminded Legislators that just last November the voters supported our need to expand our facilities and enrollment. We must have faculty, as we cannot accomplish that goal with just more facilities.

· The General Administration will leave no stone unturned in taking our case to the General Assembly and to the leadership and will appreciate the support of the Faculty Assembly and that of the student body. There will be other opportunities to make a case for less draconian cuts, as the budget approval process continues in the next weeks and months. We will work with the Public Schools and Community Colleges so we all stand together. The University is also getting support from the business community.

· In the area of Federal funding, there have been the accomplishments of faculty who have attracted contracts and grants to support research and scholarship. Awards grew by 143% over the decade--competitive grants--from $277million in 1990 to$673 million now. We are 3rd in the nation in funded research.

· Partnering with other institution in UNC and with the private sector is also growing.

· Private sector investment in research is growing at a more rapid rate than Federal Government’s.

Questions/Comments

· Is there a possibility of looking at sales tax as a solution to the budget crunch?

Efforts are being made on multiple fronts. The timing is not right to push for a tax increase as a solution. The Board of Governors may not support it. But, we do need to make everyone aware of what the consequences will be to the University system.

· What if things get worse, have we considered contingency plans and can we get any commitment that tenured faculty will not be laid off?

It is inconceivable that we will be in a position where tenure track, let alone tenured faculty, would be terminated. Though she can’t predict the future, it would need a crisis of inconceivable proportions to bring us to that situation.

· Would any specifically designated money be put to other purposes, e.g. enrollment increases allocations?

No. There was an agreement that these increases would be for specific things.

· Is there any possibility of rebuilding the coalition on the bonds to fight this battle?

We are staying close to one another and as this unfolds, building this type of coalition might be necessary. Phil Kirk criticized the cuts, and he is the head of the statewide business organization. If this continues, we will need to have to mobilize the same forces as we did for the bond campaign.

· As we struggle, must we begin to act on the cutbacks?

They will receive our plan next week. There are still a number of steps between now and when a budget is approved. We don’t want to make self-fulfilling prophecies, but Chancellors have reminded her that 90 days are required for terminating faculty. Be assured that all campuses will be involved in a collective effort to do best/smartest thing to keep the cuts at a minimum.

· Is there something new going on in the legislature that we should be aware of?

The pace of change is greater; there is more negative news than usual. It is customary to give more to budgets, instead of taking away. There has also been the bunching of bills that needed to be dealt with--unsure why. Decisions are being made with not much time given to prepare, e.g. Bill prohibiting remediation.

· Can letter to Jenny Lucas be distributed?

Yes--all a matter of public record.

Should we speak to her; make calls?

Yes.

· There seems to be a panic reaction to the budget shortfall.

Most places would have imposed a surtax when we had the hurricane, etc., but we didn’t do that, so funds and depleted and we are shellshock by it.

· There might be buildings with no furniture and no faculty. The citizens will be building buildings that we won’t be able to use. Don’t they see the relationship? What can we do?

Help them see it.

· Will relinquishing the expansion budget help us?

That is for the new students. We can’t pay for new students by taking it out of the base. That will be going down a slippery slope. The General Administration will continue to fight as hard as possible to get campuses all the flexibility that will help them accomplish their agendas.

· Appalachian State’s suggestion, from the Faculty Senate, is to protect educational programs and faculty lines. There is not enough time to consult faculty regarding good suggestions. Public knowledge will probably come after the fact. How can faculty get back in the loop?

The General Administration has shared its concerns and tried to explain that to Chair of Appropriations committee. There has been an impossible deadline; hopefully the situation will change so that the plans we are building now will not have to be implemented.

The total budget cut is $290m. $125m each will be taken from UNC and the Public Schools and $40m will come from Community Colleges. Many in the legislature want to see a lottery, but that will not help us in the 2001-2002. The President assured the Faculty Assembly that her office will be there advocating to reduce these cuts.

Chair Howell noted that student leaders are planning a demonstration to the legislature and he will send information so we may join them.

B. Committee Reports (4:15-5:45 p.m.)

1. Budget (Carl Hughes, FSU)

This committee met with VP Jeff Davies. He shared much of the same information that President Broad had shared earlier, regarding the budget crisis.

· UNC wants to be partners in finding solutions, not develop an adversarial relationship. Time is too short for normal faculty participation in current decision/suggestions re budget cuts.

· In response to a question as to whether lapsed salaries could be used to make up the budget shortfall, Committee Chair Hughes noted that this could be done, but it would mean that these positions would have to be abolished and would have to be justified in order to be reinstated.

Motions:

Two motions were presented: (CARL: Please review carefully.)

1. The Faculty Assembly requests President Broad to instruct the Chancellor of each campus to make public, in the library of the campus, approved annual budget information, in a comprehensible format.

The motion passed.

2. The Faculty Assembly requests President Broad to instruct the Chancellor of each campus to make public their campus’s response to the budget reductions, in response to instructions from the NC General Assembly.

