September 23, 1994
TRANSCRIPT
MEETING OF THE GENERAL FACULTY AND FACULTY COUNCIL
Friday, September 23, 1994
Assembly Room, Wilson Library
Faculty Council Attendance: Present 66; Excused Absences 13; Unexcused Absences 12.
I. Chancellor Hardin (including Presentation of Hettleman Awards)
While some of our colleagues are still filing in and picking up the materials at the door is a good chance for me to welcome all of you to the first meeting of the Faculty Council for the new academic year. And especially to welcome warmly the one-third of the Council members who are new. Those of you who are new might raise your hands so we’ll know you’re here. We’re delighted to welcome you to the Council. It’s also a good chance to welcome the new Chair of the Faculty Council. Jane, we’re glad to have you here, too. Jane Brown: Thank you. I’m happy to be here.
One of my pleasures today was to have been to introduce Dave Whichard, the Chairman of our Board of Trustees. He was retained at home on doctor’s orders fighting a virus and is not going to be able to be with you today. That’s too bad, and we’ll try to reschedule him. He’s extremely conscientious and looking forward this year to work with us in his position as Chair of the Board. I think, however, there’s enough to report to you that Jane and I together can expand and take up whatever time Dave was going to take up today. It won’t be a very long meeting because we don’t have mature committee reports yet. This is sort of a start-up meeting, and we shouldn’t be too long about it. But I do want to convey the very sincere regrets of Board Chairman Dave Whichard that he is not able to be with us today. He really was grief-stricken about it.
A happy first responsibility is that each year we are privileged to confer the Phillip and Ruth Hettleman Awards for Outstanding Scholarly and/or Artistic Achievement by young faculty. 1986 was the first year of this award, established by the late Phillip Hettleman, UNC alumnus and resident of New York state. Phillip and Ruth — and Ruth is still active and actively interested in our University. Their vision and generosity are translated via these awards to a tangible and visible benefit for outstanding young faculty who symbolize the aspirations and excellence of the entire faculty, advancing the frontiers of knowledge and understanding across a broad range of disciplines. I am honored to announce the awards as follows, and as I call each name and identify that person with his or her department, I hope each one will come forward in turn and accept the envelope which has something in it.
First, Bart Ehrman, Department of Religious Studies, winner of the Hettleman Award. [applause]
Charles Evans, Department of Physics. Congratulations, Charles. [applause] That’s the Department of Physics and Astronomy.
David Lee, Department of Microbiology and Immunology. [applause, whistles, cheers] Professor Lee: I won’t make a speech, but I would like to thanks this unruly crowd back here, my lab, without whom this wouldn’t have been possible. [applause]
I’m happy to tell you that in addition to coming here today to receive the plaudits of the multitude, these three colleagues will make arrangements with Tom Meyer so that later this year each one will have a presentation, an opportunity to present to you, their colleagues on the faculty and other faculty colleagues, some comments about the work that they are doing which has led to this important recognition. And I will pass on to Mrs. Hettleman the enthusiastic reception that these Awards have received here, as they always do.
Jane Brown and I have talked off and on for the last several weeks about several topics on which she would like me to touch, and I will touch on them briefly and leave it for you to draw me out in a question and answer session later on if you have lively interest. One, Jane has asked me to discuss the administrative review and evaluation program that we inaugurated with the support and prodding of the Faculty Council about three or four years ago. And that is a systematic review of top administrators in the University with processes that involve heavy faculty input. A couple of things to report is that I have personally used this in the evaluation of about half of the vice chancellors who report to me, and I know that something like, a procedure modeled very much on our own, has been used by Vice Chancellors McCormick and Hershey in their evaluation of deans leading to appointment or reappointment. We have found the process effective and valuable. I have talked with both Garland and Dick about it and I’m authorized to say that they agree with me that these evaluations have been extraordinarily helpful for those of us who have responsibility for holding your administration accountable, holding each other accountable. They’ve been used, as the evaluation reports have been used, as counseling tools, and that’s a very important use of them. We do share, without violating confidentiality, we share the important findings in a way that’s designed to help each one of us do a better job for you and to promote quality at Carolina.
There has been a little hitch along the way about confidentiality and I think it’s important enough for me to mention. All of us are kind of in the habit of saying to persons whom we have interviewed in the process of evaluating faculty that any written statements that they give will be used only by the committee that’s doing the evaluating and by the ultimately responsible authority, like me or like one of the vice chancellors. That was tested not long ago and we were reminded that there is a law in North Carolina that provides each one of us, provides me as well as you, access to our personnel files. And therefore we cannot say that your written comments to us in the evaluation process are definitely confidential. And I think we will have to examine that and perhaps rely more on anonymous questionnaires, more on the oral interviews, and that’s a little awkward, but I think it’s an understandable byproduct of a pretty strong public records and open meetings law in North Carolina, and in fact the product of a, on the whole, commendable opportunity for each one of us to have access to his or her own personnel file. That’s just an aside. When Jane and I talked about my making this report, this hadn’t come to my attention. It has rather forcefully for the last few days.
Jane also suggested that I talk a bit about some NCAA Presidents Commission matters. I sent a memorandum, or I sent a copy of the letter, to members of the Council a few weeks ago concerning proposals about initial eligibility for student-athletes, some restructuring of the NCAA, the possibility of a football play-off. Taking those subjects in reverse order: the Presidents Commission has chilled conversations at the moment about a possible football play-off. I’d be glad to submit to any questions on that if you have an interest. Restructuring of the NCAA is a subject that’s going forward with some delicacy. There already is some federalism in the NCAA; that is, some issues that have come before the annual convention of NCAA are voted on discretely or separately by Division I, Division II, Division III. There’s some move on the part of certain members of the NCAA to make those separations a little more distinct, because a lot of matters still come to the floor when the entire several hundred delegates are present, and only, say, a third of them are voting on a particular issue. There’s a caveat that I would raise there, and that is that sometimes those of us in Division I who are reform-minded have found it useful to be allied with Division III. And so I assure you as far as I’m concerned we’ll be cautious about restructuring NCAA. I think some federalism is in order in the interest of efficiency, but I also tend to support, insofar as we can, keeping the whole enterprise of intercollegiate athletics speaking through a common voice.
