Historical State (University History)

Ask the Archivists

Find Archival Materials

University Records

University Archives Home

Digital Collections

Special Collections Home

The Provost's Office: An Informal History

Chapter Seven: Administrative Relationships and Activities

Faculty Senate

The first mention of relationships between the Dean of the Faculty and the Faculty Senate was in 1960 in a memorandum from Caldwell referring to duties of the Dean of the Faculty. In this memorandum the Dean was "to assist the faculty bodies in any helpful way possible in the performance of their functions, and he is expected to maintain a complete file of all formal actions and recommendations for administrative reference." To accommodate this function and to ascertain that the Senate recommendations or resolutions were acted upon, this practice was followed. The recommendations were sent to the Dean of the Faculty or Provost by the Senate Chairman for action. The Provost would send a copy to the Chancellor if the Chairman had not done so. If the matter needed to be studied or resolved by another office in the NCSU administration, the Provost would send the resolution to the appropriate VC within whose area of responsibility the matter fell. We always acknowledged receipt of the resolution to the Senate Chairman and indicated where it was sent. Most of these resolutions were sent to the Vice Chancellors for Student Affairs or Finance and Business. To avoid inaction on a resolution, I kept a log on my desk. If the resolution dealt with an academic matter, it would be put on the Administrative Council or the Deans Council agenda. After study and discussion and a decision had been made to accept a resolution dealing with policy, it would be formally accepted by the Chancellor and a policy memorandum would be issued. If it were a procedural matter it was usually accepted by the appropriate VC or by the Provost. If the proposals were not acceptable as presented, but would be accepted with modifications, there would be negotiations usually between the Provost, the appropriate VC and the Senate. After the Senate recommended that Conference Committees be established in areas of disagreement with the University administration, Hart and I appointed the administrative members of a Conference Committee. The Senate Chairman appointed the Senate members. In other cases either the Chancellor or the Provost would write and say that the proposal was not acceptable. There were very few rejections of the Faculty Senate's proposals, but there were a large number of Conference Committees. Most of these dealt with procedural matters. When I had just joined Dr. Kelly as Assistant Provost, the Senate recommended that the Provost would be a member of the Faculty Senate, and it was approved by the Chancellor, the Governance Committee, and the General Faculty. Dr. Kelly did not want to attend regular meetings of the Senate. He felt that it would be a conflict of interest for him to attend these meetings and to participate in discussions because recommendations of the Senate would come to him for action. For this reason he sent me to represent him at Senate meetings. The years I represented Provost Kelly at the Senate meetings seemed to be appreciated. I represented the Provost with regular attendance and participation in committee activities as well at regular meetings. Dr. Kelly attended Senate Meetings only when he received a special invitation. In 1970 Provost Kelly wrote to the Senate formalizing my Senate service and indicated that I would represent him. The Senate really would have preferred the representation to be by the Provost and not by his delegate. When I became Provost I knew that the Senate wanted me to attend its meetings regularly. I put the Senate meetings on my calendar for these years so that I would have very few conflicts and could attend meetings regularly. I did ask Dr. Downs and Dr. Clark to attend most meetings, too. From time to time I could not attend because of a conflict, then one or the other, usually Dr. Downs, would represent me. These two individuals became primary and regular resource persons for the Senate committees. The practice of the Senate sending actions to the Provost has continued since that time, except for resolutions which required no action from the administration. In a few cases, especially during Chancellor Poulton's term, some Senate Chairs sent a few actions directly to the Chancellor, most often with a copy to me.

Prior to 1956, the list of graduating students were approved by the vote of the General Faculty. With the encouragement of the Faculty Senate and University administrators, the faculty voted 89 for and 103 against continuing the practice of voting on the graduating students. I don't know whether this truly reflected the combined influence of the Faculty Senate and the University administrators or not. I suppose that it is hard to break with tradition, but it was only a 14 vote victory.

In 1957, the Senate sent a copy of its proposals to the President of the University. He rejected one recommendation of the Senate on salary policy that year. The Senate voted 18 to 6 to write the President expressing regret that he had rejected their proposal. Shirley objected strongly to the Senate sending its recommendations directly to the President, and stated that items should be submitted to the NCSC administration and that they then would forward them only when necessary, when the President's approval was needed. Bostian also questioned the wisdom of the Senate sending items directly to the President. Those of us who followed in the NCSU administration were glad that this issue got solved appropriately before we were hired.

On January 1, 1960, Caldwell assigned the budget for the Faculty Senate Office to the Provost. This meant that budget increases, personnel selections and salary increases for the Senate SPA secretary were processed through the Provost's Office. This practice continues to be followed.

In 1961, when the Government Committee proposed the Chairman of the Senate as the Chairman of the Faculty, both Caldwell and Shirley reacted negatively, for they had assumed that the Chairman of the Faculty was the Dean of the Faculty. At issue was not the holding of General Faculty meetings, which the Chancellor chaired. Shirley said, "The thing that concerns me most about this proposal is that it reduplicates once more the division between faculty and administration. The document has a fatal resemblance to the faculty constitution of the School of General Studies which puts the Dean in such an off-hand position that he can legally do almost nothing and leaves everything to the vote of the faculty." He went on to say that the General Faculty was too large to function as a deliberative and legislative body. Decisions for changes in Governance continued to require a vote of the faculty. In time it required a very large effort of the members of the Government Committee, the Faculty Senators and the University administrators to get faculty to attend a General Faculty meeting. Even if all those in attendance voted yes, there might not be enough faculty present to pass the proposed change. In time the General Faculty approved the proposal to have these issues decided by mail ballot. I recall that this change to a mail ballot barely passed by the voice vote cast, not because of the number of no votes, but because the total number of attendees at the General Faculty meeting was barely enough to pass an issue. I have often wondered if the result would have been the same if an actual count of votes had been taken at that meeting.

The agenda for General Faculty meetings were set and announced by the Senate, after giving the campus an opportunity to submit agenda items and after a meeting of the Senate leaders, the Chancellor and the Provost. In time General Faculty meeting agendas have come to include the Senate telling about its accomplishments and the current status of its proposals, the activities of the delegates to the Faculty Assembly of UNC, the Provost's remarks, and the Chancellor's remarks. Other items are included as requested. The Chancellor, not the Provost or the Chairman of the Senate, has been the Master of Ceremonies at the General Faculty meetings. This meeting has provided an opportunity for the faculty to be better informed about major issues; however, poor attendance has continued. I recall hearing complaints many times about the faculty not being informed about an issue when we had discussed the matter thoroughly at the last faculty meeting. Since the attendance at General Faculty meetings were so poor, Chancellor Thomas proposed that the General Faculty meet once a year instead of twice a year. The idea failed when brought to a faculty vote. In this case there was not a quorum present, but I recall that there were a large majority of no votes from those attending.

After Poulton became Chancellor and with his support, we officially began to provide one-half release time for the Chairman of the Faculty Senate as well as for the Chairman of the Honors Council. This was not at one-half of the Chairman's salary, but it was at a level of around $30,000 to enable departments to hire sufficient faculty on a temporary basis to carry on at least one-half of the Chairman's teaching and advising responsibilities. This practice continued under Hart and Monteith.

There have been so many contributions of the Senate to the University that I shall only mention a very few here. Others are mentioned and discussed in many other sections of this history. One of the early efforts of the Faculty Senate while Shirley was Dean of the Faculty, was to get tenure for the faculty at NCSC. Another effort that was vital to NCSU was the new tenure documents that were developed shortly after the consolidation of the institutions that reported to the Board of Higher Education, and of the UNC System under the Board of Governors. The EPA mediation procedures also have to be placed very high on the list. The administrative review procedures for department heads and deans and the guidelines for the selection of administrative officials have been very useful and helpful. Over the years the Faculty Senate has considered, studied, debated, and voted on almost all of the academic and personnel policies now in existence on our campus. While no one of these contributions has been earth shattering, they together have helped to define what NCSU was to become. They have largely determined our quality and what we are today. I believe that the quality is great, and I thank the Senators for these academic contributions which are their most valuable contributions. None of these lost sight of important quality factors or of the importance of undergraduate education, including the teaching of freshmen by senior faculty. When so many institutions were dropping requirements in math and science and in some areas of the humanities and social sciences in the late sixties and early seventies, we did not. I sometimes wished that we had fewer changes in the grading systems, but we tried and revised, and revised again, a number of systems.

Certain matters are the province of the Board of Governors and while this campus cannot determine these, they have usually been debated. These recommendations have usually been forwarded by the Chancellor to the President. The Senate and the Provosts have had cordial and mutually beneficial relationships. I believe that there has been a synergistic effect of having these two work hand in hand together to bring about desired change. The campus has adopted almost all of the Senate proposals. As indicated earlier, there have been modifications in the proposals, usually for improvement in procedures rather than for changing the concepts of the proposals. In many cases, because of this close working relationship, major differences have been resolved before the action was brought to a vote in the Senate. The campus should be thankful because this relationship has brought out a cooperative and "let's work together for the good of the campus" attitude, instead of having an adversarial atmosphere. It was a joy for me to have participated. I served officially for just over sixteen years as a member of this body, although I only voted on a few resolutions. I also attended as Dr. Kelly's representative for another seven years. I doubt if anyone will ever again serve on the Senate for so long a time. I salute the Senate for its wisdom so many years ago in making the Provost a member.

I have in no way given the Senate adequate coverage for its value to NCSU and for its many contributions. Fortunately I did not have to for I have learned that with Provost Stiles' encouragement, Dr. Murray Downs has agreed to write a History of the Faculty Senate.

Student Affairs

All of the Deans of the Faculty and Provosts have worked closely with the persons who have headed Student Affairs. This has meant that the Assistant and Associate Provosts and Assistant and Associate Deans of Student Affairs have also worked together collaboratively and closely. Many of these areas have been mentioned in other sections of this history and will not be repeated here.

