Historical State (University History)

Ask the Archivists

Browse Archival Holdings

Online Images

University Records

University Archives Home

Special Collections Home

The Provost's Office: An Informal History

Chapter Five: Other Administrative Matters

Budget Development

Caldwell said that for the formulation of annual and biennial budget requests the Dean of the Faculty was to be responsible for receiving and analyzing the recommendations and data of all on-campus and off-campus units of the College proper, excepting the Agricultural Experiment Station, the Agricultural Extension Service, the Department of Athletics, the Budget Office, and the Office of Foundations and Development. "All proposals and recommendations requiring adjustment in the academic budget during the fiscal or budget year must be reviewed by the Dean of the Faculty for recommendation to the Chancellor." This general guideline was followed until the system of budget requests was changed shortly after William Turner became Business Manager in 1962. At that time written requests were made on the format prepared by the Business Manager. The Provost and the Business Manager (Vice Chancellor for Finance and Business) have shared a common Budget Office and staff since the Office of the Dean of the Faculty was created. This Budget Office which reports to the VC for Finance and Business did the appropriate analysis of the requests on what was to become known as Continuation or Base Budgets and Change Budgets (formerly A and B budgets). The Change Budgets were prepared on a biennial basis. The Provost continued to make a thorough review of all requests and, with the Chancellor and the Vice Chancellor for Finance and Business, led the questioning following the presentation by the College/School deans or other unit heads to the Budget Committee. The Provost along with others at the Budget Hearings then made recommendations to the Chancellor for priorities among these requests. Later, under Chancellor Poulton the Chairman of the Faculty Senate, the VC for Research, and the VC for Extension participated in the budget hearings.

The system was changed under Caldwell and Kelly so that the Provost also reviewed all budget requests except those from Athletics and other auxiliary enterprises. After Chancellor Poulton arrived, Mr. George Worsley and the Provost were appointed as a special review committee to review all budget proposals from all units supported in-full or in-part by receipts. This included several units in Student Affairs such as Residence Halls, the Student Center, Food Services and Health Services, as well as Athletics. I felt that Worsley and I were depended upon with the help of the Budget Office staff to be certain that these budgets were soundly balanced for receipts and expenses, and appropriate for the unit. It was not until the arrival of Chancellor Poulton that we had formal hearings on the Continuation Budgets. Prior to that time, requests on the continuing budgets were received by the Budget Office, and were reviewed with the help of the Budget Office by Mr. George Worsley and me as the two chief assistants to Mr. John Wright and Dr. Kelly. We then made recommendations to our supervisors who made recommendations to the Chancellor. We continued this practice until we became Vice Chancellor and Provost respectively, then we reviewed requests, recommendations, and needs that we knew of with the Budget Office staff and made our recommendations to the Chancellor. As I indicated, this process changed to a different process under Chancellor Poulton. While we both continued to make recommendations, they usually were at this time not arrived at jointly in advance and by our mutual agreement. Dr. Poulton preferred that we make independent assessments and recommendations. While we followed this in general, we still got our heads together from time to time. I exercised less influence on the continuation budget under this process than previously.

I exercised less influence in the allocation and development of non-personnel components of the newly appropriated funds than under Thomas and Caldwell. This was associated in part with the late date that we received our allocation of new appropriations and the rapidity required for a response. I was given an opportunity to influence the priorities in the change budgets and felt that I did influence the decisions made by the four Chancellors to whom I reported. The Change Budget requests from the deans were usually very large. Requests for new funds for program improvement and new programs were likely to be as much as ten or more times greater than our most ambitious hopes for appropriations. Of course this meant that requests which were not near the top in priorities were not likely to be funded. For a number of items, we merged requests from the schools to a more reasonable level as a single University request. Such items which we merged from schools were usually the program improvement types, and included technicians, extension, research, and in every year equipment and computers. This route could not be used for academic teaching positions so I had to read the proposals carefully to be certain that we deleted these from the requests which we forwarded. If teaching faculty positions were gained this way we would lose an equal number of positions from the enrollment increase appropriations. These positions always came by a formula based on FTE students/FTE faculty and new positions came as enrollments increased and is described in the section on Budget Allocation later in this chapter. We could and did gain new supportive funds and secretarial and technical positions via this process. It was possible to get other types of technical, administrative and support positions by the change budget program improvement process; however, they came faster with the enrollment increases. During most of Shirley's, Kelly's and my terms it seemed easier to get new program funds than it was to get funding increases for program improvement or cost-of-living adjustments.

One of the interesting factors has been how much additionally you had to do in certain areas in the preparation of the Budget. It has not been at all unusual for us to have to submit proposed equipment lists with our proposed budgets. In 1953-54 the Budget Bureau required a list of equipment that we might purchase along with a justification for each item before they allocated equipment funds to the campus. This was before the $5,000 minimum for equipment purchases came into being. They obviously would not and they did not allocate nearly enough funds to buy much of the equipment on the list. While I was Provost it was not unusual for us to have to list all major items of the equipment with our change budget requests too. We did not get nearly all of the requested equipment, but the lists outlined our dreams and needs and it was surprising how much we acquired by other means outside appropriated funds, ranging from grants and contracts to outright gifts of equipment. At first the previously described process continued under Hart. Monteith now gives more responsibility to the Provost in the budget development process. Hart and now Stiles seem to have more responsibility in both budget development and budget allocation than Shirley, Kelly and I had under Bostian, Caldwell, Thomas and Poulton.

Budget Allocations

The responsibility of studies and recommendations for the assigning of faculty positions was allocated by Chancellor Bostian to Dean Shirley. In 1956 Dean Shirley, in the first allocation of faculty positions after his appointment as Dean, was clearly advising the Chancellor, and the Chancellor wrote the letters of allocation. At this time the Chancellor had permission to fill all EPA positions with a salary level under $4,000, except for those at the rank of instructor and above. For these he had to get the permission of President Gordan Gray.

In 1957 the campuses had to send a report to the UNC System which showed teaching loads on a course by course and instructor by instructor basis. This information was then sent to the Board of Higher Education and was used in considering requests for new faculty positions, and at that time requests were forwarded to the BHE on a departmental basis. At one time Dean Shirley said that recent statements by the Director of the BHE did not give him much confidence that sound judgment would be exercised in the evaluation of these figures. He said, "I should prefer to send him nothing statistical since he insists that all educational statistics are false. But this is a matter with which, I assume, we will have to live." Later that same year he wrote: "For a guy who has absolutely no faith in educational statistics, he is surely barraging the newspapers with figures from the new forms."

In a letter of February 13, 1957, Shirley wrote Bostian that the Advisory Budget Commission was more generous in its recommendations than the Board of Higher Education, and as a result NCSU got more faculty positions. There was one difficulty, for Shirley said, "I am not certain that these additional positions have been placed in places of most urgent need, and I should hope that some review will be given locally to allocations of the additional personnel." The FTE faculty to FTE student ratios were 1/13.38 in 1956-57 and 1/12.06 in 1957-58 which reflected an increase in positions. By 1961-62 the ratio had increased to 1/14.4. I do not know exactly when the budget requests and the appropriations for academic personnel stopped having to specify positions for specific programs. I do know that Provost Kelly received new instructional and associated supporting positions, and they could be allocated using the priorities determined at the NCSU campus. By then it was only in special cases that the Legislature specified personnel placement in the academic appropriations as it did for the College of Veterinary Medicine. Such placement was usual in Organized Research and Organized Extension budgets, but with time these were usually, but not always appropriated with more flexibility in personnel assignments. Special bills for SALS and Forest Resources were usual in research and extension areas. Another example was when Chancellor Poulton was responsible for an appropriation made for Biotechnology, and another for the appropriation on four distinguished professors in Science and Engineering in the late 1980's . These were appropriated for the objectives requested of the Legislature; however, we could allocate these to appropriate departments within the guidelines established by the Legislature.

In 1970 the faculty to student ratio was at 1/13.7. It had been at this level for several years, but I did not find the precise year that this ratio was adopted by the Legislature. It was at about this time that Dr. Kelly described a faculty member's teaching load as from 9 to 12 hours per week with only a few faculty over this. In the 1971-72 Provost's Annual Report to the Chancellor the ratio had been changed by the Legislature to

1/14.5. We had tried that year at the request of the entire campus to get both the teaching faculty ratio and the SPA formulas improved. It happened that this budget request was not received well by the Legislature and the teaching formula was raised from 13.7 to 14.5 and the SPA formula was made less favorable too. We could ask for new SPA positions in the B Budget or, as it later came to be called, the Change Budget request. This did hurt us badly in faculty positions. Fortunately we had a big enrollment increase that year, but we lost a total of more than 80 faculty positions. The enrollment increase positions reduced this loss to a net loss of 26.2 positions which had to be recalled from academic units for reversion to the State. It was this horror that caused me to begin to allocate temporary positions to avoid having to let persons go in the future due to similar circumstances. This practice of allocating temporary positions, while it had its disadvantages, did prove to be extremely helpful in my last year and during Hart's tenure as Provost when there were so many budget cuts and reversions. It was after the mid-eighties and after we obtained several special positions from the legislature that Mr. Worsley was able to get the University Professor positions, the Biotechnology positions, and the professor positions that came funded at $250,000 each and a few others placed into the 1310 line. These helped to raise our average salaries a little and helped to reduce our budgeted faculty formula to 1/14.3. Of course I was helping as much as I could, which mostly was moral support, to get this accomplished too.

In 1970 Provost Kelly wrote to Dean Peterson who had raised the issue of more teaching assistant positions. He said: "We have tried to obtain teaching assistantships in almost every B Budget request with essentially no success. We do not attempt to obtain teaching assistantships in our A Budget because one full-time teaching equivalent for a teaching assistant counts against our faculty/student ratio as much as one faculty FTE, yet the money is only one/half as much per position." The B Budget at this time was the program improvement and new programs budget. After I became Provost there was no need to try to get TA positions or teaching positions, except for an item like the Veterinary College which was not included in the formula, by any route except through enrollment increase funds, for these positions always were a part of the enrollment driven formula for FTE teachers to FTE students. Teaching assistants occupied these faculty lines . It was possible to hire as many TAs as the salary in the position allowed, based of course, on the stipend levels of the graduate students.