There were many arguments for and against this motion. The motion passed.

2. Faculty Development (Richard Swanson, UNCG)

Delegate Jill Harp presented the committee report.

· The committee plans to conduct a survey with the aid of UNC-GA, to determine what type of professional leave and/or development would best fit the needs of the faculty at the 16 UNC schools. The initial idea is to administer the survey to all faculty within the university system, with the assistance of campus Faculty Senates/Councils.

The choices are:

1. A faculty trade where a professor at one school switches teaching and/or research responsibilities with a professor at another school. This may enhance diversity efforts amongst the university communities.

2. Team-teaching which lasts could last from three weeks to one semester.

3. The use of multimedia to allow for the sharing of seminars that are presented by invited speakers.

Chair Howell asked to be involved in the process--will seek input from someone in Academic Affairs at the General Administration, who have contacts with Chief Academic Officers.

· The committee also reported that discrepancies seem to exist in the professional leave policies amongst the 16 schools. When compared with schools outside the UNC system, they found that most allow for a one-year leave at half salary or a semester at full salary. This was usually allowed for tenured faculty, with limits on how many were offered each year. Some UNC institutions, (mostly the research institutions) have this policy, but several UNC campuses are not able to provide this support.

3. Planning & Programs (Ali Kahn, ECSU)

Delegate Allan Rosenberg reported for the committee.

· He shared a handout from Russ Lea. There is still concern with indirect costs, and with the inequities among indirect cost reimbursement on the campuses. It varies from campus to campus.

· Russ Lea indicated that there might be funds in a tight state budget, as they try to outsource projects.

4. Faculty Governance (Henry Ferrell, ECU)

The following Resolution was presented:

WHEREAS, the Chancellor of each University in the University of North Carolina performs as the primary executive, and

WHEREAS, the Faculty of each University in the University of North Carolina is a primary component of that University’s mission, and

WHEREAS, the faculty provides the basic educational, research and service component of each University, and

WHEREAS, the relationship between each Chancellor and Faculty of necessity must be one of benefit not only to the University, but to the People of North Carolina, and

WHEREAS, a concern for the Common Good requires that these two entities perform in a positive and trusting manner,

BE IT RESOLVED THAT:

The President of the University develop, with the advice of the Faculty Assembly, a common process for involving faculty in the selection of Chancellors, and

That at least three faculty serving on the Chancellor’s Search Committee be elected by the individual University’s Faculty Council or Senate participate on each Chancellor’s search committee, and

That, upon the nomination of the finalists in any Chancellor search, that those candidates meet with the Faculty on that campus, and

That the Chancellor candidates address each Faculty Council or Senate as to the vision of the Candidate would bring to the individual University.

After much discussion, the Resolution was accepted.

Other points in the report included:

· The Committee asked the Faculty Assembly Chair to get an answer to the following question:

- Does the Vice President for Academic Affairs have a role in the promotion and tenure decision-making and if so what appellate relief does the candidate have?

· Delegate Hugh Hindman reported that the Conflict Resolution Report is now ready for consideration. He is anxious to see the report and will be able to say whether he supports the support, after he has seen it.

· The Faculty Assembly Chair was asked to invite the Chair of the Board of Governors to discuss the possibility of the faculty having a voice on the Board of Governors. The President of the student body now has a seat on the Board of Governors. It is odd that there is a student member but not a faculty member.

· The Faculty Assembly is also asked to explore ways by which the Faculty Senate Chairs can participate in similar manner on the campuses. The Faculty Assembly Chair was asked to forward the resolution, passed at the last Faculty Assembly meeting, to the chair of the Faculty Senate/Council and to the Chair of Board of Trustees on each campus, and that the Chair of the Senate or Council be asked to meet with their Board of Trustees to discuss that matter.

· The Governance Committee will be happy to recommend that the ad hoc Technology Committee becomes a standing committee, if they will send him a charge.

5. Academic Freedom & Tenure (Robert Morrison, ECU)

The committee presented a progress report:

· In an effort to study tenure processes, the Committee has distributed NC State’s policy. Comments were few, but there were positive responses to mentoring and faculty development. The committee hopes to have more responses from faculty senates this summer.

· The distribution of the NC State model is helpful in their studies of Promotion and Tenure.

· A Phased retirement report is ready. Several faculty have already gone through the process. UNC is recommending to the Board of Governors that it be continued as a faculty benefit.

· The Post Tenure Report shows that in the 1998-99 year, 1162 participants were reviewed, with 16 deficient (1%). One positive aspect of the Post Tenure Review process is that it has increased emphasis on faculty development. Numbers on “exemplary” faculty were not available.

· In response to a question as to whether anyone has been dismissed because of Post Tenure Review, Committee Chair Morrison note that there was none that he knows of. Some of the deficient faculty members have retired.