When Thomas was Chancellor, he began a plan which would have involved the Chancellor much more extensively in external matters and in a major capital campaign which was scheduled to start about the time that he left NCSU. It was his plan to make the Provost responsible for more internal operations of the campus, except for athletics. He left to return to the University of Alabama before this plan was entirely implemented. After Monteith became Chancellor, he decided that the Provost should be responsible for most internal matters and Student Affairs began to report to Dr. Hart while he was Provost.

Over the years, in reading the correspondence between the Provosts and the Deans or the Vice Chancellors of Student Affairs, it is evident that the two units and their leaders worked cordially and effectively together for the betterment of the University and its students. Of course they did not always agree, but it seemed that consensus could be and was reached on most issues of common concern.

Although Kelly, Hart and I had to review the proposed salary increases for the EPA personnel in Student Affairs in all of their various areas of responsibility, we had little disagreement with what was proposed by Dean James Stewart, VC Talley and VC Stafford. The Chancellors usually wanted to see the proposed salaries of the Assistant and Associate Vice Chancellors of Student Affairs and occasionally for others. Our greatest wish was that we could have had more funds for these salary increases.

Student Affairs managed the staff and operational budgets for the music program. The academic component and classes reported through CHASS or its predecessors. ROTC also reported for management purposes through Student Affairs, but the courses and teaching reported through the School of Engineering. Shortly after the Admissions Office was transferred to the Provost by Chancellor Poulton, VC Talley and I had more disagreements than we had before then, or later. We both learned about the proposed transfer at about the same time. I believe that Dr. Talley thought I was involved in some of the changes being made or considered at that time by the Chancellor. I was even less informed than he was about what was being considered that involved Student Affairs units, but I too heard rumors of possible additional changes. There were a number of times that I thought that Chancellor Poulton enjoyed what he thought of as creative tensions and healthy conflicts among his VCs.

The Provosts were supportive of requests for new appropriations to enhance the improvement of the programs managed by Student Affairs. We frequently called these activities the "hidden curriculum." The units in this Division supported almost all of the cultural activities available to students on the NCSU campus. Thank goodness for receipts, student fees and admission charges to events for faculty and others, which supported most of these activities, for state appropriations were very parsimonious for support of cultural events. Our cupboard would have been bare without the receipts which paid for these cultural activities, and our students' educations would have been very deficient if we had provided only those activities which would have been supported by state appropriations. The imagination and enthusiasm, especially of Talley and Stafford and of their staffs created and brought to NCSU programs in music, the Student Center programs, including Friends of the College which was the major cultural event of Eastern North Carolina for so many years, the Center's exhibits, the Craft Center, Stewart Theater and Thompson Theater.

Registration and Calendar

In January of 1956, Dean Shirley was appointed to represent the administration on a special Calendar Committee with representatives of the Faculty Senate. This special committee was appointed because the calendar had been modified by a recent proposal of the Faculty Senate which was approved by the Administrative Council without either group asking the Calendar Committee and Registration and Records if the changes would work for the next semester. This resulted in considerable confusion and misunderstanding about which calendar was in effect, the new one or the one previously published. There were several recommendations made by this special calendar committee which were later adopted which established calendar policy for years. These affected both the summer session and academic year calendars. In this action two six week summer sessions were to be held instead of one longer session. It was stated that, "Until the summer session is regularly appropriated for, the second six-weeks session should be held to a minimum size to meet a recognized demand." Soon there were regular appropriations, but they were never funded adequately with necessary support funds for instructional supplies and equipment in the summer sessions. Some special summer programs could be held, even though they did not coincide with the regular schedule of the summer session periods. An example at that time was the Institute of Statistics' summer program. Later a number of Agricultural Extension and NSF grant sponsored summer courses in a number of scientific areas were taught for varying lengths for high school students and for high school and college teachers. The first session of Summer School was to start as soon as practical in June after the end of the regular academic year session. At this time, all summer session classes were to meet five days a week. The credit hours for courses were changed for the summer sessions rather than varying the number of days and hours different classes would meet. This did not work, and created so much confusion that soon courses continued to have the same credit hours as they had during the academic year. The contact hours also remained nearly the same as those of the academic year. In this way a three credit course did not meet as many days or hours as did a four credit course.

The normal fall semester and spring semester would include as close to 90 days as possible, including days of registration and examination. This was to change later when a UNC System committee chaired by VP Arnold King was appointed to set a standard calendar for all campuses. It also was shortened further years later when we dropped orientation days for new students and registration for courses just before the beginning of the semester.

In 1955, it was decided that the two graduation exercises per year would be dropped and that there would be only one exercise at the end of the Spring Semester. At the beginning of Hart's term as Provost and at the request of the students, we tried graduation again at the end of the Fall Semester on an experimental basis. It was so well attended and there was so much interest that having two graduation exercises per year again became the practice.

In 1956, there was concern for balanced fall and spring semesters and in the number of MWF and TThS classes. Of course this never succeeded and was to fail badly in the years ahead, for students went to great extremes to avoid Saturday classes. They would register for an extra class and drop any assigned on Saturday morning and developed every reason imaginable to avoid Saturday classes. Faculty were not too happy with Saturday classes either, so soon we had as many classes as there were classrooms during the morning and early afternoon hours on Monday, Wednesday and Friday. The TThS schedule was soon changed to a TTh one. To have an equivalent amount of classroom time, the TTh scheduled classes were taught for longer periods on those two days. This is still the practice with some common exams for multisectioned courses and a few laboratories scheduled on Saturday morning, usually over loud student protests. At this time we had a 10 minute break between classes.

Holidays included Thanksgiving, from noon on Wednesday until Monday morning. This later was to be changed to include all of Wednesday. Christmas was to allow for a full week before Christmas to enable students to get Christmas jobs, usually at home . Also the calendar was to be adjusted each year so that students should not have to drive back to campus in New Year's traffic. Easter was to be for a full week, and lasted from Wednesday night of one week until Thursday morning of the next week. Much later the students were to obtain a mid-semester break of two and one-half days in the fall and a week in the spring, but not at Easter. Extra holidays for calendar-year employees were scheduled at Christmas so as to make up for the scattered number of holidays allowed by the State for employees. These holidays throughout the semester were not very suitable for a university calendar. Employees got the fourth of July, Labor Day and New Year's Day as holidays too. At this time the Easter holiday, which had for years been reduced to only one day, was eliminated.

In 1962-63, several recommendations came from the Faculty Senate that were approved. It was recommended that we move to a calendar that ended the semester before Christmas, but this would not be approved until several years later. This change would later be sought by all. After it was adopted it was of great educational benefit, but it has led to some very hot dormitory rooms and classrooms at the beginning of the fall semester. Also recommended that year was that we move to a summer session of two sessions with five and one-half weeks in each. This last recommendation was approved and still exists today.

In 1963, there was another study of the calendar, with a recommendation that we go back to the quarter system. This was opposed by a majority of the Faculty Senate members and by many others. In 1964, the Senate opposed starting the fall semester in sufficient time to end before Christmas. Among other matters discussed was a cube system for year round operations. After much debate, that proposal did not gain support, and it was a good thing that it did not succeed, because everywhere the cube was tried it was not practical and did not work. In fact, in most places it was a financial disaster, for it was not possible to get students enrolled in sufficient numbers in the summer to have four sessions balanced in student enrollment. The cube concept was intended to utilize the facilities and faculty maximally throughout the year.

In 1964-65, as a change in the length of the semester break was being discussed, it was stated that the Chancellor had concerns about approving "so lengthy a mid-year hiatus." As different calendars were being discussed at NCSU, Chancellor Caldwell was reminded by President Friday that the calendar was an all-university matter. President Friday requested in January 1966, that NCSU defer its plans until an All-University Calendar Committee, to be Chaired by Arnold King, could make recommendations. I represented NCSU on that committee while I was an Assistant Provost. After considerable study, a recommendation came forth in 1969 that all of the campuses would move to a calendar that ended the fall semester before Christmas.

In 1966-67, the calendar was still being discussed in the Senate. The Graduate School was concerned about the length of time after the spring semester's ending and the beginning of summer school. By January 1966, the discussion had arrived at a calendar that would conclude the fall semester before Christmas. The debate continued, although NCSU was ready to implement the changes for the fall of 1966. That new calendar would change the starting dates of summer school so that it would begin approximately one week after graduation in May. The School of Education had concerns, for this would prevent the public school teachers and high school graduates from coming to the first summer session. The Senate finally made a recommendation that we adopt this calendar with the following provision.

a. The fall semester should end no earlier than December 18, and should begin as near September 1, as possible.

Neither of these two guidelines have been followed precisely for the semester usually begins before September 1, and frequently ends before December 18.

b. Restrict the final examination period to six examination days with the understanding that no student be required to take more than two examinations in one day or more than three in any two consecutive days.

The two exams a day recommendation has been in place ever since.

c. The Christmas holiday periods should not exceed two weeks.

This has not been followed and the students who wish to work over the holidays and all concerned have benefitted from the longer break.

d. A spring holiday of one week should be scheduled at or about mid-semester without undue consideration for the time when Easter occurs.

This has been applauded by the students, and the faculty have also needed this break. These were adopted after the UNC System finally recommended a general calendar to the Trustees. This recommendation was that a calendar have 85 days including Mondays through Fridays, and not counting holidays. The 85 days were to include orientation days which were held at this time in the fall, just before registration, registration and change days. It also required each campus to have a Calendar Committee. In 1969, President Friday gave each campus the authority to proceed with its own calendar. All campuses of the UNC System did not precisely follow the semester lengths prescribed by this last committee, but all came very close. In the fall of 1970, a calendar that ended the fall semester before Christmas was finally implemented.

There is a rather complete review of the Senate's proposals over the years in the minutes of the Senate for 1968-69. There is also a rather complete set of correspondence and background in the Chancellor's files for 1969-70, in the Calendar folder.