One of the goals that Worsley and I had was to get the existing department heads, assistant heads and assistant deans off the 101-1310 Budget Line. At the time when the 16 campuses were all made a part of UNC System, these administrative positions were in the same line as those of teaching-departmental research positions. Since these new positions came into the formula for enrollment growth but one could obtain only a very few administrative positions out of this budget increase, we moved the positions occupied by department heads, assistant heads, and assistant deans into the line for non-teaching positions. This resulted in an enormous benefit to us later, but it lowered our average faculty salaries a little. Another goal was to get an assistant dean for instruction and an additional administrative position for research in each school. It took us a number of years, but this was accomplished slowly for the several schools that did not have such positions. These were created out of enrollment increase funds in the non-teaching category. This was accomplished with the approval, consent and encouragement of Caldwell, Thomas, and Poulton. During Hart's term when the State reduced NCSU's budgets annually there was some loss of administrative positions. So there was considerable erosion of Worsley's and my accomplishment.

At first, position allocations were recommended to the Chancellor and the Chancellor would write the letters. Later these were written by the Provost's staff for the Chancellor's signature. During the early portion of Caldwell's tenure, the letters for position allocation were signed by the Chancellor. When I joined Kelly's staff, Kelly was writing the position allocation letters and signing them after obtaining Caldwell's concurrence with the allocation plan. While I was Provost and Assistant Provost, the procedure was for the Provost to develop an allocation plan based on requests from the deans. The Provosts also used their own assessment of needs based on a number of instructional factors including credit hours, contact hours, and the number of majors at the various degree levels. Actually, I always checked with the Chancellor before and after I made my plans for allocation to be certain that I had included any promises he had made to deans, too. With the long Legislative sessions, it became very important to have developed a plan, by priority, so that the allocation letters could be written as soon as we learned what the new appropriations were likely to be. As soon as the appropriations bill was passed and after Mr. Worsley gave me an estimate of the number of positions we were likely to receive, I got on the phone and called the deans to give them what they were likely to get so that they could round up a few new temporary faculty for the fall semester. We always had more students to teach in the fall than in the spring semester. Mr. Worsley's estimates were always close. That was the only way we could have the positions in the hands of the deans in time to make hires for the fall semester. I then wrote the letters formally allocating the positions after we were formally informed by the administration of the BOG. At times this formal notification could be only a few days before the fall semester started. We always felt that we needed more positions than we had. In 1988 Poulton wrote to Karen Helm stating that I had recently sent deans a letter asking them to submit requests for new positions, but I had not asked them to relate these to the biennial plans submitted the preceding spring. At this time he asked Helm to relate the requests to those goals. It turned out that they did relate with the goals of the schools. The organized research goals and teaching goals were in general agreement, but not always identical. A major objective of mine was to ask the deans in these letters to make requests for new positions, and to identify how they would meet affirmative action goals for both African-Americans and for women. Positions were allocated to help to meet these two campus priority goals. We considered teaching loads, credit hours and contact hours produced at the graduate and undergraduate levels, and the numbers of undergraduate majors and graduate majors at the Masters and the Ph.D. levels in making our allocations to units. Advising was a necessary part of the teaching function and positions were needed for advising too. I used a formula developed by Dr. Kelly and a faculty committee as a guideline for position allocations. Except for affirmative action goals and very unique opportunities that a school might have to acquire faculty in a deficient area or an area planned for expansion or development, positions were usually allocated on a catch-up basis using this formula. Positions came under review for possible reversion to the Provost when the existing faculty were rated at over the 20% level for the University campus based on this formula. In the formula, a Ph.D. major counted about 16 to one undergraduate, and a master's student was weighted 5 times more than an undergraduate student. This was intended to reflect that a graduate student takes considerably more individual faculty time. A NCSU goal included a plan to increase the proportion of our student population at the graduate level. Our goals were always greater than the resulting graduate enrollment.

In reallocating faculty lines to schools it was frequently necessary to allocate some positions at less than the current salary in the vacated position. When we made new hires, departments frequently had lines that were salaried at a level too low to even secure an assistant professor in some fields. This was especially true in fields such as accounting, business, engineering and the computer areas in several schools. In these programs new hires at the assistant professor level were more expensive than the average salary of all faculty lines which was the salary level of the new positions that came by enrollment increases. For these reasons I had to maintain some reserves that could be used to help units have a salary at a level necessary to hire a new assistant professor in these fields. I frequently added these recalled funds to the new positions or to the temporary positions so that the needed sums could be recalled during the coming year as needed to upgrade salaries for positions. This was also frequently necessary when we made a major professorial hire. We allocated most of the new positions at the assistant professor level. This procedure continued under Hart.

Besides the allocation of instructional-departmental research positions (those in the 101-1310 line), I allocated those EPA administrative types and SPA supporting types of staff positions that came within the enrollment increase funds. For this type of need I made certain that the Budget Office had in hand my most needed list of support EPA and SPA position needs and opportunities. We had to make an almost immediate listing of position titles, job descriptions, and salaries needed for each position in these categories to the General Administration when we received our allocations from the Legislative appropriations. In this case the Chancellor usually had some needs for these positions too. It was through these funds that we got the associate dean positions referred to earlier, and the African-American Coordinator position in each of the schools. We always had several alternatives worked out in priority order to be ready on this short notice. I had the list of faculty position allocations made out and approved by the Chancellor. The General Administration would call the Budget Office to say the formal allocation letter was on its way (usually by personal messenger), what the resources were by budget line, and what the turn-around deadline would be for getting our planned uses of the new appropriations back to the staff of the BOG for their approval. This deadline applied to all of those funds used for items other than for the formula faculty positions in the instructional-departmental research budget. I always had to provide the departmental assignment of these allocations to the Vice President for Academic Affairs at a later date.

With enrollment increase positions came staff support positions for SPA positions. At one time these came at a ratio of about 6:1. During Kelly's term, with the support of the Chancellor and the President, a request was made of the Legislature to make this a lower faculty to staff ratio. This was made at the same time as the request to reduce the faculty formula. This was a mistake, for they changed our ratio to 8:1. This hurt very much. While it was not retroactive as the faculty positions were, we did not lose existing SPA positions, but we did have new positions at the new rate. This support figure was for all of the new technicians and clerical positions in the departmental offices, the dean's offices, as well as those to supply support positions for the faculty's needs. All had to come out of the academic affairs enrollment increases. Thank goodness it was possible to request additional support for these positions from the change budget too. As a technical university we had great need and demand for technically trained staff. Except for those in new programs, these came slowly in change budget requests. We always were in short supply. Many of our new support staff came to us via grants and contracts. Obviously these latter positions went to support the programs that received the grants and those that did not get grants or have organized research budgets were even more deficient. I did not consider the number of those soft money positions when I reviewed the status of SPA support in making allocations to units. As mentioned earlier it was necessary for these positions to be in the hands of the Budget Office when the Legislature left town. The Budget Office would have in the Chancellor's hands for mailing to the General Administration the requests by budget line, SPA position level and a job description within just a few days and rarely as much as a week after receiving the allocation of funds.

Resources to provide adequately for laboratories and computers were lacking during all of Hart's and my tenures as Provost. To partially overcome this difficulty, in 1983 we instituted a computer course and laboratory course fee. Students would pay a fee of $15.00 per course with a maximum fee of $30.00 per semester for two or more such courses. While we had course fees of various types and amounts per course many years ago, these earlier fees had been incorporated into our tuition. It was with some difficulty that we (the schools and the university administration) reached consensus to ask the Board of Governors for this amount. Some felt that this was too much to ask the students to pay, and others felt that it would not provide enough funds to meet the growing additional costs. The latter complainants were correct, but we did not think that we could expect to get approval for a larger fee. These fees were approved and although we had discussed the fees broadly all during the preceding year, it appeared to be another "summer strategy" to the students. One of the things that departments had difficulty understanding was the mechanism of disbursement of the fees collected. Most departments would calculate the number of students in laboratory and computer classes and expect $15.00 per student in fees. The problem was that they forgot the maximum that a student had to pay was $30.00. In most of our fields of study students were registered per semester for more than two laboratories or courses that used computers. Fees were prorated on the amount collected and the numbers enrolled in the eligible classes. Under these circumstances no unit got $15.00 per student. These funds were inadequate, and after a very short time we began to try to get additional fee increases, but it was not until after I retired that the fees were increased.

