The Provost's Office: An Informal History
Chapter Three: Faculty and Other Personnel Exempt from the Personnel Act
Personnel
Policies and Procedures
The first
personnel procedures were established by Chancellor Bostian and sent to Deans,
Directors, and Department heads on July 16, 1956. This memorandum included both
SPA (Subject to the State Personnel Act) and EPA (Exempt from the State Personnel
Act) personnel, but I will refer only to those sections relating to EPA personnel.
This memorandum indicated that there would be a
strengthening
of channels of communication and personnel would be administered so that there
would be a constant and periodic review of each employee and of the effectiveness
of his work, so that all employees will be constantly informed of their privileges
and responsibilities. Documents pertaining to personnel changes will be simplified
and standardized in the interest of speedier handling and more adequate records
to form the basis for sounder judgment in treating personnel matters.
Centralized personnel records were
to be "maintained with a perpetual summary of employees in various categories
made available at all times." Records of work loads and performance were to
be standardized in such a way that "critical needs may be readily determined,
so that the limited number of new positions made possible through periodic increases
in our operating budgets may be allocated swiftly to meet these critical needs."
These were great goals and over the years a variety of changed procedures and
reports were developed to meet them. For example, when I first started to work
in the Provost's Office, a current record of all faculty by rank, by department
and by school was maintained by hand. We knew the total number of credit hours
taught in each department and in each school, and had a record of the average
credit and contact hours taught by each full-time equivalent (FTE) position
assigned to each department and school. Later, these statistics were available
through computers because information related to classes was computerized by
Student Affairs sooner than records were computerized for personnel. Student
Affairs had some personnel with the competencies to be programmers and analysts.
We began to provide this information to the departments and schools with what
we called a cross-over analysis. This enabled every department to know where
their student majors were taking courses and the numbers of students from each
major enrolled in the courses that they taught. The software for this analysis
was developed at East Carolina University (ECU) and was shared with us at no
cost. I always thought that this was a very valuable informational tool for
academic units to have, but I suspected that many departments made little use
of this data.
In a memorandum of Feb. 5, 1957,
the Chancellor announced the introduction of the PA-1 form. This form developed
by Shirley has been modified frequently. It is used today in a very modified
form except that it is entered into the computer by departments or schools.
That memorandum read:
This
form, again in five copies, will be used for all requests involving change
of status for all other non-classified personnel, for appointment, reappointment,
change in academic or professional rank or title, change in salary or salary
distribution, leave of absence, or termination of contract. These requests
will normally originate in the Department or Division and be forwarded to
the dean or administrative head responsible. All of these materials will be
transmitted directly to the Dean of the Faculty who will be responsible for
routing through proper channels of approval and maintaining constant check
on the expedition of such requests. It will be the responsibility of his office
to see that University or Trustee approval is obtained when it is required
and to make final distribution back through channels to the originating source.
Bostian added,
It is
our hope that the standardization of forms for multiple purposes and the development
of clear-cut routing and approval channels will speed approval requests, simplify
routine operations, and eliminate much of the red tape which has congested
both departmental and school offices.
It is of interest to me to note
that the form had only two races listed, white and Negroes, yet it had the following
categories for marital status: single, married, widowed, divorced, and separated.
In 1962 all personnel decisions,
including new appointments, still had to go through the President, and Caldwell
reminded the campus not to indicate firm and final offers or to close contracts
with individuals prior to such approval. Of course it would have been impossible
to hire anyone without having everything agreed upon by the College and the
prospective employee if this rule was followed precisely. We began to use "contingent
upon approval of the Trustees" and later the BOG when that was necessary in
letters offering positions. The secret was DO NOT UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES
LET THIS GET INTO THE PAPERS BEFORE WE HAVE OBTAINED APPROVAL!
In 1965 the proposals for continued
employment over the age of 65 were requested and handled by the Chancellor's
office. It was at this time that Kelly requested that he would like to see the
proposed list. The list had to be approved by the President and was reported
to the Board of Trustees and to the Retirement System. The latter was really
a necessary informational procedure. Dr. Kelly's Personnel Office soon received
the job of obtaining the lists from the deans and had to prepare the material
for the Chancellor in a form ready for his signature for submission to the appropriate
places. Dr. Kelly then did get to see the list in advance of its submission
to the President and even before the Chancellor saw it.