In minutes of the Chancellor's staff meeting on November 30, 1970, I noted that a change from the 10 minute break between classes to a 15 minute break between classes was under consideration by the Provost. I found no record of action taken or of any specific study in the files. In 1975, I proposed to the Senate that the 15 minute class break be considered again. On February 3, 1976, the Senate recommended that we adopt the 15 minute break between classes and this was done. Few classes now started on the hour. Classes not starting on the hour had been the practice for the Tuesday-Thursday classes for many years. The 15 minute break came into being primarily because of the increased time needed to make it between classes from the extremes of the campus. This was brought on by the spread on the campus buildings over larger areas and especially near or on Western Boulevard. When the College of Textile's new building, and certain other graduate and research buildings opened in the nineties at the Centennial Campus, it became necessary to provide scheduling for classes at that location using class starting times at the mid-class point of those on the North Campus. The bus service available and the class schedule changes for all classes taught at the Centennial campus has enabled the Textiles and the other students in those facilities to have less difficulty in meeting their schedules at both of these campus extremes. I understand that Textiles students have some block scheduling to avoid some trips on the bus.

In 1972, a longer Christmas break came into existence when the opening of the spring semester was changed from January 3 to January 10, and it did not result in a long mid-semester break hiatus as Caldwell had feared. We certainly had no students returning to campus on New Year's day after this change. The graduation date at NCSU for the spring would always be the second Saturday in May. That year the Saturday classes in Summer School were deleted too. In 1973, a recommendation was proposed to start the first summer session about one week after the spring graduation exercises. As discussed earlier, there were a number of concerns because this would eliminate high school graduates and teachers from attending day classes in the first summer session. At this time we did not teach many if any classes in the evening in Summer School. These students could attend classes the second summer session, and they did. We taught the classes that new entering students and school teachers would need in this session and the enrollment in the second sessions increased. In 1976, Chancellor Thomas approved a fall semester break of two days falling on a Monday and Tuesday. This balanced out the fall and spring schedules since Thanksgiving holidays at this time were on Thursday and Friday. Much later the Thanksgiving break would also include all of Wednesday.

Students have always wanted the names of the instructors listed in the schedule of courses used for registration. They considered this to be especially important in the courses with multiple sections. I understood their wish. While almost all of the faculty were rated as good teachers by the students, we probably did have a couple of duds here and there. As an adviser I had learned who the very poor teachers were, and I tried to keep my advisees out of their sections. The students also had many other reasons for not wanting this or that teacher, or for preferring another. In 1967-68, the Senate passed a resolution which would encourage the listing of instructors and thereby closely, but not precisely, agreed with what the Student Government had proposed earlier. Dr. Kelly accepted the Senate recommendation and encouraged the departments to list instructors. Not all departments did. Some gave a variety of reasons, including that they had not assigned teachers to specific sections in time for the early registration. When telephonic registration came into being, even fewer teacher assignments to specific sections had been made. Other departments would decide what courses the faculty were likely to teach, but they did not make the final assignment to all sections until the drop-add period was completed. During this period, sections for some courses would be dropped, merged or added. I recall some students who complained. It seems that they had registered for a section listed to be taught by a super teacher. When they got to class their teacher was sometimes new to the campus and unknown to them. Departments mentioned that some faculty would teach more sections of one course and fewer of another than was initially planned. With the larger numbers of temporary positions we would not have yet hired the faculty who would teach some courses at the time of preregistration. The students knew all this, but they wanted to see as many faculty assigned as was possible. I do believe that some of the departments did not want the students to know when certain faculty would teach, and for all of these reasons mentioned earlier they continued to list most multi-section classes as taught by staff. If certain teachers had been listed, these very few faculty would have few or no students registered for their sections. Most of the departments did cooperate to the extent possible.

Although the responsibility for calendar and registration was under the Dean (VC) for Student Affairs, the Provosts have been involved in these two functions over the years. The Provosts maintained representation on the two committees, and later the combined committee through Mr. Simpson, Associate Provost Winstead and Associate Provost Downs. In 1984 when the two committees were combined, it was made clear that the recommendations of the committee would have to be approved by both the VC of Student Affairs and the Provost. Each year when there was a new feature, or even a minor change in the calendar, the Registrar reported the proposal to the VC of Student Affairs, and then that VC conferred with the Provost and they either accepted or rejected the proposal. They jointly recommended the calendar change to the Chancellor. The Provost and the VC had for these many years an informal working arrangement, because they needed to work together. So we did. Now the working together was formalized, but really brought about no changes. This process continued under Stafford and Hart.

When changes were proposed in procedures for registration a similar process was followed. At the time of Shirley, registration occurred over a two day period just before classes started in a semester. Later, after meeting with students, advisors sent registrations for continuing students to the Registrar. Registration days were for those continuing students who did not make out schedules, new students, and those students who wished to make changes in their schedules, such as getting out of Saturday or late Friday afternoon classes. Students also handled schedule conflicts on these days. A most significant change came when registration began to occur around mid-semester for the subsequent semester for all continuing students. The associated one or two Change Days just before the semester began, was also continued. New students registered at this time, and schedule conflicts were resolved. Later an entirely new and revolutionary approach to registration was begun through the procedure of registration by telephone. Personnel in Student Affairs developed the process. It was first used in the fall of 1988 for the spring semester of 1989. This was the most significant change ever to occur in registration at NCSU. The first time it was used the system crashed. The telephone lines couldn't function because all of the students decided that to get the times they wanted for their classes, they would have to get on the computer first. While there was an adequate number of ports to get everyone registered over a few days time, the phone system could not cope with that number of calls at once. The personnel in Registration and Records adjusted and developed a registration schedule that worked. Don Patty, Jim Bundy and Ron Butler deserve a lot of gold stars for this innovative approach which was transported from NCSU and is now used at a large number of universities.

The most important benefit from preregistration and early registration was better planning, which resulted in wiser use of resources, finances, personnel and classrooms. Questions of what was to be taught and how few or how many sections of multiple section classes could now be more closely determined before the last moment. It also helped the bookstores and faculty in ordering textbooks. In the earlier years it had been a nightmare, for those teachers whose planned assignments had to be shifted to another class that they had not planned to teach. In the early days of registration in Reynolds Coliseum just before the beginning of classes and with no computers, registration and change days were always a crowded and hot mess. One estimated the numbers of classes and which classes would make, but there frequently were large shifts in the desired classes by students and a large number of classes or sections had to be opened, merged or closed when not enough or too many students registered. Some of this dilemma is described in Chapter Seven in the section on Chancellor's, Provost's, and Dean's Relations, in a letter written by Dean Cahill to the Chancellor and to the Dean of the Faculty.

Preregistration in the preceding semester for continuing students took care of most of the problems in planning for the upper-level classes. This still left those problems associated with the transfer student who did take upper-level classes, and for the freshmen students. Some planning was done for these students, but there were still a large number of problems. The movement to a summer orientation with scheduling done for new freshmen and transfers, and its success in getting most new freshmen students scheduled, was of tremendous help. This enabled us to drop registration from just before the beginning of a semester for all but just a very few students. This did increase the importance of Change Day for a few years for many students who, for whatever reasons, wanted to switch from the section to which they were assigned. With the advent of the telephonic registration, changes could be made well in advance of the beginning of the semester. The long lines in hot Reynolds Coliseum just before the beginning of the fall semester were gone forever. If these changes had not been made our efforts to teach the undergraduate student and to maximize our resources by adding needed sections and merging or dropping under-enrolled sections would have been a great calamity in the world of today, because late and annual Legislative sessions are the rule, and it is often not known what the budget will be until just before the semester begins. This staff deserves a great thanks for their contributions to NCSU's educational efforts. The persons on the Provost's staff who were the major players here were Mr. Simpson and Dr. Downs.

With telephonic registration and a number of other changes in place Vice Chancellor Stafford and I recommended the calendars for 1989 through 1993 on March 18, 1988. In making the recommendation to us, the Calendar Committee considered the following items:

1. Number of Class Days and Minutes of Instruction - There has been concern expressed that over a period of time the academic calendar had been shortened. As a result, the committee added class days onto the existing calendar so that the proposed calendar will have 71 class days per semester.

One primary factor which allowed this is that the new telephonic registration system will delete the need for a Registration Day.

There will be a consistent number of MWF and TTh class days each semester. There will be 42 MWF classes each semester for 2100 minutes of instruction. There will be 29 TTh class days each semester for 2175 minutes of instruction. The summer sessions will have 24 class days per session with 2160 minutes of instruction.

2. Starting Dates - Both fall and spring semesters will begin on Wednesdays and end on Friday. The committee feels that this is important for consistency.

3. Holidays - There will be a total of seven holidays each semester.

The holidays for the fall semester would include Labor Day, one day, Convocation, one-half day, Fall Break, two and one-half days, and Thanksgiving, three days. For the spring semester the holidays were Martin Luther King Day, one day, Spring Break, five days and Good Friday, one day.

One other matter of calendar was that of the work schedule or calendar for academic year faculty and teaching assistants. For example, the schedule for teaching assistants and nine-month faculty in 1981-82 had been set from August 24 to May 16. To avoid confusion I set these dates to be for nine months each year beginning on August 16 and ending on May 15.

Extension

One of the duties assigned to Shirley was oversight of NCSC University Extension. This was the continuing education component and did not include the programmatic extension components in the various schools, but all of the personnel matters for all on-campus extension personnel in the various schools which required approval by the Dean of the Faculty. Shirley began to appoint the University Extension Committee. Soon after Kelly came, he recommended the membership of that committee to the Chancellor who appointed the committee. The Chancellor continued to make the appointments to the committee after the Division of University Extension was created. When the Committee on Committees was established, this committee then nominated members of the University Extension Committee.

During Shirley's tenure we had off-campus extension programs at Gaston College (Technical Institute) in engineering, which reported to NCSU. This became the first campus of the Community College System and stopped reporting to NCSC. We also soon had the first two years of an engineering extension college program at Charlotte College which later was to become UNC-Charlotte.