In 1958 the Business Manager objected when Dean Shirley allocated more faculty positions than he deemed wise. The appropriations were made at that time on a two year cycle by the Legislature because the Legislature met every other year, so for the second year of a biennium the budget was set. In this case, as is true every year, the appropriated budget included income from student tuition as well as the base state funded budget. The Legislature appropriates both receipts from tuition as well as state funds. Mr. Vann was concerned that Dean Shirley had obligated more funds than the tuition was likely to generate. Shirley had used an optimistic rather than a conservative estimate. Shirley had to tell the deans that some of these allocated positions were on a contingency basis for use after the tuition income was established. The enrollment exceeded that projected and Shirley had more tuition funds to allocate. If this happened while I was Provost we would have gone to the State Budget Office to request that we be permitted to use the extra tuition income. Having the Legislature appropriate funds on a biennial basis was a great help in planning for resources and for resource allocation. In the case cited, Shirley had allocated positions in January for the next fiscal year which started in July. On the years that the Legislature met, they went home in April even at the time I joined Dr. Kelly's staff as Assistant Provost. As the years went on the Legislature met for longer and longer times each year. Then the Legislature began to come back each year but for a short time in the second year of the biennium. In this approach the second year was usually a shorter session than the first year's sessions; however, they began to come to town later in the spring. During most of my tenure as Provost we would not know what our appropriations would be until late July or often in August. This made allocation difficult for the fall semester, and meant that we had to take chances on hiring some temporary faculty and to make several one-semester and one-year appointments on a contingency of funds basis. Fortunately in Raleigh and the Research Triangle this was possible, but it was an undesirable practice. This late ending of the Legislative session was an additional reason why I allocated temporary positions to schools. I felt that I did not wish to face a financial exigency in case such an occasion should arise again. I also gave a cushion that provided a few more resources if we were to take bold or new initiatives. One of the things I disagree with my predecessors about was that they liked to hold on to some positions for allocation in the second term of the year or to take care of emergencies. From time to time the Budget Bureau or the Governor would freeze all hiring, and any uncommitted funds would revert to the state. This was done under the provision that the state cannot operate in a deficit. In some years this was true, but in many other years it was done to insure that there would be a budget surplus. These funds would be used for one shot purposes to meet political obligations or for some project of the Governor's or the Legislature's. The largest enrollment of the year was always in the fall semester, so in 1974 I allocated all of the positions available so that they could be used at this busiest time. Some positions were allocated temporarily on a fall semester basis so that I could change allocations for the spring if necessary to take care of unforeseen needs. It was a surprise to most of the Deans when I first started the practice. It shouldn't have been, for I told them in advance of the procedure that I was using. They quickly learned that there really were no extra funds in the Provost's pockets to be handed out after the beginning of the fall semester. This was a good practice, for the schools and departments could plan, to the extent possible, for the wisest use of the funds that they had, and they had them all. Another thing we learned was that equipment and travel were other lines of the budget that got frozen quickly, and often Mr. Worsley, with my aid and support, frequently tried to get the units to plan for their equipment needs in the spring and to have their purchase orders written so that they could be submitted soon after the new fiscal year's funds became available. This of course had come to mean well after July 1, when the fiscal year began. For some units this deviated from their way of doing things, and we in academia hate to change the way that we do things. Of course for others it was a practice that they already followed in planning; however, they were not accustomed to getting the orders in so quickly. Whatever the circumstances, it is better to change than to lose those dear funds which are in short supply anyway. So they did learn, and at times the hard way, to plan ahead and to proceed quickly. While I advised strongly about these supporting fund allocations, these were determined and allocated by the Chancellors.

During Dr. Kelly's tenure, after I started working with him, and with my encouragement and instigation, he established the practice that all vacated positions were to be returned to the Provost for reallocation. While deans already had the authority and could reallocate positions, reallocation was very difficult for them politically in their schools. In most cases the positions did go back to the schools from which they came, but some reallocations were made to places of greater need. The University needed the ability to move positions more readily, and this was the easiest way that I knew to do it. As I was called on to help some schools have more funds in faculty lines to make new hires, I frequently had to take funds from those positions allocated on a temporary basis to the schools. As positions were vacated I could occasionally recall some of the funds to rebuild those lines back to an appropriate level. This was a wonderful practice and it gave me and the school deans some flexibility. I am grateful to Kelly for starting this practice because it would have become a difficult practice to have started in the later years of my tenure when reversions of funds to the State were very common. I did not find the precise year that this reallocation procedure came into being, but it was in practice in 1971.

During most of my tenure the indirect cost recovery (overhead) funds from grants and contracts provided some resources to units as well as for certain administrative costs. These were allocated primarily by the Vice Chancellor for Research and the Chancellor; however, the Provost had some say, and participated on a committee chaired by the Vice Chancellor for Research along with the Vice Chancellor for Extension, the Graduate Dean, and the Vice Chancellor for Finance and Business. This committee considered those funds for allocation to the schools. Unfortunately the disbursement of the overhead funds were 5% to the BOG, and 30% to the state for most of my tenure. However, during the terrible years of budget reductions in 1990, 1991, and 1992, the procedure changed. During these years we not only had to under-spend our budget to provide reversions and to cut the next year's budget drastically, in some of these years we could use only two-thirds of the salary of vacated faculty or other position lines. The state also took 50% of our overhead funds. Fortunately there have been some changes since that time. We now return 20% of the overhead funds to the state, and continue to give 5% to the BOG. There have been some budgetary changes that have provided more flexibility in the use of appropriated funds. We do not now have to operate under as strict budgetary line restraints, but we are required to make a specific and substantial amount of reversions to the state each year. Much of these funds come from personnel lines, but we can now use funds from vacant positions for purposes other than to hire EPA against EPA lines and SPA against SPA lines. This provides no change in the budget, but within a budget year funds can be used more flexibly. Oh, but it would have been wonderful to have this flexibility before I retired.

Creating New Administrative Units

In December of 1959, Dean Shirley described the process for getting approval of new programs at NCSC to the Faculty Senate. This was in relation to the two new schools (Liberal Arts and Physical Sciences and Mathematics) that were soon to be proposed to President Friday and to the Board of Trustees of UNC. All degrees also would have to be presented to the Board of Higher Education for approval.

When the Chancellor proposed the two new Schools in 1960, everyone in administrative positions seemed supportive. The affected faculty were tremendously pleased. I did see in the files I searched that a committee was appointed, but according to Shirley the two schools were a part of NCSC's long range plan. In meetings of the Administrative Council there was much debate about whether to go for one school or two separate schools simultaneously. After the decision was reached to go for the two schools separately, a committee of Shirley, Hickman (Dean of General Studies) and Peterson (Dean of the Graduate School) was appointed to write up the proposal for the two schools. There was mixed interest in including the biological sciences in Physical Sciences and Mathematics, but consensus in these meetings was to limit that proposal to the physical sciences and the departments of Mathematics and Statistics. Diary notes of meetings for the planning of the schools were kept by Shirley. They included meetings with the department heads of the affected groups. Some faculty in other schools expressed reservations, for they felt that there would be some loss of resources to their schools. They were especially concerned about the proposed School of Liberal Arts which, according to some, would change the nature of North Carolina State College. Of course it would, but they did not want the College's nature changed. In spite of these reservations by some, Caldwell had overwhelming support from the faculty and the Administrative Council for the two schools. The proposal for a School of Physical Sciences and Mathematics was proposed first, according to gossip at the time, for two reasons: 1) At that time there was serious doubt that the BOT would approve a school which included the liberal arts and the social sciences because of duplication with UNC-CH. The argument used most was that strength in the basic sciences and mathematics were essential for our development of nationally competitive programs in the applied science fields and engineering. Of course at this time the system had not come to realize, as they did in a few more years, that the same arguments would be made that the humanities and social sciences were essential and valid for undergirding strengths in the other fields of study at NCSC. 2) It would provide for a deanship for A. C. Menius. The proposal was approved by the general administration of UNC and by the BOT for PSAM to become a school on July 1, 1961. Chemistry and Statistics came from the School of Agriculture, and Physics and Mathematics came from the School of Engineering. Shirley said, after he had developed the proposal for the budget for the PSAM Dean's Office: "and they even have a budget too." At this time the Dean of the Faculty had no budget and operated out of the Chancellor's budget.

In a few more years the School of Liberal Arts was finally approved. It came at a time when the Consolidated University recognized that all of its constituent colleges should offer degrees in the basic humanities and social sciences. They also realized that this would provide stronger educational programs for all of the undergraduate students. That story is described in considerable detail in the section on Courses and Curricula in Chapter Two.

Departments were created in a variety of ways. Many arose by splitting an existing department which had covered diverse disciplines or scholarly areas and each had now grown to be of sufficient strength to separate them into departments. Faculty in both groups usually supported such a move. Examples are Microbiology, which moved from a recognized faculty in Botany to departmental status. Another of this type was Speech (Communication) from English. Others were formed from diverse groups of faculty from several departments with common interest. Examples include: Genetics from Statistics, Crop Science, Zoology, and Botany; Food Science from Horticulture and Animal Science; a single department of Economics by merging Agricultural Economics and Economics in 1964 (from two schools); Biochemistry from Botany; Chemistry, Animal Science and Microbiology and Toxicology from Entomology, Statistics, and with several adjunct or associate faculty from NIEHS at the Research Triangle Park; Biochemistry; Veterinary Medicine and Wood and Paper Science. In 1965, Rural Sociology and Sociology were merged. Both the Economics and Sociology departments continued to be under the administration of School of Liberal Arts and SALS. Computer Science was created by moving individual faculty from a large number of departments from at least three schools. These types of departments always have faculty support, and frequently the delay or impediment is administrative unwillingness to create another administrative unit. Some academic units or fields are developed and added to an existing departmental unit because they are small and administrators do not want to create more small departments. At times the faculty don't fit or wear very well together. An example was Social Work, which was at first in Sociology and which later moved to the Division of Multidisciplinary Studies. Several departments in Education were merged into a new department called Occupational Education. This merger was not generally desired by the faculty. Agricultural Education would later move from the Occupational Education department in the College of Education to a new department in CALS. This department is now called Agricultural and Extension Education. Another plan discussed at about that time was for the merger of Curriculum and Instruction and Mathematics and Science Education into a Department of Secondary Education. This idea had so much faculty opposition that it never got proposed formally, but it was discussed and debated for some time. Another department which had multiple fields and which has become quite strong is Marine, Earth, and Atmospheric Sciences which merged geology from Mineral Industries in the School of Engineering with the newly created fields of meteorology and marine sciences. Faculty in the Marine portion of this department came from Engineering and SALS. The faculty all appeared to be delighted to come to the new unit. Departments and curricula don't disappear often and when they do, there is usually faculty and student opposition. Examples were the Engineering Operations B.S. degree, which had become almost identical to that of Industrial Engineering's undergraduate degree, and Engineering Mechanics. In this later case the faculty were transferred to two other School of Engineering departments, Civil Engineering and Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering.