The last issue about the NCAA Presidents Commission has to do with initial requirements, the Prop 48 and its progeny, a thing about which you’ve read for many many years and of efforts being made some years ago to set some minimal standards for participation in intercollegiate athletics, NCAA sponsored athletics, as freshmen, as first-year students, and their SAT and grade point average requirements. That has been tampered with from time to time but basically has stood undisturbed. At a recent meeting of the national convention of NCAA we looked in the direction of strengthening those academic requirements for initial eligibility, at which point, as you’ll recall, there was a reaction against strengthening those requirements, voiced principally by the Association of Black Coaches, basketball coaches, who felt it was discriminatory. And a special committee was appointed by the Presidents Commission to study that. That committee reported back at the last meeting of the Presidents Commission and recommended a certain softening of the standards. The Commission debated that recommendation rather thoroughly and decided to stick to the earlier announced intention to strengthen those requirements a bit more. And that, the Presidents Commission recommendation, then went to the Joint Policy Committee, where we thought it would go from there to the NCAA floor in January. The Joint Policy Committee seemed to us, to use an athletic image, to punt. Confronted with fourth and long yardage, they decided to put both propositions before the convention. The strengthened eligibility standards that the Presidents Commission favored, and the slightly softened, maybe more than slightly softened, eligibility standards that were being advanced by the special committee. With genuine respect for and sympathy for and sensitivity to the concerns about racial prejudice, and concerns of the black coaches, I’m hopeful that we will stick to our strengthened requirements for the following reason. The careful statistical study sponsored by the special committee did indeed show that raising the standards for initial eligibility had an initial unfavorable impact on prospective African-American athletes, more severe than the impact on Caucasian. However, the studies also showed that within a few years the African-American athletes were back on track and had the same proportion of success on the initial eligibility standards as they enjoyed prior to the stiffened sanctions. And some of the most eloquent arguments in favor of the Presidents Commission’s stance were made by African-American presidents of African-American institutions. I personally liked their analysis. They said in effect, “Don’t make us second-class citizens. Don’t give people the justification to see an African-American athlete on campus and say, ‘There goes an academic exception.’ Hold us to a high standard and we’ll meet it.” And I frankly prefer that attitude to the attitude of the black coaches, although I understand where they’re coming from. Many of them represent schools, work at schools, where the overall admission standards are low, and they honestly and sincerely feel that we use standards that are discriminatory. It’s a tough question. It will be discussed at the annual convention. Your Committee on Athletics, an elected committee of the faculty which I respect very much, will continue to advise me, advise John Swofford, advise our faculty athletic representative Dick Hiskey on that, and we’ll try to take your feelings with us to the NCAA convention.
We had a very good meeting of the Board of Trustees this morning. A little weird for a while but great results. And one of the best parts of that meeting today was a report on the SACS, Southern Association of Colleges and Schools, self study, in which many of you are actively engaged. We have a superb faculty committee at work on that, as you know, with Darryl Gless’s leadership. Pamela Conover and Dick McCormick reported today, and I want to commend Pamela, at Dick’s suggestion, and my own initiative, for making a really splendid report to the Board of Trustees on her committee’s particular area of responsibility, which is the teaching mission of the University. You would have been proud of your colleague Pamela Conover who is also a member of the Executive Committee of the Faculty Council.
Now then, I’m going to repeat and perhaps abbreviate appropriately some of the comments I made to the Board of Trustees, because we have a commonalty of interest, and, as is the case with the Board, we haven’t met together in quite a long while. I want to begin this part of my report by announcing, making an important announcement, about the Sonja Haynes Stone Black Cultural Center. Yesterday, NationsBank pledged a leadership gift and a challenge that will help ensure construction of the Stone Center. First, NationsBank will make an outright gift of $500,000 toward construction of the Center. Second, NationsBank will provide up to an additional $500,000 in the form of a challenge grant to raise $1 million in matching gifts from other banks in North Carolina. Simple math tells us then that this means we will raise $2 million from the banking industry of the state toward the $7 million goal. Finally, and of great importance, NationsBank Chairman and CEO Hugh McColl, Co-Chairman of our Bicentennial Campaign, and a very distinguished alumnus, and a bit of a primal force in banking, has personally pledged to lead the effort to raise the entire $2 million from the banking community and to work with our previously announced leadership team of Maya Angelou, Bob Eubanks, Dean Smith, Deloris Jordan, and Jack Tate to help raise the full $7 million for construction of the Stone Center. I think everybody’s been waiting for the top olive to come out of the bottle, and I believe this is going to unleash a lot of enthusiasm and momentum for the successful completion of this project. I want to tell you that the steering committee has had a gradually growing sense of confidence in the stated mission of the Center, a gradual growing enthusiasm for the project. And latterly under the leadership of Dick McCormick and some of the rest of us who’ve been plodding pretty much there is a sense of urgency that this needs to be concluded along with the rest of the campaign goals by next summer. So we are deeply grateful to NationsBank and to Hugh McColl for this further evidence of generosity and for the vision that this represents of the Stone Center.
By the way, this additional commitment, which is a million dollars from NationsBank to give you another million from the banking industry, is added to a previous gift of $2 million by NationsBank to the Campaign and a personal gift of Mr. McColl in excess of a million dollars, so this is extraordinary leadership. And if you know Hugh, drop him a note.
That’s a pretty good segue to the good news about our commitment to the development of a diverse and racially harmonious campus community. The University’s excellence depends in large part on our ability to achieve this high priority, to prepare graduates for a world that brings cultures, races, ethnic traditions, and languages together in new ways everyday. To accomplish this goal we must draw on the strengths that diversity brings — talented, committed, energetic faculty, staff, and students representing a wide variety of backgrounds, including ethnic backgrounds. We have been moving aggressively to increase the numbers of traditionally underrepresented students and faculty among our ranks and to protect quality at every step of the way, and we’ve achieved a great deal of success especially during the last year.
First, undergraduate. I’m happy to announce that we have 440 African-Americans in our freshman class, 20% more than a year ago, and the second largest number in the University system. Our numbers of other minorities, including Native American, Asian, and Hispanic students, have also increased. Among the record number of African-American freshmen are 22 Pogue Scholars, ten more than ever before. I remember when I first came here, we were recruiting 6 or 8 Pogue Scholars a year. We got that up to 10, and then to 20 last year, no, 12 last year — ten more than that, or 22 this year. Intriguingly, revenues from the sale of licensed logo merchandise and memorabilia supported by some considerable triumphs on the athletic field have made possible an increase in both the number of Pogue Scholarships and the amount of the Pogue stipend. Every one of the 22 applicants offered a Pogue Scholarship this year accepted. Every one. And remember, these are young people who can go to Harvard or Brown or Duke. Not one turning down the Pogue Scholarship. These merit-based scholarships are absolutely essential to the achievement of our goals in academic excellence and racial diversity. In fact, the Pogue Scholars graduation rate is substantially higher than the overall graduation rate for all UNC-Chapel Hill students. There’s another synergy to report on athletics and academics and minority recruitment. Sylvia Hatchell, on the strength of her team’s victory in the NCAA Women’s Basketball Championship, was able to attract to her freshman class twins from Fayetteville who are such good athletes that they have received, will receive, full athletic scholarships, and such good students that they meet all the requirements of the Pogue program, so we have a direct infusion of two athletic scholarships into the merit scholarship program, and that’s touch class. And these two young ladies are 6’4″ and 6’5″.