The issue of hiring faculty who
obtained Ph.D. degrees from NCSU was raised by the Chancellor and by Dr. Kelly
in 1964 when a department wished to hire one of its own graduates. In 1967 we
began to keep not only a running list of the numbers of NCSU Ph. D. graduates
on our faculty in each department, but also maintained a list of numbers of
graduates from other institutions. For example there were significant numbers
of UNC-CH graduates in certain departments. We began to raise the issue of "inbreeding,"
both from the perspective of NCSU as well as from a few other colleges. This
list was also helpful when we needed to answer how many doctorates we had on
a departmental faculty or on the University's faculty from any specific institution.
It was surprising how often that question was asked.
We had a nepotism policy in 1955.
In the days of Shirley the Chancellors approved the exceptions to this policy.
These approvals were indeed rare at that time. The policy prohibited hiring
relatives (mothers, fathers, sons, daughters, spouses, nieces, nephews, uncles
and aunts) in the same school, but we could hire children who were students
for part-time or summer work. I recall our wishing to hire an outstanding faculty
member who really was in the same field as his wife who was already on our staff.
By this time the policy had been modified so we could make subdivisions of the
large schools by grouping related departments. For example the biological science
departments were grouped together, but Plant Pathology was placed in another
group of plant science departments. We were able to hire the husband in the
Department of Genetics whose wife was a faculty member in Plant Pathology. If
a couple got married and they were in the same departmental group, one would
have to be transferred to another unit or leave the University. Nepotism policies
included both EPA and SPA personnel. Later the Board of Governors, to avoid
claims of discrimination on the basis of sex, changed this policy so that we
could hire relatives in the same unit, but it still prohibited supervision by
a relative . This made it possible for us to hire a number of outstanding faculty
whose disciplines were the same who previously would not have been hired. Prior
to this time we had to try very hard to find jobs for spouses for prospective
faculty at neighboring institutions. We lost a number of excellent faculty when
we or the spouse, could not find a satisfactory job. I recall two cases that
I found of interest. My nephew, upon graduation at NCSU, got a job in the library.
By this time uncles, aunts, nieces and nephews were included in the nepotism
policy. We could not hire him since the library reported to me. I also recall
the case of a faculty member who was divorced and married again. He had a grant
and wished to hire his former wife who was quite competent and would be available
immediately to work on the grant. The dean called to see if the supervisory
role existed here. I told him no, but I was not at all certain that the idea
was wise. Upon questioning later, I found that this had worked well. About the
time that I became Provost, through the efforts of our Assistant Affirmative
Action Officer, Claudia Pattison, a network of Research Triangle Park institutions
and the Triangle's colleges and universities was established to facilitate the
hiring of spouses. It seemed to work well for a while.
It is always amazing how simple
things that have good intentions can cause a lot more work. After the passage
of the Buckley Amendment we had to ask those writing letters about students
to put only one student in a letter. This was true when I was making exceptions
to the rule for graduation requirements or for graduate students to remain as
graduate assistants when they had grade point averages below 3.0. The concept
was that it was illegal for us to give out information except to those who needed
it for administrative purposes and not to other people. If two people were in
the same letter then we violated policy when we gave both affected persons a
copy of the same letter for their records. In 1974-75 this became even more
serious for there were State laws on freedom of information which spelled out
what we could release and what could not be released to others. Anything in
the files about an individual became open to that individual. This meant that
we had to require those who wrote a letter about more than one individual to
rewrite separate letters for each individual. If we did not get separate letters,
we had to make Xerox copies and blacken out the information about the others
included because we put the correspondence in each person's individual personnel
folder. As we responded and gave approval we had to respond with separate letters.
It became our usual practice to write approved and to put the approval date
and initial or to sign the letter which requested the approval and make a copy
for the files. Information such as salary, the last salary increase, promotion,
rank, and date of employment was to be available to any citizen of the state
who asked for the information. While this is not the complete list, it illustrates
that we could give out only the allowed information or we were subject to specified
levels of fines. The consequence of this freedom of information and the restrictions
made a lot more work for all, but it had a very good purpose and was worth the
effort.