6. Faculty Benefits and Welfare (Don Lisnerski, UNCA)

The following Resolution was presented:

WHEREAS, the proposed recommended increase in premiums, deductibles and co-payments, as reported to the Faculty Assembly on April 20, 2001, will disproportionately affect the University’s lower paid faculty and staff, and

WHEREAS, the proposed changes will result in an increase in the number of uninsured spouses and dependent children, and

WHEREAS, these proposed changes will result in the delaying of time diagnosis and treatment of illnesses, resulting in increased costs, and

WHEREAS, these proposed changes will make it more difficult to recruit and maintain faculty and staff

NOW, THERERORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Faculty Assembly of the University of North Carolina opposes the proposed recommended changes and strongly encourages the Committee on Employee Hospital and Medical Benefits (Joint Committee co-chaired by Senator Tony Rand and Rem Thomas Wright) to consider and minimize the adverse effects of any changes to the Plan.

After some discussion, the Resolution passed.

Other points:

· There seems to be an increase in the time to process NC Flex claims. Specific complaints should be sent to Ms. Kitty McCollum, Assoc. VP for Human Resources and University Benefits Officer (at the UNC General Administration). She will report to the committee regarding problems and resolution of problems.

· Ms. McCollum has done a system-wide study of daycare benefits in which she found that seven campuses have such benefits and nine do not. Three were being subsidized through Federal grants. Of the nine that do not, three have it as part of an academic program. Some have it off campus as opposed to campus-based. Ms. McCollum is willing to provide information about who has and who do not have, and how to jointly apply for Federal grants; collaborative grants may improve our chances of getting funds.

· A Survey of faculty benefits shows that the basic benefits are available on all campuses. Additional benefits vary from one campus to another. A committee is currently trying to find out what benefits are desired on each campus. Some campuses have a benefits committee; some campuses have collaborating to offer a benefit to faculty--to maximize cost. Information is available and can be access through the Faculty Benefits and Welfare Committee.

· A variety of disability plans are available for faculty--some more formal than others. The Academic Affairs Unit (General Administration) is planning to identify best practices, including sick leave and disability for nine-month faculty.

7. Ad hoc Technology (Jose D'Arruda)

The committee report made the following points:

· Faculty must have full access (24 x 7) and be able to use their campus Web page and e-mail, without censorship.

· Campuses should make more financial resources available so that students can own their own computers.

· Each campus should generate a technology plan in which each faculty will get new computer and software every three or four years.

· UNC needs to consider establishing a central site for a very large-capacity server in which campuses can store such things as video files for use across the system.

· The committee asked the Faculty Assembly to begin considering sources of revenue to support a peer-to-peer faculty retreat, in case no funds are available from the TLT.

· The Chair of the Faculty Assembly was asked to obtain the following information:

- What is the TLT budget and specifically, how much of this budget is being used to help faculty, and how? They would like a report on this question, at the November 2001 meeting.

Snr. VP Bataille noted that most of the TLT budget is sent to our campuses--teaching learning centers.

· They, again, asked that the ad hoc Technology Committee be changed to a standing committee.

· The Governance Committee agreed to make the proposal, as soon as it receives a charge, from the ad hoc Technology Committee.

C. Chair's Summary of Year and Needs for Next Year

In his closing comments, Chair Howell:

· expressed appreciation to the Executive Committee and encourage Chair-elect Veit to seek more help for the Executive Committee.

· thanked those campuses that had hosted his campus visits. He now has a better understanding of why there is sometimes so much cynicism.

· noted that there have been some ups and downs, during his tenure as Chair of the Faculty Assembly, but he has learned a great deal, met many good people and developed confidence in the new leadership, many of whom have faculty backgrounds. He thanked Snr. VP Bataille and her team.

· encouraged everyone to try to balance cynicism with collaboration and cooperation.

· encouraged the new Faculty Assembly leadership to try to address some of the issues that larger campuses have, separately from issues of smaller campuses; of there are the two are quite different. It is often difficult for one group to meet the needs of the larger and smaller campuses. The may be need to create time for delegates from smaller campuses to spend time together and for those from larger campuses to spend some time together, discussing issues.

It might be worthwhile to develop some relationships/connections with the Senates/Councils on the campuses.

Finally, he reminded everyone of Delegate Rosenberg’s initiative to get interested people to have dinner together, after the reception.

D. Old Business

Delegate Rosenberg asked non-returning delegates to stand and be recognized.

Delegate Carl Hughes is retiring. Chair Howell thanked him for the visit to Fayetteville State and wished him a happy retirement. He will be missed on the campus and at the Faculty Assembly.

A motion was made that incoming Faculty Assembly Chair, Dick Veit, asks President Broad to prepare a statement recognizing Chair Howell for his dedication, leadership and fun as Faculty Assembly Chair. The motion passed.

E. Adjournment to Reception at Senior VP Gretchen Bataille's House

The meeting adjourned to Snr. VP Bataille’s home.