Graduate and professional students. New cooperative efforts between departments in the Graduate School have led to significant successes in recruiting top notch minority graduate students. From 1991 to 1994 minority applications have risen by more than 25%, from 539 to 680. Graduate School enrolls for African-American and Native American enrollments are up from 264 in 1991 to an unofficial total of 352 this year. We have an articulation program with historically minority universities and colleges. Let me make sure I get these identified correctly. North Carolina A&T, North Carolina Central University, Pembroke State University, and UNC-Chapel Hill have designed an innovative partnership to recruit African-American and Native American students into careers in biomedical sciences. Each year 8 students competitively are accepted into the Masters programs at NCCU and NC A&T and simultaneously into doctoral programs at UNC-Chapel Hill. This program guarantees that students have both the financial and academic support they need to complete graduate degrees and, we hope, enter the professoriate. Through this important and institutional initiative, Carolina is helping to increase the representation of minority professionals in important fields like biochemistry, environmental sciences, ecology, and psychology. I think you read recently that our colleague Skip Bollenbacher has successfully written, received, a grant from the Howard M. Hughes Foundation in the amount of $2 million to strengthen science instruction and research in the historically minority universities of our state — not only the five members of our UNC system who have that status, but in a couple of the privately supported historically black institutions in the state. We have been able to come up, Dick McCormick and Wayne Jones and Garland Hershey and I, with some matching University funds totaling $225,000 over five years so that every penny of this Hughes Foundation grant can be spent on the campuses of the historically minority universities. Unbelievable kind of outreach program led by an imaginative colleague on this faculty and designed, I think, to do a good job of strengthening our talent and our resources and to add strength to the science programs in our sister institutions.
In the professional schools we’ve also done well this year. Our medical school is continuing to achieve great success in its minority education programs. I wonder if you remember that our UNC Medical School has educated more black physicians than any other single university medical school in America except the historically black one in Nashville and the historically black one in Atlanta. So that strong record continues. The Chronicle of Blacks in Higher Education recently rated our MBA program as among the best in the country for black students. Minority enrollment at the Law School is also up, minorities making up 17.8% of this year’s entering class, 42 of 235 students, and 11.5% black. I want to reiterate my conviction that we do this not because it’s politically correct, but because it tends to make us whole. It is a guarantee that as we move into the third century of service we will present our student body with a microcosm of the real world, and our real world which is diverse and competitive. And I’m very happy to bring this report to you without complacency. Minority post doctoral scholars program is also thriving. Remember this is a program in which we bring minority post-docs in: about 170 applications this year for 5 slots. We currently have 2 Native American and 7 African-American students, including 4 men and 5 women. By involving departments in the recruiting program, we hope to increase the likelihood that they will consider retaining the minority post-docs as faculty colleagues. Remember, this minority post-doctoral program has yielded more professors for the other institutions in North Carolina than for us. And we think that involving the departments in the active recruiting of the post-docs will tend to lead departments to take a close look and give a shot by our faculty to the highly deserving, highly qualified recruits.
Perhaps, then, this brings us to the most exciting achievement of all related to diversity, and that’s the success of our efforts to recruit minority faculty. Current minority faculty, those already here, played obviously an important role in helping the University attract 13 new tenured or tenure-track black faculty members, 7 Asian-Americans, and 1 Hispanic-American this year. This is, by the way, the most successful single year the University has ever enjoyed in diversifying its faculty. I’m especially pleased by the balance of this group in terms of gender, rank, and distribution. The numbers of men and women are almost equal. They’re evenly distributed among the ranks, and they have chosen to join departments all across the campus, including Dramatic Art, Communication Studies, Education, Surgery, Information and Library Science, and the School of Public Health.
A year and a half ago, speaking from this podium (at the other end of the room before Jane remodelled us here) NCCU Chancellor Julius Chambers proposed a faculty exchange program between Chapel Hill and Central. As it turned out, we discovered that many programs and activities were already bringing together the faculty and students of those two universities. But a joint faculty committee was appointed from the two respective institutions to collaborate, to extend the existing collaborations, and encourage additional ones. Early last spring the joint committee between Central and Carolina completed its work and presented Chancellor Chambers and me with an impressive 17 page report. NCCU has already been incorporated into the Triangle Research Libraries Network, and we’re looking at expanding and emulating other initiatives that already exist, such as those in Social Work, Library and Information Science, Nursing, and Psychology.
The Institute on African-American Life and Culture. You may remember both of the reports in 1993 on the Sonja Haynes Stone Center recommended establishment of a research Institute on African-American Life and Culture. I’m pleased to announce that the UNC General Administration has given us formal permission to plan the Institute, and Professor Michael Eric Dyson, an impressive new member of the Department of Communication Studies, one of the recruits to whom I just referred, has consented to lead this next critical phase in the Institute’s development. With Michael Dyson’s expert leadership, and the guidance of a first-rate advisory board, I’m certain that this campus will create one of the most important academic institutes of this kind. And I have taken him aside and expressed my gratification that, no matter from what angle the challenge and opportunity of the Sonja Haynes Stone Center was approached, there has been a coherence allowing a clear vision of a major academic asset to our University, studying in a systematic way the African-American experience.
We have a very large freshman class. For the third year in a row Money magazine has ranked us the best value among the nation’s state colleges and universities. That’s because this year, for the second straight year, places in our freshman class proved to be in greater demand than we anticipated. The only thing you can do when you have 18,000 applications for 3300 slots is to accept what you think will yield 3300. And it’s not our fault that we’re so attractive that, when we accept a number that historically yields that quotient, we are flooded. And I don’t want to make light over that; it created some temporary problems in housing. And it also necessitated our allocating additional funds for the freshman curriculum. Dean Birdsall and his faculty have responded tremendously. The housing office has responded tremendously. And I’m assured by student leaders that the students who’d been momentarily inconvenienced are so happy to be here and are so pleased with the personal attention that they’re getting as we try to help them settle in that they’re feeling fortunate. Only a tiny handful are still in temporary housing.