When the Administrative Dean for Extension was appointed, Continuing Education functions were transferred from the Provost to the Division of University Extension under the supervision of Dr. William Turner who reported to the Chancellor. This unit supervised or had oversight for all short courses and continuing education efforts, including those short courses taught by and managed by extension units in the academic departments and schools. It did not have supervision of extension personnel and programs housed by academic departments in the schools.

Operations for management and the budgets of the summer sessions and scheduling and registration for the evening classes reported to Dr. Turner whose title was soon changed to Vice Chancellor. Both the off-campus credit offerings and the summer sessions continued to report to the Provost for academic content and for personnel who taught these courses. This procedure continued until 1993. This section is now called the Adult Credit Programs and Summer Sessions. The Provost had to approve or concur with most of the policies of this Division . For example, no courses for University credit could be taught unless they were approved through the regular mechanisms for course approval. All faculty who taught credit courses had to be approved and were usually selected by the academic units. If a non-campus employee was hired to teach any credit offerings, the faculty member had to be appointed through the regular appointment process.

Each year the enrollment of summer sessions grew and grew. More and more courses had to be taught. Many of the students used Summer School to make up for lack of progress or to regain eligibility to return to school in the fall semester. More and more they came to gain extra credits towards graduation and to speed up earning their degrees. We found that a large number of public school teachers took courses in the second session of Summer School, and many students from other colleges and universities who lived or worked in the Raleigh and Durham areas during the summer came to NCSU to take summer session courses.

In 1968, Dr. Turner, Administrative Dean for University Extension, made a request for funds which would establish an Evening College as a separate College and which would report to the Administrative Dean of Extension. The files of that year make it clear that a decision was made which would continue to have most student services, registration and records, et cetera, provided by Student Affairs with some support to Continuing Education so that the students could register for evening classes conveniently at the McKimmon Center with its adequate parking. The academic offerings and instructional positions would continue to be allocated to the existing academic departments and schools, for the instruction of classes in the evenings. It was true that from time to time, especially in the early years, a department or a school might try to forget that a part of their positions and academic budgets was allocated to provide for the teaching of evening classes. As this component of our instructional program grew, getting courses taught in the evening was not a serious problem. In only a very few cases did Provosts have to point out that a unit would have had no increases in positions if they had not been teaching students in the evening. I understand even today an occasional unit needs the reminder that without the evening courses they would have to return positions to the Provost. The demand for evening courses has grown enormously. Before I retired in 1990 we had begun to offer 15 degree programs in the evening, and today about 20 degree programs can be completed in their entirety by taking courses in the late afternoon and evenings. Most of these are masters degree programs. In 1990 we taught more than 300 courses, and at present we are teaching more than 400 courses and sections per semester in the evening. This has been very important to the adults who work full time and who wished to continue their education, by taking courses for pleasure, for professional development or to earn a degree.

The Vice Chancellor for Extension and his staff managed the approval mechanism for getting courses taught for credit at off campus sites. The BOG required approval by the BOG staff of any courses taught out-of-state. The BOG developed a cumbersome in-state approval mechanism requiring that the teaching campus get approval for any off-campus credit course to be taught in a county or in an adjacent county to an existing UNC campus. For example, if we wished to teach a College of Textile's course in Alamance County in a textile manufacturing plant to the employees of that company at that company's expense and request, we had to get the approvals of UNC-CH, NC Central University, NCA&T and UNC-G. None of the campuses had a program in textiles except for those courses called textiles which were taught in home economics departments. Of course our courses did not duplicate or resemble any offered on those campuses. Occasionally, but rarely, we did get an objection from another campus to our teaching such courses in Alamance, but we were able to appeal the objection and to proceed anyway. The VC of Extension handled these approvals and reports with the system administration. Besides handling the advertising and the registration of evening classes, VC Turner headed our campus efforts to get more classes produced for TV and delivered by Cable TV. Extension even financed the production of some of the early TV courses. The content of the courses were the responsibility of the academic units and were approved if they were new courses via regular academic procedures.

This unit also managed the arrangements and logistics for short-courses taught on and off campus. This was a major undertaking, and continues to be a major effort, an important example of educational service to the people of the entire state and to the economy of the state. We have taught short courses to over 100,000 persons annually on campus for many years, and to another large number of groups at off campus sites. This is another example of the type of program that operates almost entirely on the income from fees charged to student participants. In many cases these fees are paid by the company or organization which employs the participants. The Provost had little to do with this operation, except to be proud of its accomplishments. He was involved in the approval of any exceptions to the guidelines on earnings for extension activity by faculty of the NCSU campus.

The Provost was also expected to review all of the salary increases and appointments for its personnel from this unit. In 1973, Kelly questioned and disapproved some of the salary increases proposed. However, Caldwell felt that the increases should be approved. He said:

I like to presume the concept that all salaries on campus be subject to a central review for coordination and policy overview. But I also respect the line of responsibility which is held by such offices as the Vice Chancellor for Extension and Public Service, the Vice Chancellor for Business and Finance, the Dean of Student Affairs et cetera. The particular sequence in this case now is a bit awkward and I need you to suggest a handling of it that cures the awkwardness. After all you're our genius on smoothing things out.

For many years we had large extension operations in SALS, and smaller units in the Schools of Forestry Resources, Textiles and Engineering. Later extension units were added in Education and SHASS. Later still the College of Veterinary Medicine had its own extension personnel and some of these were joint or associate faculty with CALS.

In the 1960s, Drs. Kelly and Caldwell approved Dean H. Brooks James' recommendation that persons employed on a full time basis in extension carry academic rank if they were employees and members of academic departments on campus. Of course they had to meet the qualification for the various ranks. Others would continue to be Extension Specialists. Those who taught or who did research could carry a professorial title without the Extension prefix. More and more of the Extension Faculty began to do applied research and were becoming involved more often in the education of graduate students, With the recommendation of Dean J. E. Legates and George Hyatt, Director of the Agricultural Extension Service, we dropped the use of the Extension prefix to an academic rank in SALS in almost all cases. Many of these faculty had appointments with part time assignments in extension and in either instructional or organized research functions. The prefix "Extension" was used only in those cases where the person performed only extension functions. I later agreed with the same two individuals that those persons employed in Agricultural Extension in discipline specialties such as Home Economics could also carry the academic ranks with the Extension prefix. We had been consciously trying to make the three functions of a Land Grant University truly equal because extension had been looked upon by the research and teaching faculty and others as a function of lesser value.

As we added extension functions in the other schools, the faculty performing extension functions could not be distinguished from other faculty, and usually had performed and acquired their rank in teaching and research. They were almost always serving extension in a part-time capacity and were likely, if full time, to stay in extension for only a short while. This came to be the practice in all of the schools except that most of the extension personnel in the Colleges of Forest Resources and Engineering and many in CALS continued to work full time in extension. While we did not have extension positions in Design and in PAMS, some regular faculty performed part-time or even full-time in extension functions. This was true in Management too, but we did add a position for the Center of Economics and Business Studies to provide a central focus to encourage both research grants and contracts and extension activities with industry, business, and government agencies by these faculty.

The question continued to arise of how or whether extension activity be counted in tenure decisions when there was no organized extension activity in a department? I recall one case when a faculty member, an assistant professor in PAMS without tenure, came to talk to me about this concern. He had definite ideas about extension needs in his field. I told him that we, in Holladay Hall, would have no difficulty recognizing these as suitable for promotion and tenure decisions, but he must make certain that the senior faculty, his department head and school dean agreed. In this case they did. I recall a similar discussion with a faculty member from SHASS. In this case I gave the same advice; however, I told the faculty member I doubted he would get a favorable response. I had met recently with the department heads in SHASS and did not get a feeling that extension activity would be considered as equal to traditional scholarship in his department. The faculty did not agree at that time that extension should be the equivalent of research. He was later promoted after making the traditional contributions. Since I retired, extension activities have come to be recognized in CHASS, and at least two faculty in two different departments have been promoted with their extension activities recognized as suitable contributions by the senior faculty in their departments. Both of these faculty also had made some traditional scholarly contributions.

One function that provided a lot of valuable extension activity was the faculty consulting activity with industry, government and business. The Provost did not become very involved here except to be concerned that the activities did not interfere with campus obligations and that they were not excessive. The school deans and the department heads were responsible for overseeing compliance with policies concerning these activities. If a request or plan for consulting got turned down by these administrators, the appeal would come to the Provost for resolution. I had very few appeals. The annual records for reporting to the UNC General Administration for consulting activities were coordinated by the VC for Research.

For many years correspondence courses were developed by faculty in departments were processed, organized, advertised, and registered for by the Adult Degree Credit Program of Extension. In 1974, these courses were now called Independent Study and were transferred for all campuses of the UNC-BOG system to be managed by the UNC-CH campus. This made all of the correspondence courses more visible and available to all citizens of the State who wanted to take courses by correspondence. This enabled one advertising document and one registration procedure to be used by all. The courses were still handled on each campus by the same faculty as before. The term Independent Study was accurate for these types of courses. However, there are a large number of independent study approaches available on-campus which were handled for students in their regular course registrations on-campus. These individualized learning courses were also called independent study.

In 1990, the programs of Continuing Education were assigned to report to the VC for Research, and those now entitled Adult Credit Programs which include Summer School, the Evening Classes, and the off-campus credit courses began to report through the Vice Chancellor for Research to the Provost. The position of VC for Research had been renamed VC for Research, Outreach and Extension. The position for Vice Chancellor for Extension was dropped. The name of this unit was changed to Outreach, Extension and Continuing Studies.