As a part of this law we had to
give out the salaries when requested to North Carolina citizens. Little else
was usually wanted. The Chancellor set up procedures so that the Provost was
designated as the giver of the allowed personnel information, except for athletics,
and the Director of Athletics was authorized to release that information. At
first we kept a list of salaries and made it available in the Provost's Personnel
Office for those on campus who wished to see the list with the social security
numbers blacked out. Later we could ask the computer to prepare a list with
the social security numbers deleted. It was illegal to give out social security
numbers. We did not make copies of lists to send out, and a salary had to be
requested for an individual by name. This later became a large inconvenience
for the staff and we prepared a total list, without social security numbers,
which was placed in the Faculty Senate Office for those on campus who wished
to see salaries. The Senate had volunteered to do this. A copy of the BD 119
(a form listing salaries and salary increases was prepared for the State) contained
this information and was in the D. H. Hill Library and several State offices,
but an individual paid from two salary sources would appear at two different
places. If individuals wanted a list of persons and their salaries they could
make it. For those off-campus requests we gave out information if a few individuals
were requested. If the list requested was long we required the person to come
to the Provost's Personnel Office and copy the salaries they wanted. Whenever
the Personnel Office or I gave out a salary to anyone from off-campus, we informed
the individual on campus whose salary had been requested. This procedure is
still followed. At first there seemed to be a large number of persons who wanted
to know the salaries of others. Today, except for a few major appointments which
are requested by the newspapers and those on the faculty who wish to see the
salaries in the Faculty Senate Office, there seem to be very few requests. More
recently Chancellor Monteith required all off-campus requests for personnel
information to be reviewed by the University Attorney. It seems that this was
necessary because the old policy seemed to have been forgotten and too many
persons on campus were giving out personnel information, some of which might
not be permissible under the statutes.
For many years we had questions
of exactly what was the academic year calendar. We always considered this to
mean a nine-month period. In 1979, we tried a system of floating dates, but
it seemed that this caused confusion too. These were associated with the beginning
dates of the fall semester and the end of the spring semesters. For example,
the academic year began on August 18, 1980, and ended on May 16, 1981. For 1981-82
we began the year on August 24, 1981, and ended on May 15, 1982. To avoid this
controversy and confusion, because no one seemed to remember the dates and they
were important and established the dates eligible for summer pay, we simply
began to make these dates August 16, for beginning the fall semester, and May
15 for ending the spring semester. Policy permitted no one to earn more than
three months pay in the summer. These new dates helped everyone to avoid an
overlapping of the employment schedules of the fall and spring semesters with
the Summer Schools every year and employment for more than three months in the
summer.
In 1984 the Faculty Senate recommended
an annual performance review of all non-tenured faculty and other EPA professional
personnel, a review of all tenured associate professors at a minimum of three-year
intervals, and of the professors at a minimum of five-year intervals by the
department head. The recommendation was accepted by the administration. The
administration would have preferred an annual performance review with all faculty
for we felt that these should be tied not only to promotions but also to salary
increase recommendations. In many departments reviews did occur for all faculty
almost annually and in others, especially those that were very large, the heads
followed the policy with considerable griping. We felt that there would be less
controversy over the salary recommendations if they were linked to the reviews.
We thought that the reviews would make it very clear to non-tenured faculty
what was expected of them if they were to gain tenure. It soon became obvious
that not all reviews were as stringent, honest and critical as they should have
been. There were still individuals who were certain that their performance was
satisfactory based on these reviews, but they were still denied tenure and promotion.
It also became obvious that in certain cases the expectations of the senior
faculty who debated and voted on tenure in a department sometimes differed from
those of the department head. We then reminded the departments that the expectations
of both the senior faculty and the department heads should be made very clear.
This continues to be a problem, but it is not as great as it was before this
policy was adopted.
Chancellor Poulton established a
new process for final approval of all matters that were to become policy, by
having such matters go to the Trustees. It was his belief that the policy should
be sent to him for submission to the Trustees. Since I dealt with the Personnel
Committee of the Trustees, I still had to prepare the recommendation and to
defend the recommendation to the Personnel Committee.
There are a large number of other
personnel policies discussed in many of the other sections of this history when
the policy is related to those sections. This is especially true in the other
units of this chapter. Other policies may be found in the Faculty Handbook.
Rank and Tenure
Shirley and Bostian both placed
a high priority on obtaining the privilege of tenure for the NCSC faculty. Tenure
and academic freedom were discussed frequently on campus by the faculty, and
the Faculty Senate was a strong proponent. Based on a number of memoranda and
discussions of the Senate, the hold-up seemed to be the Board of Trustees. Although
it was one of the first things that Bostian had indicated a need for when he
became Chancellor, it was not until after Caldwell came that tenure was finally
awarded to the faculty.
One of the other things that Shirley
attempted to establish were uniform systematic procedures for promotion, and
defined requirements for academic rank. At the time of his appointment this
had been more or less a school matter with review by the Chancellor, but each
school seemed to have some of their own unique criteria, rules or procedures.