This is a tremendously busy season on campus as you’ve noticed. It leads to long reports. But especially with respect to important visitors. The Advisory Budget Commission will be here on October 14, and I think I’ll make it a point to be here: our once-a-year chance to thank our executive and legislative branches for their support, point with pride to Carolina’s service to the state, and to set forth to these colleagues from Raleigh our priorities for the upcoming legislative session.
Wayne Jones made a presentation, both of our change-budget request and our capital budget request, to the Board of Trustees. I’ll abbreviate that quickly and say that we have a continuing emphasis on faculty and staff salaries and wages, and a very strong emphasis on graduate student support this year in our continuation budget. The capital budget we have set down carefully and patiently. I want to tip my hat to Garland Hershey and Dick McCormick and their respective divisions for consulting with their colleagues, for consulting actively with each member of our Orange County delegation to the General Assembly. I have consulted with Bill Little and with Mr. Spangler and others in GA. And we’re all reading off the same page. And you will gradually have brought to your attention — we will indeed make sure you have in your hands in the near future — a summary of some of our capital budget requests. The good news is all five of the top priorities in the Academic Affairs Division and the top two priorities in the Division of Health Affairs have, we understand, been endorsed by GA and sent over to the Legislature in exactly the same order in which we set them out. I want to thank all of you who had input in making those decisions, and we’ll continue to keep you posted.
I want to thank this faculty also for its diligence in responding to Legislative requests for information about faculty salaries. We need to congratulate the committee that worked closely with the Legislature last year. We need to congratulate the Executive Committee for fostering a spirit of enthusiasm about that. And I want to thank all of you for your role, your important role, in successfully educating our colleagues in the General Assembly about our faculty salary needs. And incidentally, as nearly as I can determine, the recent rise in our rankings in U.S. News and World Report survey, for whatever that’s worth, from 28th to 26th, probably reflects the faculty salaries of a year ago. And my anticipation would be that we’ll have a further rise comfortably back into the top 25, if that matters to you. I don’t want to make light of that, but since I don’t get too gloomy when we go down, I don’t want to get too celebratory when we go up. These are highly subjective things and they ebb and flow, but we’ve been advised for the last three years that there are several problems with that poll, that ranking process includes faculty support and library support. And we’ve all pitched in together to help the library situation, and the faculty situation, faculty salary situation, has helped unite us this year, and I think that probably did not get into the calculations and would be helpful to us next year.
In terms of the library, in case you weren’t here last year when I pointed this out, we, when I first came here, we were ranked 19th in the nation among research libraries. I can’t help but add that Duke was 20th or 21st, something like that. And then we heard later that we had dropped to something like 58th in the acquisition budgets for books, and the word got out that we’d gone from 19th to 58th. And 19th was in the strength of the collection overall, and the 58th was in the current acquisition budget; so therefore I was ecstatic to read last year that, despite the recession and the hard times we had for a few years in budgeting, we still ranked 19th among all the research libraries in America. That isn’t to say we wouldn’t use well any additional resources, and we continue to push hard for private gift support, legislative support, and for the allocations, the scarce University resources, in support of our library. So we’ll bring those points to the attention of the Advisory Budget Commission. On the same day, October 14, we’ll be entertaining the new members of the Board of Governors and participating in their orientation, and we may say a word or two about Carolina.
The Board of Visitors will be here October 7th and 8th, an important constituency of some 120 or so people, and we will benefit by their visit. They always have good advice to give and they are enthusiastic champions of our University.
University Day looms, October 12. At the suggestion of Dick McCormick, I’m going to handle the anticlimax department and follow President Clinton to the University Day podium, take that burden off of anybody else. It’s the recklessness of an outgoing Chancellor. More importantly, we will be honoring distinguished alumni and teaching faculty. We will recognize at University Day all the teaching award winners, not only the University-wide ones, but those of the various divisions, schools, and departments who have been honored for their exemplary teaching.
Winter commencement. We’ve had a December recognition ceremony for many years now, which is not a Commencement, simply a kind of recognition, informal recognition service, for persons who graduate out of season. There are a lot of people who graduate out of season at a major university for a lot of legitimate reasons. And this year in response to their demands, for the press, and our own in-states, we’re going to do what most complex universities have done and have a mid-year commencement, properly so called. With regalia and conferring of degrees and all that kind of stuff, and that is December the 18th I think. And I suggest that you put that on your calendar and dust off your regalia so we can give our mid-year graduates the same sense of accomplishment and appreciation that we give to those in May.
A brief comment on the internal audit, about which you may have read something. We have a very promising negotiation for interim leadership in that office. I expect to announce that within a week or so. And we will be shaping guidelines in consultation with State Auditor Ralph Campbell, so that there will be no confusion in the future about written reports of internal audits. Let me remind you as I reminded the Trustees and the press this morning to keep in mind that the state audit, the external audit, is not the same commodity as the internal audit which is traditionally a management tool to strengthen operations and procedures. We’ve been getting perfectly clean state audit reports every year, and we are going to work with auditor, State Auditor Campbell, with the new interim leadership in our Internal Audit Department, and come up with reasonable guidelines that set out pretty clearly when there will be a written report filed and made public record and when there will not be. There are legitimate reasons to call in someone to advise us on our operations and to strengthen our systems and our procedures without the fear of having that in the newspapers. I’m afraid that if everything is considered an audit we will chill the instinct that people have to call up to have someone come in and look over what they’re doing to make it better. And we don’t want to chill that instinct, but we do want to be reading on the same page as the State Auditor, and I have taken, at his recommendation, the personal responsibility to supervise the internal audit and look forward to continuing that process.