Summer Sessions

Until the program in University Extension was established in 1967, the Summer School program reported directly to the Dean of the Faculty. Although the program for most of the years covered in this history did not report to the Provost for management purposes, academic offerings and academic functions did report to the Provost, and summer sessions followed all academic requirements of the University. Only undergraduate and graduate courses approved through the Courses and Curricula and Graduate School procedures were taught. We did have summer courses designed specifically for programs for high school teachers, college teachers and some supported by NSF and other granting agencies, and courses for Agricultural Extension personnel. Other special courses were taught and some of these were taught at irregular times that did not mesh with the beginning and ending times of the official summer sessions. All of these courses were sponsored by academic departments and were processed through the appropriate committees of the schools and of the University. In 1991, the Summer Sessions Program merged with Adult Degree Programs under the Director of Summer Sessions and once again management was transferred to report to the Provost through the VC for Research. This is now called Adult Credit Programs and Summer Sessions.

All faculty who taught were approved by the academic units through channels, including the Provost. Rules for minimum course sizes were approved by the Provost. This was done in part to help the Director escape the wrath of a few faculty who could become upset if exceptions were not made for them when they taught their summer courses. We also had requirements that were established by the UNC Board of Trustees for compensation prior to the establishment of the BOG. These required that all faculty who received more than 20% of their academic year base pay were to be approved by the Provost. This was done intentionally to encourage faculty to take some vacation time, for if they taught full time in both summer sessions, they had no vacation. More details of these policies can be found in Chapter Three in the section on Salary Administration.

The summer sessions operated under their own separate budget, but it followed all of the academic, management and budgetary procedures and processes of the University. It was quite interesting and complex to plan for the first summer session, which operated under one fiscal year budget and the second session which operated under another fiscal year budget. There were many times when we did not know what the budget for the second session would be until the session was almost over, or even after it was over. This came to be the usual dilemma after the General Assembly began to meet annually and to adjourn in late July or even later. Fortunately the unexpended funds from the second session were available for the first session in the next year's summer session. We usually operated the second session budget very conservatively. It was only in those years of budget cuts that we were very severely restrained in the first summer session. Of course it was nice to know the exact amount of the budget for any summer session before it began, but that will be impossible unless we can persuade the Legislature to adjourn before July 1. We could not over-spend the summer session budget or take losses into the next fiscal budget or into the academic year budget, so it took very careful planning by the Summer Sessions Director in collaboration with all of the academic departments.

In 1956, the Administrative Council approved two six-week summer sessions. In that year they also proposed that a Director of Summer Sessions be appointed. The first was Phillip Rice, an Associate Professor of History. Since there was a surplus in the Summer School budget in 1956, Bostian wrote Shirley that he was approving the payment of $50.00 more to each faculty member who taught in the summer session. The base salary schedule mentioned in 1955 was $900, $1050, $1200, and $1300 for instructor through professor for a full load of 15 contact hours per week for teaching in Summer School. Fifteen hours of lab was considered as a two-thirds load. These salaries were not at the levels of Summer School today and the load was different from those which are used today and described in Chapter Three in the section on Salary Administration. Research courses and graduate thesis supervision have not been counted in the pay for Summer School. We had a minimum class size of five students for graduate classes and of ten students for undergraduate classes. For the summer sessions in 1973, we had to change the enrollments in Summer School from five and ten, to ten and twelve for graduate and undergraduate classes respectively. This change was necessary because of the large number of small classes, especially graduate classes, being scheduled, and the Summer School budget could not afford the large number of small classes.

In 1960 Jack Suberman, a member of the English faculty, was named as the Director of the Summer School. He served until 1967 and gave considerable leadership in the early development of procedures and processes for the Summer School. Charles Kolb, who was on the faculty in the Department of History, was appointed as Assistant Director in 1965. After Suberman left NCSU, William Turner was the official Director, but Kolb really ran the summer programs. He was named Director in 1974. In 1979, John Cudd, who was Associate Director, was named Director to replace Kolb on his retirement from the University. Cudd continues in that position.

In 1972, there was a projection that the enrollments in Summer School would begin to decline in 1978 and following years. These projections were very far off target. There were also similar gloomy predictions on the enrollment of students in universities. These projections were made on the basis of similar cohorts of high school graduates going on to college in 1972 and in 1978. They did not take into account the increased proportions of high school graduates that would attend college or of the increase in the numbers of minorities who would attend college. The factor most overlooked, and which has contributed to the greatest increase, was the very large increase in the numbers of adults who would take advantage of educational opportunity, and that colleges could actually change enough to offer courses at times that working adults could take advantage of them. In 1979, Director Kolb and Associate Director Cudd came to see me to discuss a need for making our programs available to working adults by offering evening classes in the summer sessions. We also decided that we would let students make a tuition payment in one session for those few courses that were taught over the two summer sessions or for ten weeks. We would pay the instructor in such classes in two installments of one-half of their salary in each summer session. This was a wonderful idea, and we began once again to take advantage of offering adults more courses at times suitable for them to take courses. For these and for other reasons we don't know about, our Summer Schools have continued to grow in enrollments and in the richness of course offerings.

Summer sessions are mentioned in several other sections and especially in this Chapter under Extension and Registration and Calendar, in Chapter Two under Courses and Curricula, and in Chapter Three under Salary Administration.

Research Office

At the time that Shirley became Dean of the Faculty we operated under policies of the UNC System's "Procedures Controlling Sponsored Research Projects." A few of NCSC's schools had the equivalent of a director of research, but we had no central research office. All research proposals required the signature of the Chancellor and the VP for Finance of UNC, and were approved by the President of UNC with a copy placed in the Provost's Office of the UNC, located in Chapel Hill. Expenditures were all approved by the Chancellor or when delegated, by the Business Manager. This policy called for indirect cost recovery on grants and contracts and for 5% of the indirect costs collected to be paid to the UNC System. That practice of a 5% assessment has continued to this day. It is very evident in the files that the system in place in the 1950s was not adequate. Some grants were obtained without having been processed through the prescribed mechanism, and in turn, did not include a budgeted item in the grant for indirect costs. In one case the NSF called to say that they had goofed and owed NCSC $12,000 of which $7,000 had been due 18 months earlier. Obviously new processing procedures were needed. For the 1956-57 year $88,000 was budgeted at NCSC from the indirect costs it recovered. There are several items of interest to me in these expenditures. First, there was full cost for the College's contract auditor, travel funds of $1500 for the Dean of the Faculty, $5831 for labor and travel for the Library, including $2000 for labor and equipment for Archives. The auditor was very necessary for there had been several improper expenditures from grants that were caught by the auditor. These were corrected and we did not have to return that amount of money when the federal auditor came to audit our federal grant records. In 1960 notification of all grants awarded went to the UNC system's offices in Chapel Hill. No award notices came directly to NCSC.

In 1953 NCSC had established a Research Committee, but in 1954 there was also a proposal for a University (UNC) Council on Research. Every dean and administrator on the NCSC campus was opposed to UNC doing this, and they all objected, but it was established anyway. In 1955, "Policies and Procedures for the Administration of Research Supported Either by Contractual Arrangement or by Special Grants, Gifts, or Bequests" were established. At this time the only persons signing grant proposals on the NCSC campus were the Chancellor and the Business Manager. Deans of schools, of course, were involved in approvals for grants to faculty or units within their schools.

There was considerable discussion during the late 1950s about a "Faculty Research and Development Fund," and in 1958 it was established. At first $17,500 was used for this purpose from state funds, and that figure remained as the appropriated amount for many years. The amount increased to $50,000 under Chancellor Thomas and Dean Henry Smith and to $100,000 under VC Hart and Chancellor Poulton. There was much debate about how this fund was to be managed. Procedures were established to receive and award faculty proposals from this fund under Smith, and continued under Hart and the interim VCs for Research while he was Provost.

As indicated earlier, notices of grant awards went from the federal granting agencies to UNC. In 1960, Chancellor Caldwell requested that his office be notified when NCSC received an award and he would distribute the notice and other relevant matters, including the first check, to the appropriate offices on the NCSC campus. Apparently at this time he sometimes received no notification when an award was made to NCSC. This wasn't intentional, but it was an oversight.

In 1959, the NCSC Research Committee recommended that an administrative position for research be established. On July 1, 1961, the position of Assistant to the Graduate Dean was established for research activities. Shirley was supportive of this development and was involved with Peterson in the establishment of the position for research. Proposals would be routed through this position in the Graduate School. The deans on campus had concerns because the schools of SALS, PSAM, Engineering and Textiles already had procedures and personnel in their schools who handled grants. In a letter to the Chancellor in 1962, Peterson said that he was having difficulty getting the new position filled. He said that he had approached nine or ten persons who had indicated they were not interested. One of the problems was that the position initially would be one-half time. Later that year Frank Guthrie from the Department of Entomology filled the position and did a fantastic job setting up University procedures and records, and being helpful to faculty in preparing grant proposals. He wrote a proposal to the National Institutes of Health, and later he and a series of other faculty chaired a multiple faculty sequence of grants in the field of toxicology for both training graduate students and conducting research. These were supported on a continuous basis, with Guthrie as principal investigator for many years, and these grants have continued to be funded to others in the program today. This effort led to the development of a cadre of outstanding scientists in toxicology at NCSU. In time we offered the Ph.D., created a department and became a national center of excellence in this field. If Guthrie had not been on a one-half time basis, he may not have had the time to continue to develop the research and training proposals and activities in this field with the same vigor. At that time all research proposals were submitted directly to granting agencies through the Graduate School at NCSC.