At first the Faculty Senate was not in favor of a uniform system. They argued
that the needs in one school or department might differ from another. Some deans
were not enthusiastic either, for this reduced their power to control appointments
and promotions. Part of the issue really resided in the fact that we had a large
number of faculty whose highest degree was a master's degree. The world was
changing so that few new hires were being made for faculty with a master's degree,
even in the Agricultural Extension Service, except in a few areas where the
master's degree was the terminal degree. The change came quickly and after Kelly
gained the title of Provost, we required a justification for any permanent faculty
member to be hired whose expectations did not include the doctorate. This became
the process when tenure was awarded and the request had to be approved by the
BOG. We continued to hire a few persons who were near the completion of the
requirements for the doctorate, but we added to the letter of offer that the
person was employed as an assistant professor contingent on the doctorate. If
the doctorate was not earned by the beginning of the fall semester the rank
automatically would be made instructor. The rank would be changed to assistant
professor when we were notified that all requirements for the doctorate were
completed. We did continue to hire a few exceptional and experienced faculty
in several fields with the master's degree. We were beginning to have the expectation
that almost all faculty would contribute to scholarship as well as to serve
the University and to teach. Many faculty with master's degrees contributed
in very significant ways to scholarship. For example Doolittle in Mechanical
Engineering and many others wrote texts that were widely used for years. Many
holders of master's degrees were researchers and also contributed to other forms
of scholarship.
In 1973 the UNC System was in the
process of developing a code for the system and for each campus of the system.
Included was to be the rank and tenure and academic freedom statements for the
system and for each campus. This was heavily debated in the Senate and several
of us were on a NCSU committee to interface with the UNC System, which meant
Dr. Dawson and Dawson's associate, who was the author of the system's code and
whose job it was to assure that the documents of each campus were compatible
with the BOG Code. Out of this came our current tenure regulations. We had the
normal ranks of instructor through professor but also added those of lecturer,
demonstrator and laboratory supervisor. These are essentially as published in
the Faculty Handbook today. We would have liked to have had a few additional
minor revisions that were not permitted, but the document as it was revised
by the Senate and the NCSU administration and finally approved by the BOG was
a very good one.
At the Faculty Senate meetings on
October 2, and October 9, 1973, there was much debate about a quota tenure system.
This is a popular item for discussion in the press every three or four years.
This seemed to appeal to a few members of the UNC Trustees and later to a few
members of the BOG. The Senate said in its minutes that:
Many
faculty members were confused as to the implication of the statement in the
Provost's memorandum of May 17, 1973, on Faculty Manpower Planning, a discussion
of an appropriate distribution among academic ranks as an appropriate ratio
of tenured to non-tenured faculty for a school. If the appropriate ratio is
considered to be above three-fourths tenured faculty, please justify your
recommendation on grounds other than existing conditions.
Some faculty members have interpreted
this statement to mean that some sort of quota system or limit to the number
of tenured positions in a given school is under consideration.
The Faculty Senate at its October
2, 1973, meeting rejected the concept of quotas on tenure and rank. The Senate
Resolution read as follows:
The Faculty
Senate believes that the justification for granting tenure should remain the
qualities and accomplishments of the individual faculty member and the best
interests of the department in question; therefore, the Senate rejects the
concept of quotas on tenure and rank since such action does not serve the
best interests of the University and threatens the future of present non-tenured
faculty. We urge the University administration not to apply any such procedure
at all. There is nothing inherently wrong with a department composed of 100
percent tenured faculty if the faculty in question performs its function at
the highest level of competence that the University can expect. Academic excellence
requires both new ideas and methodologies, which are generated by tenured
and new faculty, and long-term applications and research, which are maintained
by tenured faculty. The life-blood of any university is in its tenured professors.
The University should invest more resources in this area, including more emphasis
upon faculty retraining and the institution of a workable University-wide
off-campus work assignment.
I do not think that was Provost's
Kelly's intent. However, he did ask the deans for a lot of information about
the proportions of faculty with tenure in each department, and the ages of faculty
et cetera. I recall no discussions with Dr. Kelly about limiting tenure or a
tenure quota. At this time the new tenure policies of the BOG were established,
and we also were required to have procedures on how to handle a financial exigency.
This obviously would let faculty and others go in times of financial disaster.