The Provost or Dean of the Faculty usually is consulted and has to prepare or have others prepare the documentation necessary for obtaining the approval of the President and the UNC Trustees, and in later years the NCSU Trustees, the President's Office and the Board of Governors. This means that he ascertains that the issue is adequately documented and supported. He makes certain that the Chancellor is fully informed of any controversy and is also in support of the proposal, and that the UNC Provost and later the VP for Academic Affairs is informed and expects to receive the proposal. He makes certain that it is presented in the desired format and in shape for the Chancellor to sign a covering letter with adequate copies. He prepares and presents the proposal to the appropriate NCSU Trustee Committee for the Chancellor, and as all good staff do, he prepares the report of the Trustees' committee chairman for his report at the Trustees meeting. One thing that was learned early by Shirley was to make certain that any degree title changes that were to occur with the creation of a new unit or with a unit's name change were submitted at the same time. This was practiced by Kelly, Winstead and Hart. It solved many problems later. I recall asking the proposers a number of times if title changes were to be made when degree name changes did not accompany departmental name changes. They almost always were intended to change too.

In 1978 we created a department of Educational Leadership and Program Evaluation. In this case we requested it of President Friday and the BOG. Initially it required no new resources and was handled by the transfer of appropriate faculty from other units in the School of Education. It was the area of expertise of Carl Dolce, the Dean of Education, and his tenure was here. When he left the Dean's Office, he went to this department. It would probably not have been approved if it had dealt only with Educational Administration, with its public school and higher education tracks, which was one of the degrees transferred to the new department. I think that the program evaluation component of the department helped enormously because that was a feature which was not usually visible in most universities and in the other UNC campuses' Educational Administration graduate degree programs at that time. It was the first in North Carolina, and helped that program to become nationally recognized. In this case it was the Dean who wanted to see this department created rather than the faculty, which was usually the driving force for the creation of new administrative units, but the faculty were also supportive of this new department.

In the same year we transferred the program in Engineering Graphics to the Department of Occupational Education. I don't believe that this was widely sought by the Engineering Graphics faculty, but they were not happy in Engineering which wanted to be rid of them. They did not really fit there, and they usually did not have engineering degrees. This was a very good and wise transfer for both the long run and the short run. I moved a group of faculty into an administrative framework where their status was appreciated and recognized, and it gave another unit with too few credit hours a way of earning a lot of them. Another change which came a little later was to transfer a few positions, unfilled on a permanent basis, from the Department of Mathematics to the Department of Mathematics and Science Education to teach several of the compensatory Math courses. The faculty in Math did not really like to teach and manage the courses, and they were taught mostly by Math's graduate students and a few temporary employees. These TA's were needed to teach other beginning courses in Math so this also turned out to be a very good decision. This provided Mathematics Education with a course that they could experiment with that was equivalent to the courses that their undergraduate students would teach in high school after they graduated. I gave Mathematics Education a high credit hour delivery course and resources needed to pay teaching assistants. I admit that I was the generator of this idea after hearing of complaints and needs from both departments.

There were a number of new departments and administrative units created as we grew and became more diverse in our programs, and as others were merged or were transferred from one school to another. I will not attempt to catalog all of these and have described only a small number. Others that should be mentioned were the beginning of the Institute of Biological Sciences which was later abolished, and the movement of Recreation and Parks Administration, (now Parks, Recreation and Tourism Management) from the School of Education to the School of Forest Resources in 1967. An important name change that has not been mentioned was the change from the School of Agriculture to the School of Agriculture and Life Sciences in the early sixties. The Psychology department was at one time in both Education and SLA. The faculty wanted to change and to be in only one school. When given the choice, they voted to be in the School of Education. This School would later change its name to Education and Psychology. Another Department that gained national stature grew out of the Department of Extension Personnel Development in SALS in 1965, and came to be joint with the School of Education as the Department of Adult and Community College Education. The old SALS component of this department has now returned to CALS and joined with Agricultural Education in the new Department of Agricultural and Extension Education. The addition of Product Design in the School of Design was one of the early programs approved under Shirley. It was to become an important addition and dimension to the programs in the School of Design. This Department would later be split into the Departments of Visual Design and Industrial Design. There was considerable controversy across campus, but not among the faculty in Visual Design when they changed their name to Graphic Design. In 1988 the College of Textiles, which had made many departmental changes over the years, became the college with the smallest number of departments. It now has only two departments, the Department of Textile Engineering, Chemistry and Science and the Department of Textile and Apparel Management.

In the sixties there was much talk about the need for a School of Veterinary Medicine in North Carolina, and we all assumed that when it came it would come to NCSU. In the meantime several veterinarians had been hired by the Agricultural Research and Extension Services, in the Animal Science and Poultry Science Departments. By the late sixties it had become evident that there would be such a school in North Carolina. The questions now were where and when? During this period there was some effort to have it established at NCA&T. There was also a study by the Southern Regional Education Board that was sent to each member of the Legislature and to many others including all newspapers, radio and TV stations that said that there was no need for more veterinarians. Finally it was evident that a school would be established in North Carolina and that it would come to NCSU. We first asked for and got resources to expand our veterinary efforts in SALS which were needed, and we created a new Department of Veterinary Science with Terrence Curtin as the new Department Head. One of the department's functions was to begin to plan for a school of excellence. Caldwell and later Thomas said that this program was not to be created at the expense of our other programs, and that if we were to start a school, it was to be one which could compete with the nation's best veterinary schools. The planning was superb, and when the appropriations came they were sufficient to enable us to have a truly outstanding school and an excellent facility even if it did leak in the Dean's office when it rained! I cannot say that it did not take some resources away from other programs, for I don't believe that a university system can look at the funds that go to one campus when such a major new venture is started to meet State needs, without there being some lessening of new resources that might have gone to other programs. While the Provost was not the dominant planner, I did spend many hours reading the plans, listening to proposals and making suggestions in the planning for the new school. I am proud of the effort and do consider my time well spent, for this was one of the worthy contributions to the programs at NCSU made while I was Provost. The credit for planning really should be given to Dean Curtin and that group of wise and dedicated faculty in the Department of Veterinary Science who made the plans to create what has come to be truly a great College of Veterinary Medicine.

One unit that was desired by the faculty, the departmental administrators and the University administrations for many years was a School of Economics and Business with the appropriate departments. In the sixties, with the persistence of Dean Brooks James of SALS, the Department of Agricultural Economics, which was nationally recognized, was merged with the Department of Economics, which had a few excellent faculty but which was not nationally recognized and had no graduate programs. The merged department reported to both SLA and SALS. This merger made it possible for the faculty in the two units to participate in graduate programs, for the Ph. D. in Agricultural Economics which was soon retitled as a Ph.D in Economics. This was a good merger for us at that time and soon we had a strong economics faculty. Early in the seventies we added degree programs at the undergraduate level in both Accounting and in Business Management. We also added a Master of Science in Management (an interdepartmental and interschool program which was a unique degree) in lieu of another MBA program which existed everywhere.

We hired a senior faculty member who was nationally recognized and was to help us develop a strong business program. Provost Kelly began to meet with this new faculty member to discuss ways to improve the program. The idea at that time of the Economics Department's faculty and of the school and university administrators was to have a separate school at some time in the future. I don't know all of the reasons, but I believe that the faculty viewed Dr. Kelly's approaches as improper in that only one faculty member was included and that the others were not being adequately involved in the discussions. I also understood that this new senior professor's ideas of what the program should be differed from that of most of the other faculty in the department. Soon this professor left NCSU, and the idea of a school became dormant. After Thomas came, the idea was resurrected. Before Chancellor Thomas left NCSU to return to the University of Alabama, there were meetings with the Chancellor, the Deans of SHASS and SALS, and the faculty in the Department of Economics and Business, which had become the largest department on campus in the size of faculty, in credit hours generated, and in the number of undergraduate student majors. Most of the undergraduate majors were in Business, and a large number were also majors in Accounting. Smaller numbers majored in Economics and Agricultural Economics. A number of plans had been drawn up by the faculty which were not acceptable to the two deans or to the NCSU administration. After a meeting of the Chancellor and the two deans with the faculty of the department, the whole idea was again placed in deep freeze. I did not attend the meeting for I was out of town when it was held. I recall that the deans and the Chancellor were shocked at the chilly atmosphere and the heated discussion of the meeting. Over the years of Poulton's tenure, a number of attempts to start a new school were begun but never quite brought to fruition. During this time there had been a very serious proposal drawn up by the faculty which would have attempted to maintain a governance structure of the proposed school that was amazingly similar to the existing departmental governance structure. Many of the faculty in business and accounting told us they were very opposed to the proposed plan. Neither of the two deans liked the plan, and we in Holladay Hall felt that most of the weaknesses that we found in the department's administration would remain. These weaknesses were not associated with individual administrators in the department but with the problem of such diverse programs and such a large faculty really continuing to operate as if they were a department even if they called themselves a school. I must say that the two department heads during this period of time, William Toussaint and Dale Hoover, were superior administrators, and if they, along with a series of excellent assistant department heads, had not been so dedicated and competent, the department would have collapsed a lot earlier.

Poulton came up with a strategy to create a Division of Economics and Business with four departments. Agricultural Economics would report to the Dean of SALS and the Departments of Economics, Business Management and Accounting would report to the Dean of CHASS, as an interim step towards the creation of a school. The units would all participate in the existing graduate programs. The Division was created. It was to have four departments in the Division. We had believed that the steps toward the creation of a separate school and the departments was an accomplished fact and was informally approved by the UNC administrators. Some departments, but not all had been formed. When Monteith became Interim Chancellor, we found that this was not an accomplished fact approved informally by Dr. Dawson. He sounded as if he had never heard of that plan. We then formed a committee of the NCSU faculty, mostly from business, to make a study of our undergraduate Business Management degree program with our NCSU administrative intern Dr. Joanne Rockness, as our liaison to the committee. After receiving the committee report we brought in outside consultants. Both of these two studies suggested many weaknesses in the Business Management degree program. We were told that we did not have an adequate faculty for accreditation of the degree when and if a new school was established. Both Hart and I began to add positions for business which would rectify this deficiency. Around this time Robert Clark replaced Hoover as Head of the Division of Economics and Business. We were hoping that we would in the not too distant future begin to look for a new dean. I did not go through the usual search procedure when Clark was selected as Interim Head, but attempted to find the most satisfactory candidate to assume the position who also was satisfactory to most of the faculty. We also had to find someone who would take on some hard and very difficult administrative tasks and who would give up a few years in their academic careers. Several names were suggested to me. No one that we interviewed who would accept the position was a unanimous choice of each of the four faculty groups. The majority of at least one group of faculty objected to each person who was willing to be considered. In selecting Dr. Clark we did make a very wise choice to carry us from this topsy-turvy time until we would finally get the four departments established. At about this time the UNC system was embarking on a long range plan which would include plans for new administrative units and new degree programs on each of the 16 campuses. This planing started while I was Provost, and was submitted under Hart. In 1992 a School of Management was approved and Robert Clark was appointed as Interim Dean. A search was started and Richard Lewis was appointed as the new Dean. I mention this administrative unit's history as I knew at least one side of much of the story, for it was the administrative unit that was not only most wanted but took the longest time to create. More controversy about this unit occurred on campus than when the School of Liberal Arts was established. While I was Provost, I discussed the matter of establishing this college with the deans of the remaining schools/colleges. All of the other colleges in the University wanted to see this school created too. I had wanted to see this school come into being during my entire tenure as Provost, and thank goodness it now exists. Its present structure has a different and probably a better focus than any of those proposed earlier.