Finally, let’s turn to the essential teaching, research, and service mission of the University. I take pleasure in submitting to all of you who are here today, printed copies of my annual report. I hope you read every page of it and share it with your colleagues. Other copies are available on request at the office of Clifton Metcalf, our Associate Vice Chancellor for University Relations. I think you’ll be proud of the University as you read this report. You’ll find that the shaded column on the right hand side of each double page is full of useful information, a nice way to get a capsule sort of snapshot of conditions at the University. But I encourage you to read the whole text. We had a wonderful year in the Bicentennial year, thanks to the diligence and energy and confidence of this faculty and thanks to the full cooperation of our non academic employees, the enthusiasm of students, alumni, and so on. And I’m proud of the annual report, not because I helped to write it and took responsibility for it, but because you and others made it so positive. And since we prepared this report, the beat goes on. In the new rankings that have been published, as I’ve mentioned, the University is clearly on the rise in national recognition and stature. And there have been some recent rather inspiring accomplishments. I hate to mention any of them because I’d be leaving out lots of others, but what the heck. Let me highlight a little bit what’s been going on since this report was written. Dr. Jeffrey Fair and his team of abdominal transplant surgeons successfully replaced a kidney and pancreas in a Goldsboro man with severe diabetes. You don’t mess around with the pancreas and go home to your wife and children, but this man has gone home to his wife and children in good health with a new kidney and pancreas. All of us enjoyed at least parts of Ken Burns’ baseball documentary, his nine inning documentary on public TV. Knowing that Burns’ great friend, our colleague Bill Leuchtenburg, authored the original short script, some 18 or 19 pages, and helped fine-tune Ken Burns’ long, long, long final script. So if you have watched that, you will see the fine hand of Bill Leuchtenburg. Joe DeSimone, one of our brilliant young chemists, has headed a team that has designed a whole new way to make plastics without producing harmful waste products. So our colleague is on the cutting edge of the clean plastics revolution. I told you about Skip Bollenbacher’s initiative, the $2 million grant from the Hughes Foundation. We’ve achieved recently the full accreditation of our doctoral training program in clinical psychology. We’ve received authorization to establish a school administration program, leading to a Master’s in School Administration (M.S.A.) degree in our School of Education. The joint UNC-Duke Program in Latin American Studies received a $500,000 grant from the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation this summer. The grant reflects the quality of our own Curriculum in Latin American Studies, which in the past year achieved two first-place rankings in national surveys of undergraduate instructional programs, and, as I said to the Trustees, affectionately and whimsically, we are glad to bring Duke along in our success. Lars Schoultz, Kenan Professor of Political Science, was named the 1994-95 Woodrow Wilson Fellow. Schoultz will study US policy toward Latin America. Earlier this year the Class of 1994 elected him favorite professor, proving once again that good teaching and good research go hand in hand. Hewlett Packard recently awarded $700,000 to the Department of Computer Science for virtual reality research. And I’ve told you all I know about virtual reality. We continue to lead the world in this area, I modestly proclaim. And thus ended the long reading of the lesson. Questions, comments, rebuttals? Further encomia? Not to me but to you?
Professor Bruce Carney (Physics & Astronomy): I’d just like to add on to your comments about the Latin American Studies and Bicentennial. We have some potentially good news regarding one of the other capital construction efforts for the Bicentennial, the SOAR Telescope (Southern Observatory for Astrophysical Research), which as some of you may know is a world class telescope that’s being built in the mountains of northern Chile. We’ve had problems because Columbia University, our erstwhile partner, has not been able to raise the money, and with a change in leadership they have withdrawn. But I’m pleased to say that it looks like the federal government of Brazil is now prepared to join and pay half of the construction costs. Chancellor: Thank you very much, and I have been particularly interested in the S0AR telescope and have learned more about that than I have about virtual reality. I’m in favor of both. Anything else?
Now, I was going to introduce the Chairman of the Board, but now pleasure in presenting to you Jane Brown.
II. Chair of the Faculty Jane D. Brown.
Thank you. When I was first selected Dick McCormick and I both said we need to shorten these podiums. But I’m going to stand behind it and protect myself today. Thank you, Paul, for that thorough report, and I’m especially excited about the BCC news and the continued success we’ve had in recruiting minority students and faculty, and I look forward to more progress, especially on the retention side of it as well. It was one of my special interests, but today what I want to do is address you as Council, and so I asked, and I did rearrange the room — that’s one of the things I want to talk about. Are all the Council members up here in the front? I asked you all to sit up front. There are some of you in the back there. So next time sit up in the front, okay? And then we’ll know who each other is.
I’m honored to have been elected Chair of the Faculty. I appreciate the confidence you have shown in me. It is a daunting task, especially given the magnificent job my predecessors have done. I’m especially lucky that both Jim and Harry are on the Executive Committee so they help keep me honest here already. And I appreciate all the work they’ve done previously. Marvelous. Today I want to talk briefly about the Council and these meetings. When I was first asked to stand for the election of Chair of the Faculty, the first thing I thought of was these meetings. And I thought, “I don’t think so. This is not my favorite format. This is not where I think I am most effective.” I’ve served two terms on the Council, and I’ve talked about three times while serving. And I’d like if we can change that. I’d like to see if we can make these meetings more productive and worthwhile for all of us. I think there are a lot of things that we need to do that are somewhat ritualistic and that are important for us to do because this is the time that we as a body of the faculty get together and can speak with each other. But what I’d like to see is that we can do it in a way that we can actually listen to each other, so that we can talk in a productive way and really address some of the issues that are crucial to us as a faculty.
But I’ve learned, as I’ve explored what my new job is, that as members of the Faculty Council we are the representatives of the more than 2000 faculty on campus. According to The Faculty Code, which I’ve put up here on your chairs and I’d like you to take home with you and read and understand what we are, we have significant legislative powers given us by the General Faculty. Broadly we are charged with discussing and resolving matters relating to the life of the University. More specifically the Code gives us responsibility for establishing policies governing educational activities and the awarding of academic degrees; requesting information and giving advice to the Chancellor — so when he speaks today, as he has and he does, he gives us a very thorough report, and he’s often very candid about what’s going on. We need to talk with him. This is our opportunity to discuss with him what’s really going on here. I encourage us all to do that. Actually — the third thing we are charged with is acting upon reports from our committees and other units across campus. And finally, we are supposed to help regulate student conduct and discipline. [laughter] Yeah. These are big responsibilities. We are the heart of faculty governance, and so today I really want to speak to the members of the Council, those people with name tags, with the plastic name tags on. That’s who you are.
I’d like us to begin to think of ourselves as representatives of the whole faculty. I’d like to see us become representatives — and as representatives what we do is we actually talk to the people we represent. Now it’s not entirely clear who the people are we represent. Basically, it’s a 1:25 ratio, that for each one of you there are 25 faculty who aren’t here, who aren’t on the Council. And so we actually have a responsibility of talking with our colleagues about what’s going on. So I’d really like us to begin to take that seriously, that that’s an obligation and responsibility we have. That we need to begin to figure out who our constituents actually are and start talking with them about the issues that we’re going to address here in Council.