In 1963 a policy was established that the Dean of the Faculty among others would see all proposals that required matching funds or supported instruction, before a proposal was submitted to a granting agency. In November of 1964, the position of Administrative Dean of Research was created, and in January of 1965, H. F. Robinson was appointed to the position. The Research Office reported to the Chancellor instead of to the Dean of the Faculty. There were few guidelines for communication with the Dean of the Faculty, and not much communication occurred. The Dean of Research, as expected, was trying to encourage grant proposal activity. A major responsibility was to encourage and seek additional support for organized research. The school deans were responsible for creating their own school mechanisms of supervision and clearance of grant proposals, and insure that they knew what commitments were made against future resources in their schools when grants were proposed and awarded. Deans did have to sign an internal processing approval sheet before submission of a proposal to Dean Robinson. I had followed Dean Robinson in his position as Director of the Institute of Biological Sciences and Assistant Director for Research in SALS. I spent about one-half of my time in the position in grants encouragement and administration. In SALS we carefully controlled commitments against future funds before giving approval for a grant to submitted, so I assumed that all other schools did this too. After I joined the Provost's Office, I was surprised when Dean Tilman told me that a grant proposal from his school which committed resources had been sent to and funded by a granting agency, and he was unaware of the commitments included in the proposal. A commitment had been made against SHASS future resources (and in this case the Provost's resources too) for both EPA and SPA positions. I shared this with Dr. Kelly. The proposals under campus policy should have gone to both Dean Tilman and to Provost Kelly before submission, and this proposal went to neither. At this time the policy that all proposals which committed future academic resources required the approval of the Provost was reaffirmed. As Assistant Provost I then began to read all such proposals and made certain that Provost Kelly was informed when proposals made future commitments against academic funds. In most cases I also made certain that the dean of the originating school was aware of these commitments and was willing to pick up the resources as required by the grant. Sometimes neither the school dean nor Provost Kelly were willing to commit the new and additional resources that were proposed. I began to maintain a running list of commitments with the dates of the commitment made by the Provost. I continued to maintain this list after I became Provost. I alerted Dean Tilman again that he should require all proposals from his school to have his approval, and he should concur in any commitments and maintain a record of these commitments before the grant proposal left campus.

Ralph W. Cummings was appointed to the Administrative Dean position in 1968, and in 1971, Earl Droessler became the Dean. In 1974 upon the retirement of Provost Kelly, the Administrative Dean of Research began to report to the Provost. At that time the title was changed to Vice Provost and Dean of Research. The Deans of Research who reported to me were Earl Droessler and Henry B. Smith. Smith became Dean of Research in 1979 when Droessler left NCSU.

Near the end of Chancellor Caldwell's term we were nationally classified as a research university. Under one classification scheme 50 or more doctorates a year must be awarded to be so classified. While Thomas was Chancellor the faculty on campus began to raise the issue of the importance of having the research function more visible and having the position renamed as Vice Chancellor, reporting to the Chancellor. A special committee was appointed by Chancellor Thomas to look at the issue and to look again at whether the Graduate School should continue to report to the Provost. The committee reported about the time that Chancellor Poulton arrived, and recommended that the Graduate Dean continue to report to the Provost but that the Dean for Research become a VC and report to the Chancellor. It was recommended that the Graduate School and Research Office not be combined into a single office, as it was at many universities. Dr. Smith was approaching retirement at this time and preferred to continue to report to me until he retired in 1983. His replacement in research was Dr. Franklin Hart and he became the first Vice Chancellor for Research. Dr. Hart had also been Dr. Smith's replacement as Associate Dean of Engineering for Research. When Chancellor Monteith became Chancellor he wanted the Research Office to report to the Provost again, for he felt that the Provost should have primary responsibility for internal management of all academic areas and considered this to be one of the important academic areas. So the Research Office began to report to Provost Hart and then, when he returned to the VC for Research position, he reported to Provost Stiles. Monteith's administrative structure closely resembled the one that Thomas had been working towards before he left NCSU.

In 1979 Dean Henry Smith had a discussion with Associate VP Stedman of the UNC-BOG regarding centers and institutes. Stedman said that he would have to report to the BOG why these entities did not interfere with instruction, and requested the help of Smith and his counterpart at UNC-CH. At this time the members of the BOG did not understand what centers and institutes were. They were quite variable in function, structure, size and responsibility, even on a single campus. In some cases centers and institutes were started to satisfy the requirements for a grant proposal. Earlier the BOG had decided that all institutes and centers would require their approval. I believe this came about because NC Central University had planned to start a center concerned with organized labor. This proposal made a lot of headlines in the local papers and TV and legislators became upset, or so they said in the newspapers. The BOG did not approve the formation of that center when it came before them for consideration. At this time, NCSU decided that all proposals for centers and institutes would go through the Office of the Dean for Research, who would be responsible for processing newly proposed centers and institutes on campus, and make certain that the proposals were prepared in the format required by the BOG. The Research office was also responsible for keeping copies of charters and making certain the periodic reports required by BOG were prepared and forwarded. Most centers and institutes were involved with research, and a much lesser number were concerned with extension or undergraduate education. The Provost's Office had provided the support needed to handle these matters and maintained the lists and records of centers and institutes prior to this time.

The interest and support of industry in research continued to increase especially in the Schools of ALS, Engineering, Forest Resources PAMS, Veterinary Medicine and Textiles, but even in Education, SHASS and Design. The concept of industry, government and universities collaborating in the support of research efforts began to be fostered by NSF while Droessler was Dean for Research. We got our first NSF grant to support such a center then. The proposals for creating centers began to increase rapidly under Smith, and several more came into being at NCSU. Most new centers involved faculty from the Schools of Engineering and PAMS.

All of the Deans and Vice Chancellors were very helpful to individual faculty in their grantsmanship endeavors. As time went on, the larger grants involving several investigators, became an increasingly important part of our research funding. This required much more talent, diplomacy, organizational know-how and persuasive ability than had been needed to help the single or individual investigator obtain grants. It also required much more time be spent in Washington learning what the agencies were planning to support in the future. For these reasons we began to have an Assistant or Associate Dean for Research in each school responsible for grants, in addition to those already present in several schools. We felt that these could also facilitate inter-school collaboration in research and in grantsmanship. These efforts increased very much under Smith, but as I wrote to Dr. Hart on his retirement from NCSU, "Perhaps the most innovative thing that you did was to recognize, that while the individual faculty member's grants were important, that the future of research funding would be in the group or team grant effort and especially in the University, Industry and Government collaborative effort which has become a very important part of our team efforts." It was also true that so many of our problems could be solved only by a team which included multidisciplinary talents. This type of effort was very successful in research, but it was the also the best mechanism, along with the Agricultural Extension Service, to get specific companies involved in the research efforts and in getting research discoveries used sooner and more often by industry.

Support of research, research expenditures, new scientific and technological discoveries, patents, and especially those efforts supported through grants and contracts increased phenomenally while Hart was Vice Chancellor. This position is now called the Vice Chancellor for Research, Outreach and Extension.

Division of Undergraduate Studies

In 1989 Interim Chancellor Monteith expressed great concern about a problem that had been with us for many years. The major problem was our low graduation rate and especially graduation at the end of four years. Earlier, as Dean of the College of Engineering, Monteith had served as the chairman of that study of a special committee which had studied this problem. A major conclusion was that we lost a large number of students who had the ability as well as the credentials to graduate when they first came to NCSU early in the first semester (of course many of these dropped out of school or eventually flunked out). In considering what might be done to make students' education more viable and successful, we were convinced that there had to be a significant and earlier intervention in the experiences of the freshman students. The evidence suggested that intervention as late as mid-semester of the first semester of enrollment was too late. To begin to try to address this problem, we decided to create an Undergraduate Studies unit which would report to the Provost. This was Monteith's idea and it was established soon after he became Chancellor.

One of the first things we did was to ask Rebecca Leonard of the Communication Department, who had worked with the Provost on special projects in advising, sexual harassment, racial, and other issues over the years, to join us as an Assistant Provost and develop an experimental course for a few hundred freshmen to see if we could intervene in their activities at NCSU early enough to make a difference. She visited several institutions that had programs and similar courses or were using other intervention strategies. She developed a course, selected the faculty from among volunteers, taught in it and managed it. A somewhat similar program was developed to teach all of the African-American freshmen by Associate Provost Augustus Witherspoon. It is too early to tell as of this writing which ends on July 1, 1993, how much beneficial effect these will have, but based on the early statistics they appear to be promising and have led to better retention and slightly better grades of participating freshman students.

We continued to have controversy about the summer orientation program for all new freshmen or transfers. The argument was about how much effort was to be spent on academic versus the living, social and other activity components during the very limited time available to new freshmen at summer orientation. Both had to be accomplished, but the Provost's Office and the Associate Dean's Council wanted more of the time devoted to academic matters. This function and the staff has now been assigned to the Dean of Undergraduate Studies. Another group of programs that is the responsibility of Undergraduate Studies are those described in this Chapter under the section entitled Academic Skills.

We appointed Dr. Murray Downs Interim Dean of the Division of Undergraduate Studies and later under Dr. Hart, a national search was conducted and Dr. James Anderson joined NCSU as Dean of this Division on September 1, 1992.

Academic Skills

In 1983, the Academic Skills Program was implemented. There were several concerns which led to the development of this program. Upon arrival at NCSU, Chancellor Poulton was concerned about athletics. When Chancellor Poulton found out that the tutoring of student athletes was done by employees under the supervision of the Director of Athletics, he felt that we should change this as soon as possible. Another concern of the colleges/school deans, the Provost and the Chancellor was the poor performance of certain students who met minimum admission requirements, or who were admitted as exceptions. These students needed extra support and tutoring. It was also felt that many needed some compensatory (remedial) courses in the summer session prior to their first semester at NCSU. Dr. Lawrence Clark designed the program to accomplish this objective. The Learning Assistance Center was transferred to the Academic Skills Program from Student Affairs. This program was initially called Academic Support Services. As the program developed and by the time that the program began to report to Dr. Murray Downs in 1988, it interfaced with all of the tutoring programs of departments and schools on the campus and provided more University-wide coordination of tutoring. This program is now called the Undergraduate Studies Tutorial Center. Dr. Clark worked with Mr. Willis Casey, Director of Athletics, to develop a budget provided by the Athletics Department for the program component called the Academic Support Program for Student Athletes. This was accomplished and supported the tutoring program for student athletes.