I have not mentioned most of the administrative units that came into being since Shirley first became Dean of the Faculty. I have given a number of those which illustrate the procedure for change and many of the types of changes that have taken place.

Procedures to Select Academic Officials

I checked with Chancellors Bostian and Caldwell on the procedures that they used in selecting Shirley and Kelly, and for the selection of school deans. Both said that they consulted broadly with those that they needed to talk with. In the case of Shirley this meant with members of the Administrative Council. For Kelly this meant that Chancellor Caldwell got nominations from those consulted, and the two who recommended Kelly were D. B. Anderson and Walter Peterson. Both of these had taken leaves from NCSC to work with the National Science Foundation. They had worked under Dr. Kelly there. Chancellor Caldwell did bring Dr. Kelly to the campus for an interview. Both of the Deans of the Faculty had to be approved by the UNC Board of Trustees Executive Committee. By the time of the search for Dr. Kelly's replacement, there was a traditional committee of faculty and administrators appointed by Chancellor Caldwell to nominate candidates for the Provost's position. The procedure that was used when I was selected as Provost as well as those used for the selection of Hart and Stiles were developed by the Faculty Senate in 1970-71. The Senate's proposal also described the procedures and the constituency of school dean search committees. In 1971-72 and 73-74, these procedures were expanded to include the selection of assistant and associate provosts and deans, department heads and certain other academic officials. These procedures can be found as modified later in the Faculty Handbook of 1988 and will not be described here.

In 1955 one search committee for a department head consisted of three other department heads and two faculty members from the department, one of whom wished to be considered for the position and who resigned from the committee. I recommended three persons for the position to the dean. The dean forwarded one name to the Chancellor (no copy to the Dean of the Faculty). There was no record that either the Dean of the Faculty or the Chancellor interviewed any of the nominees. In 1956 Bostian had correspondence with Acting Provost Whyburn about the appointment of a committee to select the Department Head for Physics in the School of Engineering. Bostian said that he would prefer to have the Dean of the School of Engineering to appoint the committee, but he would work closely with the dean in the appointment of the committee and see that the dean did not serve on it. Dean Lampe appointed the committee and this one had several faculty and a few other administrators. This procedure was followed for many years for department heads with varying numbers of members and varying numbers of faculty from the affected department, until the Senate proposed in 1974-75 that at least 50% of the committee come from among the faculty with one-third of the members selected by the faculty in the department. The Chancellor or the Dean of the Faculty (Provost) has continued to approve the membership of the department head search committees. By the time I became Provost the Chancellor had already delegated this responsibility to the Provost. In the years of Shirley's and the early years of Kelly's terms there were many department heads appointed with one recommendation and no evidence of an interview, and without mention in the associated files of a committee or its makeup. In 1960 there was difficulty in attracting candidates for the Head of the Chemistry Department because of the perception that we could not develop an outstanding department in the new School of PSAM and that the UNC chemistry faculty would direct the department from Chapel Hill. That was the view of one person who was a candidate after he visited the Department of Chemistry at UNC, and he withdrew his name from consideration. The committee of two faculty from the Chemistry Department and three others from outside PSAM requested assurances that we really were prepared to build an outstanding faculty before they contacted other nominees.

In 1960 Chancellor Caldwell approved a committee for a Head of the Department of Landscape Architecture with only one landscape faculty member.

On November 17, 1958, President Friday appointed a committee to select a new Chancellor to replace Bostian. The files do not indicate how he appointed the committee or with whom he consulted. The committee membership consisted of five members of the Board of Trustees, five members of the NCSC Alumni Association and five members of the faculty. He continued to appoint faculty to the search committee which recommended Thomas. By the time the searches for Poulton and Monteith occurred, the Faculty Senate elected the faculty members.

The committee that was appointed to select a replacement for Shirley for the Dean of General Studies consisted of four deans, another major administrator, one department head and two faculty. I did not see a letter of appointment, but I saw the recommendation which said that the Selection Committee recommended C. A. Hickman. It included only one recommendation.

The first time that I saw the appointment of a search committee which had many faculty was for the appointment of the Dean of the newly created School of Physical Sciences and Mathematics. In this case the committee was appointed by Chancellor Caldwell in the morning. It met, and it recommended A. C. Menius before noon. Committees were usually appointed to search for school deans after this time. In 1960 Chancellor Caldwell appointed a committee of faculty to search for a replacement for Dean Hickman for the School of General Studies. It consisted entirely of faculty and was chaired by a faculty member from the affected school. In 1960 the Dean of Design worked out a procedure and a committee for a search for the head of Landscape Architecture with Dean Shirley. Yet the Dean wrote to the Chancellor who then approved the committee and the procedure.

In 1961 Shirley served on the Search Committee for the new School of Engineering Dean. It was not the usual practice for the Provost to serve on committees for the selection of a dean. I later served as chairman of the committee which nominated Jerry Whitten as the replacement for Garrett Briggs as the Dean of PAMS. I also served as the chairman of the committee which nominated Thomas Stafford as the replacement for Banks Talley as Vice Chancellor of Student Affairs.

On February 26, 1962, Dean Brooks James proposed a new Institute of Biological Sciences with H. F Robinson as its head and as Assistant Director of the Agricultural Experiment Station. I saw no evidence in the files of consultation with the faculty, but there was some discussion with the heads of the biological science departments who in turn reported back to Dean James their faculty's interest and concerns. It was not at all usual in those days for units that were not departments to have a faculty committee appointed to study the matter.

The procedure, since these early committees, has been for the Provost to approve the committees recommended by the dean for those positions reporting to a dean, and for the Chancellor, upon recommendation of the Provost, to appoint the committees involved in the nomination of Deans and Vice Chancellors. In 1966 that procedure was followed, and Dean Fadum made a recommendation to Kelly for the new Head of the Chemical Engineering Department. The Chancellor of course wrote the letter of appointment.

Before I became Assistant Provost, I did not know that Dr. Kelly had a position for Assistant Provost, called at this time Assistant Dean of the Faculty. No committee was appointed. Dr. Kelly asked me to come over and have a cup of tea and discuss things that I had done and learned while I was on leave as an Ellis L. Phillips' Intern the prior year at Indiana University. I had about three visits, and he asked me if I would like to come to work with him. We discussed what I might do, and I joined him on July 1, 1967. I later learned from a friend, Robert Maier, who later became VC for Academic Affairs at ECU, that he had come down for an interview with Caldwell and Kelly for this position. He said that he told them he was looking for a VP for Academic Affairs position and was not interested. Earlier in 1964, I was called over to Dean H. Brooks James home one Sunday morning. Dean James said that he and Directors Roy Lovvorn and Ed Glazner had been looking for a new Director of the Institute of Biological Sciences to replace Dr. Robinson, and they wanted me to fill the position. I had known the position was vacant, but had not applied for it and never thought I would be considered for it.

The general practice came to be that searches for all administrative positions would have an appointed committee. Before this time we probably could not have afforded to bring in all of the candidates for an interview. These in time came to be known as nomination rather than search committees. They were to make nominations, and in most cases were required to make three. Sometimes the administrator receiving the nominations would accept fewer, but rarely just one. As mentioned earlier in the 1970s, the Faculty Senate recommended a new set of procedures for the nomination of academic officials. The first recommendations had a number of flaws in the eyes of the Deans, so a Conference Committee was formed to reach consensus on modifications. Everyone agreed that we probably did need more faculty input and that procedures needed to be less variable from school to school. The Conference Committee's recommendations were adopted and can now be found in the Faculty Handbook.

Over time we came to accept some additional parameters that were not spelled out. The first was that these committees would be made up of more faculty than administrators. The committee would also consist of a majority of its members from the affected administrative group. We also had at least one-third of the membership elected by the voting faculty from that group. After the arrival of Chancellor Thomas, I began to review the proposed committees for department heads and other administrative positions in schools and to give approval. I was looking for the 50% representation of faculty from the administered group and in some cases to suggest membership from closely related groups. This practice began on September 11, 1979. There are still a few administrative positions in schools not covered by these guidelines. In almost all cases the deans have come to use these procedures for those positions too. In 1979, Chancellor Thomas said that the interviews with so many prospective department heads were beginning to wear him out and were taking too much time. It seemed that it was getting very hard to get these candidates scheduled with the chancellor. It seemed that most departments brought in three candidates, and several departments had more than three interviews. It was agreed that I would interview all department head candidates that were brought to the campus and that the school would bring back to the campus the preferred candidate to interview with the chancellor. This practice also was adopted by Chancellor Poulton.

It seems that about every four or five years the issue of department heads or department chair comes up. In 1978 this was a big issue again. After a review of the schools it seemed that there was major interest in having chairs rather than heads from the Humanities and Social Sciences, with Agriculture and Life Sciences, Forest Resources, and Textiles opposed. In the other schools there was varied interest. In 1983-84 the Faculty Senate appointed a committee to study the Heads vs. Chairs issue, and we did not make this change. Later when Poulton came, the Periodic Review and Evaluation of Departmental Programs and Leadership at five-year intervals was established. While this did not establish a formal term of five years, it did begin to look more like a term because we reported the review to the NCSU Trustees with the indication that the head would be continued, that we were involved in a new search, or that we would begin a new search. The faculty have varied opinions of what the role of a chair would be. At present many departments involve the faculty heavily in the decision processes and in others they are minimally involved in departmental governance.