Another reason was that reports had been published of a projected decline in
future college enrollments. This theme was frequently a subject in the academic
press and popular press. It would have been helpful if our personnel data base
had been adequate at that time to do the study centrally without asking the
deans, but it wasn't. I recall attending a meeting where a chancellor of an
institution gave a talk which described the proportions of professors, associate
professors, assistant professors, and instructors needed on the basis of the
numbers of graduate, senior, junior, sophomore and freshman credit hours taught
at his institution. He was a very short time Chancellor of one of our system's
institutions. While only an Associate Provost, I recall asking him if his professors
never taught freshmen and didn't he think that they should. I also think that
I told him, in polite language, that his thesis was one of the most stupid that
I had ever heard. At any rate, our procedure at NCSU continued to be to search
hard for individuals with great potential as new hires with the hope that they
would indeed gain tenure and in time the rank of full professor. An investment
in a faculty member who does not make those contributions and does not have
the qualities needed to gain tenure is costly for the institution and indeed
a waste of developmental time for the department.
Near the end of Provost Kelly's
tenure as Provost, we initiated joint and associate faculty appointments. This
was done to encourage collaborative ventures between faculty of different departments
but with some common procedures, expectations, goals and objectives. It did
stimulate faculty collaboration by encouraging more faculty to work together.
A joint appointment meant that the two departments were both involved in paying
the salary of the faculty member, and the faculty in turn had responsibilities
to both departments. For a joint appointee promotion and salary recommendations
had to come from both departments. An associate member was expected to cooperate
in ventures with the second department. In both of these cases the faculty in
the new department had to approve the new faculty member's having rank in that
department. Associate members might serve on graduate committees or other committees
or have joint research projects in the new department. Their salary increases
and promotion recommendations were limited to the department which paid them.
Opinions concerning quality of shared contributions were expected to be sought
from the associated department. Prior to this time there were faculty who were
members of more than one department; however, the rules and the responsibilities
were as variable as the relationships. Some departments encouraged joint and
associate faculty memberships. Others made it very difficult for a person from
another department to gain faculty rank and membership in their department and
did not seem to like the idea.
With Dr. Kelly's retirement we had
several instructors with master's degrees who had taught at NCSU from 10 to
15 years. All were very good teachers and most of them were female. With the
recommendations of the senior faculty they were promoted to the rank of assistant
professor for a three-year term. Dr. Kelly promised these individuals that they
would gain tenure at the end of their terms. When the time came, I proposed
these individuals for tenure without promotion, and I assumed that Dr. Kelly's
commitment would be honored. The proposal was not accepted and we had to wait
for the final year of a second term before they were tenured. Provisions under
the NCSU tenure policy did not provide for early tenure without promotion. Until
the departments really understood that this was an inflexible provision it did
cause severe disappointments for a very few faculty. Some came to us with the
expectation that time spent in rank elsewhere would count toward tenure here.
I think that the provision which had been adopted was good for the accomplishments
at NCSU and the ingredients needed as a base for a tenure decision. An example
of great disappointment in my later years was that we could not get visiting
time in rank at NCSU counted. I wish it had not been so important to the individual
because it did cause disappointment and hurt feelings. We had a faculty member
whose visa was not proper for us to award him anything except a one-year contract
as visiting associate professor. When the visa problem was cleared we appointed
him as an associate professor for a five-year term. At the conclusion of his
third year in this contract he requested that he be considered for promotion
and tenure by his department. The senior faculty recommended tenure but not
promotion. When the issue came to me I requested that they reconsider promotion
for his credentials seemed to be excellent. I would have no problem in getting
a request which included promotion approved at the BOG level. For whatever reasons
the senior faculty did not want to recommend promotion. So he did not get tenure
then, but the next year when he was in the fourth year of his five year term
he got promoted with tenure. I had tried to explain that his contract protected
him and that certainly, if the senior faculty had approved him for tenure at
this time, they would propose him the following year too. I think many considered
this to be unnecessary bureaucracy. Maybe it was. The system was very inflexible
for many years in letting us hire anyone as a new associate professor with tenure.
One day a new department head, Downey Brill of Civil Engineering, called me
and said that he had stopped by to see Dr. Dawson and talked to him about tenure
for the new associate professor that he wanted to hire. I had just told Brill
a few days earlier that tenure would be impossible to obtain and that if his
newly sought for-hire insisted on tenure, we could not get it for him. I was
somewhat (this is too mild a word) shocked that he had talked to Dr. Dawson,
but I was delighted to learn of the result. He informed me that Dr. Dawson had
told him he would approve exceptions when justified. It had been turned down
several times earlier, but I had not asked recently. We then began to hire a
few exceptional persons who were in fields where faculty were scarce, and a
few based on race and gender in fields where they were very scarce. In general
it is not wise to award tenure until the faculty member has enough on-campus
experience to know that they will succeed in the NCSU environment, but as is
true with most rules it is nice to be able to make that occasional exception.