All faculty are invited to two of our yearly meetings. Today is one of those. How many here are not Council members and are on the General Faculty? A few. Great, welcome. And now you can look around and see who your representatives are and hold them responsible for speaking with you when you don’t come to Council. Traditionally most of our work gets done in our committees. We have lots of committees, and I left a list of the committees over there so that you can see who they are. I have also done, stolen some ideas, I think good ideas, from Employee Forum. The Employee Forum considers themselves representatives of other staff on campus, other employees on campus. And so those people know who their representatives are. So I’m going to start acting like you are representatives and that you have some responsibility to be bringing its issues and concerns here. We’ve been relying primarily on our committees and also the Executive Committee of Faculty Council to bring issues of concern to the Council. What I’d like to see us do is move toward you bringing issues to us, so that, as Executive Committee, we can begin to see how to handle some of those issues. So we’re going to be open to that.
We are at a critical juncture in the life of the University. We soon will have a new Chancellor, regrettably to a large extent. And he or she — Chancellor: Are there some reservations there, Jane? [laughter] Jane: Well, I’m now on the Chancellor’s Search Committee. It’s quite an interesting… Chancellor: I don’t doubt it. Jane: I’ll speak just a moment about that. I came in late on the Committee, and I will say that I am sworn to secrecy, utter secrecy — quite amazing — and we are holding to that. And what I would say is that I’m very pleased with how the faculty are listened to on the Committee. I think that it’s an excellent committee and that we are well represented. And so I think we should feel good about how well we are listened to in those deliberations. We soon will have a new Chancellor, and he or she will need our guidance and advice about how to proceed. We have enjoyed strong support from the state in the past, but today we must address some of their concerns. Are we truly doing our best teaching? Are we serving our students and the state to the best of our abilities? How can we support excellent teaching and at the same time maintain our reputation as one of the premier public research universities in the country? These are our big questions, and the Legislature and the Board of Trustees are asking them. They asked Pamela that this morning. They said, “Why can’t your graduates write a whole sentence?” Real clear. As I’ve thought about how we might best tackle these questions, I am reminded of a Japanese proverb: None of us is as smart as all of us.
As individuals, most of us are pretty smart or we wouldn’t be here. And together we can answer about any questions put before us. We can answer these questions, but only with some preconditions — we’ll have to trust each other enough to talk openly, we’ll have to listen to each other, and we’ll have to participate fully. I’ve already taken some small steps toward encouraging your participation in considering the future of the University. Many of you have already been involved in the SACS reaccreditation. What we’re doing this fall is also involving more of you in looking at the reports of the SACS task forces to see, to digest — a lot of material, about 800 pages I understand right now — to digest that material and look at all the recommendations coming out of some very significant research that’s been done over the past year. And I asked many of you to serve on these teams that will be meeting this fall to look at these recommendations and to come up with a list of priorities by the end of the fall. If any of you would like to be invited to join us, let me know. We’d love to have your participation in that.
Closer to home what I’ve done is I’ve asked you to wear name tags, and I’ve rearranged the furniture — Dick McCormick said, it looks a little feminine [laughter] in here with our circle — Provost McCormick: Feminist. [laughter] Professor Brown: Feminist? Okay. Provost McCormick: It was meant as a compliment. Professor Brown: And in a minute I’m going to ask you to meet each other. One of the things that I’ve regretted in being on Council is I used to sit next to people I’d never seen before, we didn’t introduce ourselves, I didn’t know who they were, went away, I didn’t know who they were. So I’d like us all to begin to get to know each other better so that, when we do speak to each other, we have some level of trust and understanding about who we are.
I’ve also provided you a cheat sheet on Robert’s Rules of Order. I grew up in a political time when we didn’t use Robert’s Rules of Order. We were consensus oriented; it was basically anarchy. [laughter] So I’m using one of these, too. What I’d like to encourage us to do is to think about these as facilitating discussion rather than inhibiting it, and if you are ever inhibited by these rules, I’d really like you to speak anyway, and we’ll figure out how to do it by Robert’s Rules. So please don’t be inhibited by them. And we’ll learn them and use them as they work for us.
We’ve also decided — George and I have been talking about how to change how we distribute the minutes of the meetings. Sometimes these look so daunting. You get them and they’re so intense. And what you do is you go and look to see what you said — if you said anything. You know the Council, you go and see, “Well did they get what I said right?” Right? John Workman was chiding us, “We can’t get rid of the transcript.” He’s an, what would you say, an ethnographer, and he wants to see the complete record. Historically it’s important to have a complete record, so what we’re looking into is to actually have the transcription, but not send it to each of you, do a summary of the minutes and put the whole transcription on INFO on electronic bulletin board so you can look it up if you really need to see it, and it will be available on tape and so on. We’re going to try a couple of things like that to see if our communication can work more effectively, and we’re open to anything else about the Council, meetings, the process here, and structurally, that might work better for us. Thanks.
Now what I’d like for you to do is get to know each other a little better. So, what I’m going to ask you to do is kind of a little risky exercise. It’s a little risky for me to ask you to do this. So this is what I’d like you to do. I’m going to ask you to meet three people in the next three minutes, three people that you don’t know, that you’ve looked at before, you maybe want to meet, but you’ve never had the opportunity. So then look around, see three people you haven’t seen before or you’d like to meet, and learn a little bit more about — okay, wait a minute, I’ve got an exercise. This is the exercise. It’s a stand-up-and-walk-around exercise. It’s going to be a little difficult, but what I want you to do is to go up to three people — and it goes fast — and what you do is you say, is you tell them your name, where you’re from, and you tell them a secret talent that you have. [laughter] I’ll demonstrate. This is how it goes. It doesn’t have to be outrageous. I mean it’s like this: “Hi, George, I’m Jane Brown, and I’m from Journalism and Mass Communication, and I can twist my elbows.” [laughter] Chancellor Hardin: double jointed. Professor Brown: And I know George raises great tomatoes. He didn’t say that. Okay. So you want to do it; it goes fast, and what you do is you get something associated with a person and their name. Okay? I’ll give you five minutes; it’s a little awkward with these chairs. Three people you don’t know. [Pause for introductions]
Okay, who heard the most outrageous talent? I did but I’m not going to say it. What do you have, what did you hear? I met a woodworker who makes frames. I met a great cook, a great Italian cook, who did you meet? The best talent you heard? [Unidentified]: make sewage run downhill. [laughter] Professor Brown: Okay, suppose the exercise was to get to know each other and also to realize what a wonderful group of people we have here, and how talented we are in many different ways. So, and I really do want to continue this kind of spirit here that we create just when we get to know each other. Like that. And it’s going to be difficult because we have a lot of history here about how these meetings work and how the Council works. And so I’d really like to stay open to the possibility that we can do it in a way that keeps you interested, keeps us vital, and that we really are dealing with the issues that we need to be dealing with.