The first Director of the Academic Skills Program was Dr. Hugh Fuller who came from the position of Director of Institutional Research in Student Affairs. The program reported to Associate Provost Lawrence Clark. It took additional time and resources to add the next program component, the Program of Academic Advancement. The program served a small but selected number of freshmen, including all of the students admitted as exceptions each year, and was highly structured. It included a 6-8 week summer program with instruction in basic skills. Most of the students enrolled in this summer program took compensatory courses in English, reading, and/or mathematics, and at times a course to enhance oral communication skills. The program also included an academic year component. Dr. Thomas Conway was the chief designer of this component, but Fuller and Clark were both very much involved in the planning and implementation. This program, as did the program for student athletes, provided for the development of an academic profile, aid in the placement of students in appropriate courses during the academic year, and mechanisms to assure that the students got the tutoring they needed. This program came to be called the University Transition Program. Certain students were admitted to NCSU only if they participated in this program. Dr. Clark stated, "Emphasis will be placed on maximizing the potential among entering Black students and student athletes." A program called Assessment, Development, and Evaluation was provided at the time these programs were started. Dr. Fuller designed this component of the program, and he did most of the work in the earlier years and has continued to be involved in this area. Later a full-time additional position for assessment and evaluation was added.

One of the issues that has been debated from time to time on campus was whether we should have a general college for freshmen for the first year or the first two years of matriculation at NCSU. Chancellor Poulton asked that the question be studied. There was also much concern about the academically gifted student who did not know which school or major to choose. Until this time we made all students select a program or a school before admission to the University. The issue was finally resolved by adding to the Academic Skills Program a component called the University Undesignated Program which admitted academically gifted students who wished to start at NCSU without a major. Dr. Fuller was the architect of this program. The staff in this program advised students registered in this program, and they taught a year-long orientation course. Students were kept in the program for no more than two years, and at the end of that time they were transferred to a school and a major. At the same time, each of the schools in the University were required to establish an undeclared major in their schools. This would enable students who knew which school they wanted to attend but who did not wish to select a major as a freshman, to enroll in an undeclared program in a school. At this time the College of Engineering placed all freshmen in a common program for their first year. The University Undesignated Program (UUP) only accepted new freshmen with very strong academic credentials. This still meant that the average or below average freshman who did not have a preference for a school or major had the difficult decision about in which school should they seek admission. These students were not likely to get into the Schools of Engineering and Design because these schools had as high academic requirements for admission as did the UUP. They also would not be admitted to several other curricula which admitted only academically strong freshmen. This matter is discussed further in Chapter Six in Admissions. These programs now report to Dr. James Anderson, Dean of the Division of Undergraduate Studies.

Provosts Relationships with Chancellors and Deans

The Provost's relationship with school deans has not always been clear in a variety of areas. The Provost's responsibilities have varied from Chancellor to Chancellor and with each Provost. Under Bostian, the school deans reported to the Chancellor, but for personnel, undergraduate curricula, degrees and courses they reported through the Dean of the Faculty. The relationship between Shirley and Bostian appeared to be very cordial with both seeking to reduce the Chancellor's workload. They continued to adjust the responsibilities assigned to the Dean of the Faculty on a case by case basis until each was comfortable with delegation of responsibility and what functions this Dean would perform without consultation, and what would be done after consultation. They had not decided which actions would require approval by the Chancellor. This was very tricky, for Shirley had come to his new position from the Dean of General Studies, a position viewed by the other school deans as the lowest among the deans on the totem pole. Power had resided in the school deans with considerable discretion on a school by school basis, with many NCSC-wide policies made at the Administrative Council. Power on this council resided in the deans too, for they were the majority of the membership. Of course the Chancellor could and did make the final decision. The appointment of a Dean of the Faculty would begin the review of curricula and would certainly cause some standardization in curricula, in personnel appointments and in other areas. Under the Dean of the Faculty, courses offered by departments and schools, salary recommendations, space utilization, and an unknown variety of other functions would be reviewed, studied, and even questioned by the person who had been, to them, a former colleague who came from a position with less responsibility than their own. After all, the School of General Studies did not even offer any degrees at this time. Prior to this time the Chancellor or the UNC Provost reviewed if reviews were made or if questions were asked. Yet this appointment, while recognized as necessary by the deans, caused considerable worry and concern about what powers it would have. Deans had always reported to the Chancellor and wanted to have his ear about everything. They also were not very timid about going directly to the President of the University of North Carolina when Harrelson and Bostian were Chancellors. This was another reason why Bostian and Shirley were cautious about assignments. At this time it sometimes seemed that the Provost of the Consolidated System influenced the curriculum on the campus more than did the Chancellor or a new Dean of the Faculty. When Caldwell came to NCSC he had been used to working with an academic affairs officer and rapidly began to clarify the relationship between himself, school deans, and the Dean of the Faculty. At first, to become better acquainted with the institution and its programs, Caldwell retained more authority. There was a system in N. C. with its own President, and that made the responsibilities of a Chancellor less clear than those at the University of Arkansas, where the campus did not have to report to a system.

Chancellor Caldwell defined his and the school deans relationship with Dean Shirley in a memorandum of September 14, 1960: "Deans of schools report directly to the Chancellor. For the purposes covered here, the Dean of the Faculty is the alter ego of the Chancellor." He then went on to describe duties of the Dean to include all personnel actions, space studies and allocations, review of all academic budget matters, recommendation of faculty members to all committees and boards, and investigations of academic and faculty matters requiring solution by the administration.

Caldwell was just what we needed at NCSU. We were a developing college that would now be classified as a comprehensive university with aspirations to become a research university. We planned to add many additional graduate programs of top quality. Caldwell had a "presence," and he made excellent and eloquent speeches. He made these from one end of the State of North Carolina to the other and gained for NCSU additional respect and appreciation from the citizens within the State as he told the NCSC story. He was also well known in national educational circles and helped us to gain recognition at that level as we were in our period of most rapid (on a proportional basis) growth. The greatest increase in numbers of students came during Poulton's tenure. For example, at the time that I retired as Provost in 1990, I had participated during my sixteen years as Provost in the graduation exercises of more than 55% of the graduates of NCSU since it opened its doors in 1889.

Shirley left NCSC to become the VP for Academic Affairs at the University of Delaware, and the search by Caldwell brought in a new Dean of the Faculty who had worked for NSF and who had no administrative experience on a college campus. For this reason Caldwell continued to perform more functions than he might have if this person had been a dean with more university experience. When Dr. Kelly came, relationships with everyone seemed to go smoothly. However Dr. Kelly, with his experiences in Japan and in governmental positions, carried an expectation of bureaucracy that the Deans had not experienced under Shirley. Of course all universities are bureaucracies, but different individuals in the universities seem to be more sensitive to and need a more strict adherence to line reporting. At another place in this document (in the Functions section in Chapter One) I referred to Dr. Kelly's dog house. Fortunately, when Dr. Kelly got upset with a school dean, he did not retain his anger long. Usually he kept no more than one dean at a time in his dog house. Dr. Kelly worked well with the Business Office and with Student Affairs, but his relationship with the Graduate School and later with the Dean of Research soon got out of kilter. These offices never seemed to collaborate with Dr. Kelly any more than they had to. Dr. Kelly was frequently not consulted about matters that he felt should have involved him. He also learned about such matters which either overlapped with his area of responsibility or which he felt that he needed to know about, after they had already been discussed with and at times decided upon by the Chancellor. Some of the problems with deans also involved a dean reporting some matter directly to the Chancellor or to the Deans of the Graduate School or of Research, when Dr. Kelly felt he should have been consulted first, or certainly at least simultaneously. At one time the school deans decided that they would like to get together at a breakfast meeting from time to time to discuss mutual concerns. Dean Eric Ellwood arranged the breakfast meeting and this was one incident which put Ellwood in the dog house for a longer than normal period of time. Dr. Kelly would not talk to Dean Ellwood for some time, and I had to make certain that actions from Ellwood's school were handled and approved. Dr. Kelly was upset because he felt that the deans were going around him instead of talking to him. The deans wanted the meeting because the Administrative Council now had so many members that they felt they needed an opportunity to discuss deans' business without others being present. I cannot say that none of their desire was to discuss how best to deal with Provost Kelly.

In 1962 Dr. Kelly tried to meet with the faculty in departments. It didn't work, for some deans felt that the Dean of the Faculty was intruding and going around them to talk to faculty in their territory. It was true that the faculty present at these meetings did have many concerns about school policies and practices and wanted to talk about them. Of course, Kelly recognized that many issues discussed were not University-wide matters or procedures. He had felt that these departmental meetings would get him to know NCSC better, and vice versa. In 1974 I tried to do this same thing, but I had the same problem. The meetings that I had with school faculties at school faculty meetings and with the deans present did not bring much discussion, but the deans all encouraged me and wanted me to attend these school meetings. In fact, they would likely place me on the agenda for a short statement. These meetings did give me some opportunity to learn directly of the faculty's problems. The best way that I found to meet and to talk to faculty was to go to the Faculty Club and to join a small faculty group for lunch. Dutch, of course! It was later that Poulton and I, and sometimes with Karen Helm and Frank Hart, met with all of the University's department heads about twice a year. I felt that these were very profitable sessions, most of the time. We usually had John Riddle of University Studies serve as organizer and Master of Ceremonies at the meeting. Chancellor Poulton and I always brought a few items for the agenda, however it was our purpose to listen, at least for a part of the time. We tried not to talk too much, but sometimes we did. It was later, with John Riddle and Karen Helm again spearheading the effort, that we started the new department head training sessions. These were very successful but were dropped around the time that Chancellor Poulton resigned. I believe that they have now been started again.

My favorite memorandum from a dean was one from Cahill to Caldwell and Kelly in 1964 entitled "The Enrollment Problem."