In 1984 it seemed that the reviews of department heads by the school deans, in the eyes of many of the faculty, were frequently beginning to include too little faculty consultation by the deans and too little about the quality of the department head's leadership. So many of the faculty throughout the university began to raise the issue within the Senate and with the school and university administrators of more faculty involvement in the administration of the reviews, and also of more faculty involvement in the administration of the departments. At such times the issue of Chairs versus Heads always comes up. It was at this time that a new recommendation for faculty participation in School and Departmental reviews came from the Faculty Senate. A few of the recommendations were not acceptable as proposed to the school deans and to many department heads. A conference committee was appointed and revisions were made which were acceptable to the deans and to the Senate. We did not get a recommendation to move from heads to chairs. It was at this time that Poulton wrote me saying:

This is to confirm our discussion on the appointment of deans and department heads.

First, new appointments in either position will be made with the understanding that an evaluation of the school or departmental leadership is to be made within five years as the basis for a decision concerning a continuing appointment in the position.

Second, because this stipulation was not made as a part of the appointment of most of our current deans and department heads, we agreed that the regular letter or reappointment will indicate simply that the administrator will be evaluated in five years. Copies of such letters from deans to department heads will be sent to the provost's and chancellor's offices.

In 1989 concern was expressed to the Chancellor and me by several faculty that we were going outside for too many department heads. John Riddle expressed it in this way. "In the last six or so years, the process for the selection of Department Heads has undergone a number of changes, largely for the common good. The process is more open and the limit of five years before a review improves the faculty morale and the quality of leadership." He goes on to say that it seemed to him "that the ratio of heads who come from the outside appears to have increased against those who come from inside." This was a true assertion. He went on to say the personnel in many nomination committees, "feel that the administration prefers outsiders and secondly, a 'Savior' from beyond is easier for a search committee to sell because departmental groups do not need to work out internal accommodations." He also discussed the fact that outside heads frequently soon returned to the faculty as a professor and thereby occupied a faculty position in their field which might not be in the area that would serve the best interest of the department. It is true that the turnover among heads had become more and more frequent. It was a tough job as John knew, and few persons wanted to stay in the head position until retirement. He said, "If there is a shortening of department heads' terms, many of those selected on criteria based on administration have most of their active careers back in the ranks for research and instruction." Perhaps some of the reasons that we were getting more from outside the university were those Riddle suggested. Another reason was that with affirmative action we forced most of the searches to be open so that all persons interested or nominated could be considered, especially minorities and women. Departments also frequently saw this as a means to get an additional faculty position in their department. The Chancellor had begun to require his approval before a search had begun if we were to limit it to internal candidates only. This was not intended as an administrative wish for outsiders but was to assure affirmative action. I know of many searches where I found the internal candidate to be very acceptable and even the best candidate to me, yet they were not chosen or recommended, or were not the first choice of the committee or the dean. In most cases we were looking at very good people and the external candidate had also appeared to be very good too. It did seem to me that there was a bias from the committees at times against internal candidates. There were a few times that I would not give the unit an extra position for I felt that they were overly enriched with faculty positions at that time. Hence an internal search was required. In others there were very acceptable minority and/or women candidates in the department for consideration by the committee. However, in the vast majority of cases we did open searches. John was correct in his assumption that we were selecting more department heads from outside and that heads were staying in the position for shorter periods of time. In reality this was true for almost all academic administrative positions. I recall one meeting of NASULGC when the audience was asked to stand and then sit down as they called out the number of years we had each been in our positions. When less than five years was called over one-half of the audience had sat down, after ten years there were only three of us standing. One had ten years, I had 14 years at this time, and one person had 22, but was to retire at the end of that year.

One other related issue was the review of academic officials. The process was started for department heads during Caldwell's and my tenures and has changed somewhat in procedure over the years. The Dean reviews were recommended by the Senate in 1977, and they were approved by Chancellor Thomas. The first reviews were of SALS, PAMS and Textiles in 1977. The reviews of the deans were held by the Chancellor and the Provost. Later during Poulton's tenure, the VC for Research joined the review team. At first we did a written report of the dean's reviews and let the results of the study be kept in the Faculty Senate Office for review by all that wished to see the report. Of course, the dean who was reviewed got a copy. The Provost always wrote the review and shared it with the Chancellor for his additions or modifications. In 1978 the Senate proposed a change from Periodic Review of Departmental Leadership to Periodic Review and Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Departmental Programs and Leadership. This recommendation was accepted, and program and leadership became a component of both the department heads' and the deans' reviews. A number of changes were suggested in the process for the department head reviews, but the deans did not agree with these.

For the department heads the dean of the school arranged for the review. A departmental committee could be used, or deans could interview faculty directly, or in some cases both approaches were used. The deans then developed the report that they made to the faculty. The dean then sent a copy of that report or a synopsis of the department head's review to the Provost and Chancellor for their consideration, acceptance, or for further discussion. These reports always had a recommendation from the dean that the department head be continued or not continued. When we first reviewed program and leadership of the School of Education, the faculty wanted to use a questionnaire which they developed to be filled out by all faculty. They used a committee to administer the questionnaire. We agreed that it was an excellent idea. We did give Dean Dolce an opportunity to add questions that he felt were important. That started a process whereby the Faculty Senators from a school, or a committee of four current and former senators in those schools which had less than four senators, would develop a questionnaire to be reviewed and modified and usually a few questions were added by the school dean for his/her review. Dr. Downs or I then worked out a compromise if there were disagreements about the questionnaire. I don't recall any major disagreements between the deans and the faculty over the questions. Usually the dean accepted the questionnaire with his additional questions added. It was at this time that a faculty senator told the UNC attorney in the BOG administration about our process. At that time the UNC attorney wished to review our procedure. He found them acceptable, except for the provision that the reviews could be put in a file for review by the faculty. We were told that was not legal and that we could share the findings but not in writing and not the results of the questionnaire. In our reviews of deans we also had meetings with department heads in a group, an open meeting for all the faculty, and a meeting with the other administrators from the school. Following the completion of the review, in a meeting with the faculty of a school, I verbally reported about the overall findings that we had found. I also gave a summary orally of the overall results of the questionnaire and the scores of the five questions with the highest and the five questions with the lowest scores. The questionnaires were received from the faculty by the Faculty Senate committee and were run on the optical scanning equipment of the Computing Center. The results were then prepared by these senators for us. Each questionnaire also had room for written comments. Comments received were summarized for me by the senators, but the originals were sent to me too. The Chancellor and I read all of these. I shared the summary and the questions except for those that might be identified with a specific person with the school dean. Reviews for department heads varied from school to school somewhat and at times slightly from department to department depending on the dean and the faculty's wishes. Deans were to recommend to us that the head be continued and if there were conditions imposed. In most cases we concurred with these recommendations. The reviews were to be held after five years tenure for deans and for department heads. Hart also followed this practice. There were several times that department heads decided they did not want to go through the review and announced well in advance that they were stepping down as head. Others have left the positions even earlier than five years. With the more frequent changes of the heads or deans it is possible for a unit to go for more than five years for a review.

A summary of the results of the reviews for schools and departments were also shared with the Trustees, and it was indicated to them if the dean or head would be continuing in the position. While the faculty were most interested in a leadership review, these were to be for both leadership and programs. After consulting with the Chancellor, I wrote back to the school dean accepting the report of the dean for the departmental review. The first report accepted for a departmental review was for Biological and Agricultural Engineering. Since I retired, some faculty have told me that in a few occasional cases (I heard of none of these cases while I was Provost) some deans have not followed guidelines on the department head's review processes.

As Provost, I maintained a record of the reviews of the school deans and worked with the school deans to prepare a schedule for the review of the leadership and programs in their school. Dr. Downs maintained the list of departments and heads and maintained a record of their review status. He also prepared each year the letters that went to the school deans to remind them of the dates when a department head review should be made. He also worked with the senators who prepared the questionnaires that were to be filled out by the faculty in the schools for the dean's reviews. Later after Dr. Witherspoon joined the Provost Office, he assumed the role performed by Dr. Downs of maintaining the list of department heads and sending out to the deans the reminders of the departments that should be scheduled for review during the next year.

In the searches for faculty members, different departments used different procedures. Unlike when I was appointed without a visit to the campus, a visit by the leading faculty prospects came to be the expected thing. Usually the prospective faculty member presents a seminar and meets the faculty in a variety of ways. They are interviewed by a lot of administrators including someone from the Provost's Office. Departments then seek faculty input and make a recommendation for appointment to the department head, he to the dean and the dean to the Provost. Upon concurrence of the Provost and approval of the proposed salary, an offer is made to the candidate, contingent upon the approval of the Trustees and the BOG if tenure is to be awarded. If the offer is accepted, appointment papers are prepared in the department, sent to the dean and to the Provost who prepares the recommendation to the NCSU Trustees.

In 1984 Chancellor Poulton added an additional point to the approval of searches for academic officials. He indicated that to ascertain that the most qualified candidates are selected to fill administrative positions at the department head, director levels or above, search committees must be approved as in the current practice by the Provost or appropriate Vice Chancellor. Waivers which were being requested more frequently, would not be approved for Dean or Vice Chancellor positions. For other positions, a waiver may be approved only by the Chancellor and only in clearly justifiable circumstances, as when: 1) In academic departments, the department head retains his or her faculty position and the creation of a new salary line is not justified. 2) A clearly superior internal candidate may be promoted and a search will be conducted to fill the resulting vacancy.

Space Utilization and Allocation

One of the first assigned activities that Dean Shirley did was a classroom utilization study for the Board of Higher Education. This study included each classroom and the number of hours it was used each week and the hours of the day that the classroom was used. Soon these studies were done annually by Institutional Research with the help of Student Affairs. Such studies were continued each year, and as computerization became available, they became much more complex.