So I have three requests, and this is sort of homework for the Council. Okay. Since I’m speaking to all those of you with plastic name tags on, people on Faculty Council. I would like you to please complete the questionnaire on your chair and leave it on the table as you leave. This questionnaire will help me know better who you are, and if you want to put your secret talent on there, that would be great. I would love that. I’d like to have you sort of first take on what concerns you’d like the Council to be addressing this year. We’re already involved in a number of issues, but I know that you have other concerns that we should be thinking about. So if you have some right away, please write them down so we can start looking at those.
The second thing I’d like you to do is to read the materials that I’ve left you, especially The Faculty Code; it’s fascinating, about what we’re actually supposed to be doing here and how we’re supposed to operate, so if it would be good if we’re sort of all reading from the same hymnal.
And third, I’d like you to, before the next meeting, speak with at least 10 of your constituents. I’d like you to speak with at least 10 other faculty members about — and you can ask them what they think about Council. And get that out of the way. And then start talking about what they think the Council really should be doing. What are their concerns? What are their issues? What would they like to see us address. And I’d like you to bring those concerns and issues back with you at the October meeting and we’ll actually talk about them. And we may even set something up so we can do that more formally every time or at least every time there are things that need to come up, we can actually have a time when they can come up, maybe not in “New Business,” but have some kind of a process where, say to the Executive Committee, “This is something we need to be looking at and how do we handle this?” Okay.
I sincerely appreciate your willingness to serve. You don’t have to do this. Most of you don’t get very much credit for being here. And so I really appreciate what it means about who you are. That you are just by virtue of agreeing to run and being elected, you have some commitment to the University in each of you. I appreciate your willingness to be that person. And to be here for the next year, and if you’re beginning your term, to be here for three more years. I think we can have a great year, for a couple of years, three or four years coming up. And I look very much forward to working with you. In order to get to know you even better, I also invite you to a reception at my house tonight, between 6:00 and 7:00. If you can come, I’d love to see you again, and we can talk more about your talents. Thank you very much.
III. Secretary of the Faculty George S. Lensing.
Our next order of business for next month will be to find a sturdy box for Jane to stand on. My name is George Lensing, and I’m the Secretary of the Faculty. I want to extend a special welcome also to all Faculty Council members, but especially those who are beginning their three-year terms this year. I’m going to make, in a moment, a few comments about how we do our business here, procedures and so forth, and I’ll do that very quickly. But before doing that I have the pleasure of reading to you three special resolutions, copies of which you picked up on the way in. And I will begin with the Resolution in Appreciation of Senator Howard Lee and Representatives Anne Barnes and Joseph Hackney, if you want to follow along.
To our representative legislators at the General Assembly of the State of North Carolina — Senator Howard Lee, Representative Anne Barnes, and Representative Joseph Hackney — we, the faculty of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, hereby extend our profound gratitude for your continuing efforts to support the faculty of this campus and, in particular, to return salaries to levels competitive with peer institutions.
We take note of the extraordinary measures taken by you in your leadership in the General Assembly to make this issue fully understood and to continue to address its implications.
We hereby resolve to express formally our personal gratitude for your firm commitment and untiring labors on behalf of the faculty at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. It is through the efforts of people like you that our University maintains its reputation as one of the finest state universities in the nation.
And, though we’ll vote on these resolutions separately, I’m going to go ahead and read the others to save some time. The second is a Resolution of Gratitude to the Representatives of the North Carolina General Assembly. It’s related, obviously, to the first resolution.
To the Representatives of the North Carolina General Assembly, we the faculty of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill hereby formally extend our gratitude for the recent legislative action leading to the salary enhancement of faculty on this campus. We especially value the sensitivity of the General Assembly to the need to return our salaries to levels competitive with peer institutions throughout the United States. This measure represents an important step in maintaining and improving the quality and status of our faculty and thus the quality and status of this University.
We salute your continuing commitment to the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and pledge our efforts in joining with you in future efforts to enhance the missions of teaching, research, and service and on behalf of the people of the State of North Carolina.
The third resolution is a very special one, and there’s a little bit of a story behind it that I want to tell you. A little more than a year ago it became clear to me that our Faculty Handbook was about eight years out of date, and really the copies had been distributed and the supply was exhausted; we needed a new edition of the Faculty Handbook. Some of you may remember that Professor Doug Eyre had edited several previous editions. Someone suggested to me, and it was a brilliant idea, that I contact the emeriti professors to see if perhaps one of them might volunteer to take on the task of editing this new edition. Whoever gave me that advice, it was the best advice I’ve ever gotten, because Elizabeth McMahan, now retired member of this faculty but formerly of the Department of Biology, agreed to do that. And as someone who has worked pretty closely with her over the last year or so in reediting — many of you here have been involved in the process of reediting the Faculty Handbook — I also know what kind of task was involved in doing that. You received, I believe this week, hot in your hands, the new edition, two or three times the size of the previous edition. Jane and I talked about this, and we decided to invite Betty McMahan here today and to include a special resolution of appreciation to her for her efforts. And after we finish this business, I’m going to ask Betty to come forward and formally present a copy of the Handbook to Jane Brown. But I’m going to read this resolution, and, Betty, I’m just going to embarrass you and have you stand there as I read it.
Because the new edition of the Faculty Handbook edited by Elizabeth A. McMahan has just been published and includes the most complete and comprehensive collection of material ever assembled for use by the faculty of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, we hereby gratefully receive the Handbook.
To Elizabeth A. McMahan, for her generous, untiring efforts for over a year’s duration in soliciting material for the Handbook, preparing it for publication, and seeing it through the various stages of printing and publication, we, the faculty of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, formally extend our profound gratitude and acknowledge her many years of loyal service to the University.
[much applause]Maybe before we vote on the resolutions, Betty, I’ll ask you just to come forward and present a copy to the Chair of the Faculty Jane Brown. Professor McMahan: I hope it will be useful to our all colleagues. Professor Brown: We’ll call on you whenever we have any questions. Professor McMahan: I’ll try. Professor Brown: Thank you.
Professor Lensing: And Betty asked that the name of Kitty McCollum especially be remembered for her special effort in helping with this. Professor McMahan: She was very helpful. Chancellor Hardin: She did such a good job that General Administration stole her away.