You are aware, I am sure, that I do not regard the discussion on Monday as either satisfactory or conclusive. What follows is yet another attempt to outline the situation as I see it with the view of underscoring the absence of real alternatives.

a. I should say at the outset that I can understand the position of the great majority of my brethren. Obviously the Dean of Agriculture is in no position to do anything that would appear to restrict admissions, nor are, I imagine the Deans of Textiles, Forestry, or Engineering. And, on the whole, I agree with them; I do not want to restrict admissions, either. It could be pointed out, of course, that these gentlemen are not responsible for teaching all of their freshman programs and have resources which I do not have which gives them greater flexibility. But I accept their position and as I have said, sympathize with it. But that is not the point. The real issue is knowing what we are going to have in sufficient time to do something about it.

b. I realize also that Dean Stewart's attempt to give us earlier and more valid estimates is an offer to do what he can. But whether this is a real help depends on two things: how early the estimates can be valid; and whether they can be used as a basis for getting the additional teaching personnel. As I have said before, it is at the least awkward to have on Monday morning some hundreds of students more than you are prepared to teach. Contrariwise, it is equally difficult to know in July that there will be in September several hundred more than you are allowed to staff for. And in all of this, we should bear in mind that year-before-last we over-estimated and last year we under-estimated.

c. Since all of this tends to hit the liberal arts early and hard we have been casting about for alternatives. But there are not many as would appear at first sight.

1. We can, I suppose, argue that there are enough housewives around the premises who have master's degrees to cover our needs. This is Dean Menius' position as I understand it. To regard this as any sort of a permanent solution, even as a permanent emergency solution, does not strike me as satisfactory. To be sure we may have some mute inglorious Miltons in the Faculty Women's Club (a club made up of the wives of faculty) but certainly their number is limited. More important, however, their attention is divided; I would hazard that most of them have not kept up with their fields; certainly they lack the professionalism which we hope is characteristic of our faculty; and finally their continuous or recurring employment dilutes the quality of the faculty in terms of those indices which are used by accrediting agencies. What we do here, it seems to me, is to gather up the least prepared and shove them into classrooms sometimes during the first week of classes; they can never be more than one day ahead of the class and are more likely to be a day behind.
2. We could limit registrations to what we are prepared to teach. But this seems arbitrary and is in a sense an abdication because presumably the students are admitted in order that they might be taught. But it might dramatize what I suspect to be a growing tendency -- the separation of the admissions process from the educational process. It makes a great deal of difference how you say it: the faculty are here to teach the students admitted puts the emphasis on the wrong place and does not mean the same as the students are admitted so that the faculty can teach them.
3. We can begin to broaden our system of excusing students from requirements. It may be that this is acceptable and even desirable on other grounds but it is not a solution to the present problem. Perhaps we can solve part of our problem in English by skimming off the top 300 although if we do we must be prepared to face a rise in the flunk rate. We face an immediate problem of identifying these people early or we will have impossible scheduling problems. And we still have them on our hands. It does not help much to have solved the problem in English only to be faced with it again in history or economics.
4. We could expand the size of the classes. Even here, however, problems arise. For one thing, you cannot do this across the board. I do not think it at all feasible in composition courses, for example, or elementary languages. In these, the teacher must know what the student is doing. Then, too, unless you have graduate students, or some sort of auxiliary help, you do not save any teaching time unless you go to the straight lecture pattern and I am not certain we are ready for that or would think it wise, even if we were. Finally, we do not have many places to put large sections. Without pursuing the economics of the matter in depth, I would suspect the rooms in Harrelson to be not quite large enough; the number of such places elsewhere on campus is very limited.
5. We might, and probably ought to, explore more vigorously the use of TV, and the like. But I have yet to see much convincing evidence that it differs very much from a large lecture (with its attendant problems) or that it really saves a lot of time if the many hours of preparation are taken into account. Part of my attitude may derive from the fact that I don't like television very well, especially amateur television, but in any case it is no way to meet a sudden influx as that of last fall and this is what I am really worried about. d. This list may not be exhaustive although it includes everything that I can think of this morning. I should point out; however, that our present registration procedures pretty well eliminate even that degree of flexibility which may exist in the various schemes. We have to know by the spring before what we are going to be doing in the fall. We are rapidly eliminating our room for improvisation because of the long lead-time the machine process evidently takes.

e. From all that I can gather we are fairly well aware of what the A Budget holds for us. At least I have received a preliminary allocation. It is, as you will have noticed, short of what Dr. Hartley alone says that he needs. But is it not true that the A Budget was based on some sort of estimate of student registrations? And if such an estimate has been made, why are we under such difficulty to say it will or will not bear some relation to what we will actually get in the fall? I think, in general that the budget practices in this state are deplorable and, as evidence, point to the recurring surpluses. I know that this is beyond our control. But I hope we are not contributing to it. The purpose is not to make us look good downtown. Rather, I had thought the purpose of the budget was to enable us to get our work done.

f. I think this is about enough on this subject. I am fully aware that one usually exhausts the audience before he exhausts the subject. And it may be that I have merely succeeded in demonstrating my ignorance. But it seems to me we have all talked crisis so long that we have lost our belief in it. I am deeply concerned now that it is palpable here, that the vast majority of my colleagues think either it is not going to happen or that we can somehow avoid facing it. As I say, I understand and sympathize; I merely cannot agree.

This letter describes so many of the problems of the day. Problems included: allocating positions to units without a carefully planned basis for position allocations; accepting all the qualified new students with no restrictions related to budgeted enrollments; no preregistration in the spring; no advanced placement system; where do you find faculty at the last moment, et cetera. We did learn to live with some of these problems. Others are still causing difficulty. Many of these problems and their solutions or what we did to lessen the problems are described and discussed throughout this history. I wonder what these deans would have done in those years if the Legislature had met every year and left for home in late July or in August as they do now. After all, this memo was written in December of 1964 and Dean Cahill had already received his allocation of new positions for the fall semester of 1965.

In 1965, Chancellor Caldwell decided to make the stationery of the Dean of the Faculty a part of the Chancellor's stationery. It showed the Dean of the Faculty's office as a subhead of the Chancellor's office. Kelly expressed his concern over this prospect and the Chancellor wrote back the following. "I do not understand the point of view that my concept of the letterhead shows even the slightest demotion of your office. Indeed my concept was to show the Dean of the Faculty and the other two as parts of the Chancellor's office, speaking for him when they wrote. However, it is clear that no one in this office understands my concept or agrees with it. Since I do not feel strongly about it, I am withdrawing my suggestion."

The Provost did not have a separate budget. He operated out of Chancellor's budget. I noted in 1966-67 that the Chancellor's budget showed a separate amount of $2350, excluding personnel, for the Dean of the Faculty's budget. I am certain that Kelly did not run his office on this sum. I am certain that when he had needs sources were found to support these by Mr. Wright, with the Chancellor's concurrence. I know that when I became Provost we had a separate budget, but it was inadequate for operational purposes of my office. All budget lines were insufficient and at this time we had a lot of budget lines. Like Kelly, I continued to try to get additional funds as needs arose. This procedure never bothered me very much. It did mean that we lived from hand-to-mouth all of the time, and were constantly trying to get the school deans, who had many more resources, to pay for things that they wanted the Provost to pay for. Deans would tell me that the University should cover a part of this or that project of theirs, too. I never had funds to contribute, but I got the Chancellor or Mr. Worsley to help to fund these projects. In this way the deans thought that I had contributed, and the University's administration had. This practice of getting the deans to help fund a project was good, for the deans would now have an investment of resources in these University-wide activities and they helped to make certain that the projects succeeded. I know that Dr. Clark would have never gotten many programs to work as well as they did if the deans had not invested in them.

Of all the deans I suspect that Dean Brooks James was the most influential in getting the University administration to support things that he felt needed to be accomplished. Dean Fred Cahill had the best wit, and could really say something with a bit of humor, or more often write Zthe most clever comments. Dean Henry Kamphoefner was the most obstinate and stubborn and he did things the way he wanted and was most able to avoid NCSU and UNC rules and regulations. He ruled his school with an iron hand, in his way. His school had the most independent and outspoken faculty on campus, yet they had less faculty influence in school matters than the faculty in any other school. Actually the school was operated as if it were a department with a very strong head. Using this style, he developed an outstanding school with outstanding and nationally recognized faculty and programs. When he retired I had to make certain that we awarded tenure to faculty who had been appointed to two or more five-year terms as Associate Professors. Associate Professors who had completed one five year term were supposed to gain tenure or have been given a final years notice at the end of their fourth year. His school would not teach any students from other schools, except for a few students that he personally permitted to take courses. We finally gave the School of Design several new positions to teach some courses which would allow students from other schools to take some School of Design courses. The Chancellor and the Provost had learned that they could not make Henry do anything that he did not want to do. I was glad that he retired before I became Provost.

Dean Fadum was very involved in external activities including a commitment to engineering education on a national basis, the National Academy of Engineering, some consulting, Chairman of the NCSU Faculty Committee on Athletics which involved many Atlantic Coast Conference activities, and other matters. I remember Caldwell and especially Kelly complaining about things frequently coming in late from the School of Engineering. Notes in the files from both suggested the other talk to Dean Fadum about his being absent from the campus so much. Neither did, or at least I found no record of it. However Kelly indicated that he had asked Dean Fadum to make certain that the person appointed as Acting Dean would be empowered to sign all documents in his absence. I saw no correspondence to Dean Fadum on any of this.

The Schools of Engineering and Agriculture were always rivals. For years the School of Engineering seemed to be trying to compete with SALS, and they were envious of SALS, which had substantial State and federal funding for research and extension. When Monteith became Dean of Engineering he said that Engineering had been looking at the wrong group for a model. He said that we should be looking at the best Schools of Engineering in the nation and should be trying to emulate them rather than SALS at NCSU.

We had line item budgets with very little flexibility, and it was very difficult to transfer funds to a different line. For this reason deans would swap funds from their school in one budget line with another school in a different budget line. The most common swaps were personnel, equipment and supplies. Such swaps enabled programs to accomplish a temporary goal, for there was no permanent change in the schools' continuing budgets or in the lines in the next year's budgets based on these changes. Of all the deans, I considered Dean A. C. (Buck) Menius to be the sharpest "con