Shortly after the first Board of Higher Education study, the Budget Bureau of the State hired a consultant to do a space utilization analysis. Shirley wrote to Caldwell and said, "In my best judgment, the report is tremendously disappointing; as far as being of any help either to this office or to a campus planner who must carry on the work started here, the report is not worth the paper it is printed on. Fundamentally, the report is meaningless because it fails to take into any account the dynamic nature of education. It poses a completely static situation which must assume that everything we are doing now is perfect and that no improvements in any way can be brought to pass. I suspect that this report is nothing more than might be expected when an industrial consultant firm, without any educational experience, tries to give all the answers. It appears that the results may get a classroom building for us, which we need, but I hope that the acceptance of the building space will not tie our hands on its design or its use."

Chancellor Caldwell assigned additional responsibility to the Dean of the Faculty for space allocation and planning. He said that the "Dean of the Faculty has the responsibility of assuring the best use of space on campus available for instruction and research. Accordingly, he has authority (1) to direct the allocation and reallocation of existing space, and (2) to stimulate, develop and review requests for additional academic space for recommendation to the Chancellor." In the exercise of this authority he was required to consult with and obtain the concurrence of the Business Manager with regard to fiscal implications and other elements bearing directly upon the responsibility of the Business Office for construction and maintenance of College property. Part of this directive was to reduce the authority of the then Business Manager who seemed to report more directly to his superior at UNC than to the Chancellor.

The Provost's Office continued to perform the reallocation of space vacated by the completion of a new building on campus, but it was not a factor in setting the priorities for the decisions for new campus construction. I know that usually neither Kelly, Hart nor I were consulted before a decision was made on the priorities for new construction. Shirley reallocated the space to be vacated by units moving to new space after receiving requests for the space from units on campus. He got the approval of the Chancellor before making the allocations, of course. Studies to accomplish this function were handled first by Mr. Simpson, then by either Simpson or me, and later by Dr. Downs for the Provost.

When Kelly and I were Provosts, we considered this function to be very important. Our studies of vacated space were similar to those of Shirley's. We did this in 1970 for Tompkins Hall. At first it seemed that no one wanted this space; however, Liberal Arts was delighted to get it to relieve crowding in Harrelson Hall. In 1970 we were also considering the need for reassignment of space in Kilgore. It was quite likely that these studies would have meant that the Department of Horticulture would have received the space, which they did receive anyway. We were well into the hearings of other units and for Horticulture when Chancellor Caldwell wrote Dr. Kelly and said, "I wrote the attached memorandum in March 1965, and have not modified that position." This was in response to Kelly's concern when Dean James wrote him a memorandum saying that he did not feel that Agricultural Experiment Station appropriations could be used for the modification of space for other units. This following is what had happened.

In 1965 the Chancellor had written about Kilgore Hall, "The purpose of this memorandum is to freeze that space, placing it under the direct control of the Chancellor for allocation. It is necessary to make this ruling now in order to forestall any unwise planning which may otherwise take place for the use of that space." He was referring to the space to be vacated by the School of Forestry when it got its new building. He sent copies widely but had not sent a copy to Kelly.

Inadvertently, however, I included an item in the capital improvements program for 1971 under the Agricultural Experiment Station which would provide for the renovation and equipment of the vacated forestry space for the Department of Horticulture. The purpose of this memorandum is to revert to and re-emphasize the purpose of my 1965 memorandum. The purpose and essence of that memorandum was simply to assert that every vacant space on the campus is needed by many departments and that any which occur must be reallocated in the light of all competing needs. I await with interest your recommendations regarding the space in Kilgore in which I am sure you will take account of all alternatives.

The Chancellor as usual had not informed Kelly of the capital improvements request. I then understood some of the animosity of the School of Agriculture and of my friends in Horticulture towards Dr. Kelly, for they had clearly understood that the Chancellor had already assigned the space to them. Now it appeared that the Provost was trying to take it away. Provost Kelly had us discontinue our studies of other space needs in relation to Kilgore Hall, and he recommended to the Chancellor that the space be assigned to the Horticulture Department.

In 1971, the Field House at old Riddick Stadium (which had housed the Recreation and Parks Department which had been transferred from the School of Education to the School of Forestry and was to become Recreation Resources Administration and was now housed in Biltmore Hall) was assigned to Business Affairs, for the Provost's Space Committee did consider administrative needs too. In 1972 the Provost wrote the Chancellor concerning King Religious Center which was to be vacated and the space in Leazar Hall which had recently been vacated as a dining hall. The issue was whether his Space Committee should consider the needs of the community when non-academic space was vacated too. The Chancellor said that he had made promises for King and for portions of Leazar. He said, "So let the principle you requested stand approved but for the time being King and Leazar do not come to the Space Committee." In time a part of Leazar was assigned to the School of Design. Other portions were used by Business Affairs and other units for administrative purposes. Much later when Chancellor Poulton received permission to use lapsed salaries and other funds to make a major step to improve our instructional computing facilities and equipment, Mr. Worsley and I made a study of the facilities in Leazer Hall and recommended to the Chancellor that some of Design's space and some of the Administrative space assigned to functions which reported to Mr. Worsley be reassigned to the Department of Computer Science for computing laboratories.

The Provost became involved when there was a change in function or a reassignment in spaces that were already assigned to units. He also had to approve the requests for changes in the function of existing space and later for all renovations in space. Until this later function was assumed by the Provost, changes in function usually occurred when there was a desired renovation. Then it was too late to review the request for a change in function. When Shirley first began to reallocate space this was a hard function to perform, for the classrooms and other spaces were all assumed to be owned by a specific unit and if they wished to use the space for other functions they felt entitled to do so, no matter how much of the time a classroom might be used by other units. Even the assignment of classes of other departments had to be approved by the owning unit at this time. So if you began to use one of your departmental classrooms very little, then of course your unit would look to that room for needed space for other functions. It was the classroom that was usually earmarked for elimination, and as we were growing rapidly in enrollment, we now needed to retain almost all of these as classrooms. It was much later that a position was added to the Registrar's Office to handle classroom assignments. At first this position used very careful approaches to get the maximum use out of the available classroom space. Units that had grown enormously over the years, such as Computer Science and Economics and Business, often might have none to very few classrooms assigned to them while others of long existence and declining enrollments might have a surplus. Therefore, teaching of their classes at the popular hours would be limited for the group of units who owned few classrooms. At any rate the Provost had to preserve the classrooms although he was only peripherally involved in classroom assignment.

On May 10, 1972, the Provost wrote a memorandum on "Classroom Assignments" which modified the priority exclusiveness of classrooms by the departmental owners. The new policy was as follows:

1. The present policy of reserving priority rooms will be adhered to until the initial printout of class registration.

2. If a class that was scheduled to be taught in a priority classroom has not materialized at the time of the initial printout of class registration, and a department cannot justify the holding of this classroom space through the add period, the classroom can be released for reassignment to another class by the Department of Registration and Records.

3. If the tentative enrollment is less than 50% of the seating capacity of a priority classroom, the room may be reassigned to another class with a larger tentative enrollment. In the event that a class is moved from a priority room, every effort will be made to reschedule the class in a room suitable to the instructor of the class.

4. These considerations do not apply to laboratories or classrooms containing equipment purchased by funds from the proprietary department, provided the equipment cannot be readily moved or locked up.

This was a very important and major breakthrough and had the support of the Faculty Senate.

Later Chancellor Poulton reassigned the space function to Institutional Research; however, approval continued to be required by the Provost for any change in function. Some confusion existed about who had responsibility for studies and recommendations to the Chancellor for the reassignment of existing space. At a budget hearing, requests from CHASS and PAMS called for equipment for activities in Withers Hall, a building that had been submitted to UNC for inclusion in NCSU's Capital (a major building renovation or new construction) Budget Request. The Chancellor asked who had approved this allocation of space. I had never heard of it. In fact the Provost's Office had never, until this time, been involved in the decisions of what was to be included in the Capital Budget requests, and I did not even know that the building had been submitted in that request. Neither dean had discussed the matter with the Provost and had assumed that the approvals had been made since they knew that the request had been forwarded to the UNC system. My usual procedure, before making an assignment, had been to issue an announcement that space was to be vacated and to invite applications for the space from interested units. It had been assumed by Institutional Research that those two schools would get the space since based on their continuing studies these two schools needed the space worse than others. The Chancellor then assigned space reallocation to a committee composed of the Provost, the Vice Chancellor for Finance and Business, and the Vice Chancellor for Research. Dr. Larry Gracie from Institutional Research would do the research and staff studies as needed for this trio in preparing studies and making allocation recommendations to the Chancellor. We made a study and did submit our proposal, after study, for the reallocation of this space. It was almost identical to that planned earlier and it was approved by Chancellor Poulton. It is of interest that space in Withers Hall has been reassigned, but the funds from the State for renovations had not been funded when Hart's term as Provost expired in 1993. Because of the inability to get renovation funds, several changes have been made in the original assignments because the space without renovations was not always suited for the earlier assignments. We also recommended the use of space in Nelson and Clark Halls after the movement of the College of Textiles to its new facilities on Centennial Campus. The first proposal for space reallocation made by my replacement, Dr. Hart and associates for the use of space to be vacated in Patterson by Economics and Business did not get accepted as presented to Chancellor Monteith. It was returned to them for further study after one of the deans protested the proposed allocation vigorously. A new proposal was made and accepted, although I understand that neither of the participating deans were very satisfied with the newly proposed allocation. The reallocation of the space to be vacated by Economics and Business in the Hillsborough Building was accepted. Dr. Downs acted for the Provost on space modifications and helped to redesign the Facilities Modification Form and Procedures. Coordination of this process was transferred by Chancellor Poulton in 1988 to Dr. Larry Grove in Institutional Research, but the Provost's Office continued to approve all request for academic space including all request to modify classrooms or to change classrooms to other functions. Since classrooms were too small, these requests were rarely approved.