As you know, there is a provision in the Code that all resolutions for formal adoption by the Faculty Council shall be circulated 24 hours in advance. For these kinds of resolutions of commendation we typically suspend those rules with a special vote of your approval. And I’m going to suggest that Jane Brown call for that suspension of the rules to approve these three resolutions. And then we’ll take them in the order that I read them, 1, 2, and 3, for your vote. Professor Brown: So I need a motion to suspend the rules so that we might pass these three resolutions in front of us. Moved and seconded. All those in favor of suspending the rules. All those opposed. The motion carries [without dissent]. Now we move on to the resolutions. Professor Lensing: Someone call for a motion… Professor Brown: We need a motion for the resolution of appreciation of Senator Howard Lee, Representatives Anne Barnes and Joe Hackney. Moved and seconded. All those in favor of this resolution say aye. All those opposed. It passes unanimously. And they will each get a copy of this with our appreciation. And the second resolution of gratitude to the Representatives of the North Carolina General Assembly. So moved. Seconded. And all those in favor of this resolution say aye. Those opposed. This motion passes unanimously. I think we’ll send a copy of this to each of the legislators as well. They often get criticism and rarely get the gratitude, and I think they deserve it this year. And finally, for Elizabeth McMahan, appreciation for the new Faculty Handbook. May I hear a motion? Moved and seconded. All those in favor say aye. All those opposed. It passes unanimously. Thank you so much Elizabeth — Betty. Thank you.
Professor Lensing: I believe Jane mentioned this a moment ago, but the General Faculty typically meets with us as the Faculty Council at least twice during the year, usually in December and April, but for example, this month, other meetings as well. You have attached to your agenda today a list of the dates of the meetings of the Faculty Council this year. If you have business to bring before the Council for consideration, I must ask you to go through the Agenda Committee, either in writing or by telephone to Bynum. The Agenda Committee meets usually about three weeks before each Council meeting. We have two full-time staff members, Rosemary Munsat and Amy Vaughn, seated here at the front. I’d like to introduce the members of the Agenda Committee and ask them to stand: Stephen Bayne, Philip Bromberg, Laurie McNeil I believe I saw, Tomoko Masuzawa please stand, and John Workman. Thank you very much. Professor Brown: And their numbers are all on the back of this sheet; these people can be contacted.
Professor Lensing: Reference was made earlier to the Executive Committee of the Faculty Council, which is beginning now its third year of operation. It is a relatively new committee as I’m sure most of you know. This has become a very important committee of the faculty. And I want to formally introduce the members of the Executive Committee to you. I’ll call out their names and ask them to stand. They, too, are individuals to which you can bring concerns that you have about any issue of campus life or your professional life. And we meet twice a month in addition to the meetings here of the Faculty Council. And regular reports of the proceedings of the Executive Committee will be brought to you in this body. Catherine Maley, will you please stand. She was here earlier. Paul Farel is here. Frank Brown I believe is not. Pamela Conover is here. Craig Calhoun I believe is not. Slayton Evans is not I believe. Joseph Flora. Laurel (Lolly) Gasaway. Richard (Pete) Andrews is here. Harry Gooder. Carol Jenkins is here. Jim Peacock is here. These are the members of the Executive Committee.
Finally, as Jane mentioned earlier, we do tape the proceedings of each meeting of the Faculty Council. That’s what this recording machine over here is doing. Therefore we ask you whenever you have remarks to make at the meeting of the Council that you stand and in a very loud, strong, clear voice, particularly those of you in distant corners of this room, give us your name and department or school or program from which you come. And then that will be a part of the permanent record of the proceedings here. I will be, at the suggestion of Jane Brown, presenting a shorter version of the Summary than has been the case in recent years; in fact, a radically shorter version. I think in the interest of trying to encourage more people to read the proceedings of what happens. But the word-for-word transcript of what happens here will be available through electronic mail through the INFO system. And we’re in the process of working out the ways in which we’re going to do that. I must remind you, too, according to the Code, that if you are absent for two successive unexcused meetings of the Faculty Council, your name is expunged from the list. I offer this information reluctantly on fear of encouraging absenteeism. [laughter]
IV. Report on the Faculty Assembly Delegation: James L. Peacock.
As Jane’s predecessor I would like to express my enthusiasm for the new arrangement and a new start. This is great. The Chancellor earlier said there was no mature report today; this one is not only mature, it’s actually old. It is a report of last year’s activities of the Faculty Assembly. There is already a new delegation headed by Jane Brown and with several members who are new and two who are old. You have the report. I’ll be happy to answer questions. If there are not….
V. Old or New Business.
Professor Brown: Is there any old business or new business? Thank you, Jim, for that, and I’m now serving on it. You did an excellent job as head of the delegation, and they all remember you fondly. I also do, too. And I want to take one more moment to appreciate Jim Peacock for the wonderful job he did for the faculty the past three years [applause]. He’s a tough act to follow. Finally, is there no old business or new business?
Professor Carl Bose (Pediatrics): Just a question. You mentioned, raised the issue of the Chancellor search. As a member of a department that has an interim chair, in which there’s an inexorably long search process, the anxiety of our department members rises daily. That situation certainly isn’t occurring in the University community now. But I think one thing that would help us in our department and will help the University community as a whole is as the process proceeds we understand the process at hand, what the time-table is, and there be communication to whatever extent the limits of confidentiality permit — we all recognize the need for that. But if, other than reading in the Gazette, there’s a better mechanism for communicating with the University community as a whole about the process and where we stand and what the progress is in that process. Professor Brown: Good. A good comment. What I will try to do, then, is, if it continues on, and I suspect it will continue on at least a couple of more months, that I can make reports to Faculty Council now, having served on the committee. So I’ll be happy to do that. And I’ll talk to Johnny Harris ahead of time and make sure that I can speak and give you as much information as possible. Great. Anything else?
Great. I appreciate .. Professor Lensing: Because we are required to return the chairs to their accustomed point, I wonder I may ask each person just to turn your chair facing the stage, if you would. Thank you. Professor Brown: See you all at my house in an hour or so, and I’ll see you next month.
The meeting adjourned at 4:25 p.m.
George S. Lensing
Secretary of the Faculty
______________________________________________________________________________________
Actions of the Council
| Date | Action | Destination |
| Sept. 23, 1994 | Resolution of thanks to Senator Howard Lee, Representatives Anne Barnes and Joseph Hackney | To Senator Howard Lee, Representatives Anne Barnes and Joseph Hackney |
| Resolution of thanks to General Assembly | To Members of General Assembly | |
| Resolution of thanks to Elizabeth McMahan, editor of Faculty Handbook | To Elizabeth McMahan |