In 1958 Shirley and Vann had a disagreement over the use of classrooms by groups not affiliated with the University. It seemed that Shirley granted the use to some group denied in prior years by Mr. Vann. Mr. Vann's concern dealt with insurance, security and maintenance. In this case Shirley clearly made the statement that he had responsibility for use and assignment of the classrooms and that he had made the assignment under previously agreed upon guidelines. This responsibility for assignments to outside groups, student and other university groups for meetings in classrooms got passed on to Student Affairs (Registration and Records) along with the responsibility of scheduling of the classrooms for courses. Departments continued to sponsor and to hold seminars and other meetings at night and at other times when classrooms were not in use for teaching courses. This was coordinated by Student Affairs. It became the policy that we would not let persons from outside the University schedule meetings in classroom space unless it was for a conference or a meeting sponsored by a unit of the University and approved by Student Affairs. Fortunately we soon had a Student Center and later a Continuing Education building which could be used for most of these purposes. These facilities reduced the need for classrooms except in unusual circumstance such as a national meeting of an academic organization which met from time to time on our campus in the summer. Some of these were also held in the Student Center, the McKimmon Center and at the Faculty Club. These latter two had the benefit of adequate parking space.

Committee on Committees

In 1960 Chancellor Caldwell said that the Dean of the Faculty would recommend to the Chancellor, after consultation with officers, deans, department heads, as appropriate, the faculty appointees to all regular committees and boards. He was to consult with the Chancellor on the naming of any special committees. Prior to the creation of the Committee on Committees, Provost Kelly would consult with the school deans, chairmen of committees, and others for the appointment of members to committees . When I joined Kelly's staff, Mr. Simpson and I became the chief resource persons for committee membership. When others proposed members, we were expected to know responsibilities, the number of members a committee should have, and the constituencies that should be represented on the committee. The Provost sent the prepared lists for the Chancellor's approval. This practice continued until the Faculty Senate proposed the Committee on Committees. This became effective in 1968.

The Committee on Committees was to provide for broader input from the leadership of the Senate in the appointment of committees. Membership was to include the Assistant Provost, the Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs, the past Chairman, the present Chairman, and the Vice Chairman of the Faculty Senate, with the Provost as Chairman. This did result in adding an additional level of knowledge and undoubtedly expanded the representation of different faculty members on University committees. Mr. Simpson became the staff person who met with the committee and kept past records of all faculty who had served on University committees and on which committees. He took the prepared lists of proposed members and reviewed these with school deans for suitability for serving for that particular year. He also checked with the Provost's Personnel Office to make sure that these person would be on campus the next year. He called those proposed to be the committee chairmen to assess their willingness to serve. He also scheduled the meetings of the Committee on Committees.

Later we developed a computer readable questionnaire to determine interest of all EPA personnel in serving on each of the many University-wide committees. Mr. Simpson handled the distribution of the questionnaire, got the completed questionnaires run on the administrative computer and provided each committee member with a print-out listing faculty interest (by committee and alphabetically by faculty member with departmental and school assignment shown). It also showed us how many years a person had been on a specific committee, for an interest of the Committee on Committees was to change most committee members after a service period of from three to four years. Mr. Simpson also called each committee chairman and the administrator who served the committee as a staff person or the vice chancellor to whom the committee reported, and inquired about the participation of each member during the past year. This process enabled us to utilize faculty interest and definitely expanded the number of different faculty who served. We also increased the turnover of members on committees. Because of my early involvement on committee appointments as Assistant Provost, Dr. Kelly would not let the Committee on Committees meet when I could not be there, or if I was late to a meeting he never let the committee start its business until I arrived. When I became Provost, Dr. Downs and Dr. Clark rotated membership each year on this committee.

One additional charge to the Committee on Committees was to review the charge of the committees each year, to review all proposed changes in responsibility that might come from the committee or from others, and to make recommendations in the charges to the committees to the Chancellor. Mr. Simpson then prepared these recommendations and a listing of proposed committee members for review and acceptance by the Chancellor. Mr. Simpson did all of this and prepared the letters of appointment for the Chancellor's signature. After Mr. Simpson's retirement Dr. Downs assumed Simpson's responsibilities to the Committee on Committees.

In 1988 the Faculty Senate decided to take a serious look at the ex-officio members of the committees who should not be eligible to vote. A proposal of the Constitution and Bylaws Committee of the Faculty Senate was that all ex-officio members of University standing committees have voting privileges except those ex-officio members who were representing the administrative office (i.e., Chancellor or vice chancellor to whom the committee submitted its recommendations). This proposal was endorsed by the Executive Committee of the Senate, the Committee on Committees and approved by the Chancellor. A copy dated April 22, 1988, has been placed in the Archives. It may also be found in the Provost's files. This document lists all the ex-officio members of standing committees and lists those who vote and those who aren't eligible to vote. For example, the Associate Provost representing the Provost on the Courses and Curriculum committee would not be eligible to vote. In this case Simpson, Downs and I had never voted on issues anyway, but on many committees similar representatives had voted earlier.

Although it was stated that the Dean of the Faculty would serve on all committees, the Provost served on: The Committee on Committees, the Retired Faculty Committee, the Liaison Committee, the Administrative Council, the Deans Council, the Faculty Senate and was represented by staff on a large number of others but not on all of the University's standing committees.

In 1964 there were a number of people who indicated they had not known that they were rotated off of the committee. So for several years the Provost wrote all those who were not reappointed and thanked them for their service. After a few years this method of informing was dropped, for the Committee on Committees changed the process, and we sent a questionnaire to faculty and other EPA employees requesting their desire or preferences to serve on committees, and we began to systematically replace members after three to four years of service on most committees. We still had complaints from individuals who said that we kept the same persons on committees and that they never got selected. The effort to limit the terms to 3 to 4 years helped; however, we still had committees that very few seemed to want to serve on and others that hundreds wanted. There were more persons too, who served more frequently from the smaller schools, especially Design, for we had a need on many committees to have each school represented.

Institutional Studies and Planning

We have done long range planning forever in one form or another, I suppose. Shirley frequently referred to the formal and extensive Long Range Report of 1957. There have been many other specific studies which involved the Dean of the Faculty or the Provost in planning activities, projections and plans for new degree programs, schools, departments, growth, and enrollments.

Institutional Studies were done in both Student Affairs and in certain facets of the University's budgetary and physical plant activities by the Business Office. Many studies were done in the Dean of the Faculty's Office by utilizing different but, in time, each member of the Provost's staff. They were done at first under Shirley by Kenneth Topfer. Except for personnel matters these were done under Kelly, at first by William Simpson, and after 1967 by both Mr. Simpson and me. In 1970 we had been given a position by the Board of Higher Education, and Dr. Clauston Jenkins was hired as Coordinator for Institutional Studies and Planning. He left the University in 1973 and was replaced by Dr. Marvin Gehle. Both of their responsibilities are described in more detail in the section in Chapter One which handles the duties of Assistants to, Assistant and Associate Provosts.

In 1974 the UNC system began to undertake the most comprehensive Long Range Planning ever done by the UNC system, at least since 1955. This was to be updated at frequent intervals and to be redone at least on a five year cycle. Important portions of this were the "Mission Statement" for each campus, enrollment projections for each campus and a cataloging of current and proposed new degrees and of new and existing academic and other units, including centers and institutes. Associated with this were some major new budgetary definitions for personnel. It was just before this time that Mr. Worsley and I helped to get the department heads and the assistant and associate deans categorized as other than in the "Teaching and Departmental Research" faculty lines which counted in the student/faculty formula. Dean Jackson Rigney was appointed to head up and coordinate the NCSU long range study and plans and to prepare the report. For this purpose he reported to the Chancellor and for his International activities he reported to the Provost.

In 1976 when Gehle left NCSU, I felt that the position could accomplish more if it were combined with the other positions in Institutional Research that were reporting to Vice Chancellor Talley in Student Affairs. We were all developing data bases that were not integrated, and at times even in different computer languages. So the position was transferred along with the secretary. This meant that we were now using the same programming languages in the two units and our data elements became more compatible. Eventually, along with Business Affairs, we came to have an integrated data base at NCSU.

In 1984 Chancellor Poulton felt that Institutional Research (IR) would be more sensitive and responsive to his needs if the unit reported to him. So it began to report to him. It was in this same year that Dr. Richard Howard was hired as Director of Institutional Research. The data that he was responsible for included: students, personnel and facilities. I don't know whether IR was more responsive, but the Chancellor required much more data generation and reports than had been the practice of earlier Chancellors. At first my staff felt that the unit was not as responsive to our needs after this transfer, not because of reluctance to work with us, but because the IR staff was overloaded. Almost as soon as Monteith became Chancellor he required Institutional Research to report to the Provost.

In a short while, but after I retired and after Richard Howard the Director of Institutional Research left NCSU, Institutional Research and the Planning Office, which also was established under Chancellor Poulton and had reported to him since its beginning, were merged under the leadership of Karen Helm. Helm had been in that position since it was first established. Over the years the Provost had worked closely and collaboratively with the Planning Office which had consisted of Helm and a part-time clerical position for most of this time. Helm was given a number of other and, at times almost full-time, assignments from time to time. So the planning function did not get as much attention as it needed during these periods.

In 1992 the Offices of Institutional Research and University Planning were merged in order to reduce duplication of effort and to provide better support for institutional assessment which was an emerging function. The new Office of University Planning and Analysis (UPA) reported to the Provost. In 1993 UPA's responsibility for facilities data was transferred to Vice Chancellor Worsley in order to consolidate all space-related planning and management functions. UPA is now responsible for institutional research, planning and assessment. Since the mid-1980s, UPA and its predecessors have achieved the following:

a) development of an on-going strategic and operational planning process that is tied to budgeting;

b) integration of student personnel, financial, and facilities data bases and development of electronically transmitted extract databases for campus users; and

c) development of student outcomes assessment plans in every academic department.

The newly combined unit was assigned by the Chancellor to report to Provost Hart. The combination of these two units under the leadership of Helm and its reporting to the Provost has demonstrated that it was a very wise move.