Late during Poulton's term we found
the need for more faculty for research activities than could be obtained through
the faculty formula or from appropriations. The Colleges of Agriculture and
Life Sciences and Forestry had a way to accomplish this for research and extension
functions. We had since our first beginnings of tenure, permitted tenure to
be awarded to faculty whose salary came first from Hatch, and later from Smith-Lever
and McIntire-Stennis funding. The other schools wanted a mechanism too. We established
a rank called research professor, research associate professor, or research
assistant professor. Under the terms for rank with the prefix "Research" was
the understanding with the employees that after a specified period of time those
person would be responsible for obtaining the grants and contracts that would
pay their salaries. We had wanted to have these positions non-tenured, but under
the provisions of the NCSU tenure policies, we were not permitted this, and
Dr. Dawson did not want to take a revision of the code to the BOG for this purpose.
So we agreed (the Chancellor, the Provost, the VC for Research and all of the
school/college deans) that the establishment of the research rank would be a
good thing too when used in exceptional circumstances. We began to add a few
research faculty in the Forest Resources, Veterinary Medicine, PAMS and Engineering
Colleges whose titles were Research Professor et cetera. Most of these appointments
were at the Research Assistant Professor rank. It was agreed that we would not
use the prefix "Research" in the title of all ranks for new appointments except
these, but we would permit those few professors in the university who had the
research prefix to retain it. We agreed that we would not add it to any new
hires except for those hired on soft funds. With this approach we could then
just look at the titles and be able to see how many soft money tenured faculty
we had in a school or department without going through hand searches in the
files. The volume of such appointments were to be carefully watched so as not
to over-extend the privilege in any unit. We would expand our research staff
and add to the quality of our efforts. These full-time research faculty could
be given released time from their grant funds for any instructional efforts
that they performed and the instructional budgets would then pay them or else
reimburse the grants appropriately for these functions. These research assistant
professors and associate professors were given appropriate term appointments
as described under our tenure policy except we added to their letter of appointment
that their continuation as faculty was contingent on the sources of funds they
obtained through grants or contracts. We normally tried to be as specific as
possible in defining the sources of pay in the appointment letters, but it was
clear that if their ability to get grants to support their research and to pay
their salaries and fringe benefits was lost, then they would no longer be employed.
Provosts or Deans of the Faculty
have always had reviews with the school deans on their recommendations for promotion
and tenure. In the case of these two matters there is a prepared record for
review. At NCSU the senior faculty in a department serve as a promotion and
tenure committee and recommend those of their colleagues who will be considered.
In a few instances, and the number seems to be growing, the individual faculty
members decide when they want to be considered and these faculty prepare their
own dossiers for review. Our practice had been that the review is made by the
department's senior faculty. In most early reviews, the senior faculty have
asked that the review be undertaken. The idea may come from the department head
and today it sometimes comes at the request of the individual faculty member.
I did not want to get the materials prepared by the faculty member who was under
consideration for promotion. I wanted not just a presentation of the facts of
background and accomplishment as viewed by the candidate for promotion, but
an assessment of the faculty member's credentials from the perspectives of the
quality of teaching, research, extension and service of the faculty member to
the department, school and university. I always felt that the best source of
this assessment came from the judgment of the senior faculty in the department.
If I did not get an assessment and value judgment from them, I was not likely
to get any other informed judgment. They could extend their sources to include
assessments by outsiders on research and extension and for teaching by students
and the advisers of students who took classes under these faculty. At NCSU the
department head usually prepared the promotion and tenure document. Central
committees and the Provost rarely have the ability to read and comprehend backgrounds
from all fields and to make qualitative judgments. Qualitative judgments are
what is needed in promotion and tenure decisions. I had sat on school and university
review panels and had seen cases when only one, or frequently none of the reviewers
had a sufficient background to assess the quality of what was presented. Who
could read the papers attached and tell whether they were good? So I wanted
to avoid the tendency to weigh or to count or to look for the pretty presentation
of the material. I always felt that I did not have the experience. I needed
the material submitted to convince me that the work of this person was of sufficient
quality to justify the proposed action. I remember one prospective faculty candidate
whom I interviewed who brought along the material that he prepared for his promotion
at his home institution to show me. I told the young man that I did not want
to see what he had prepared, for I did not have the ability to say whether it
was good or bad. I suggested that if he had not prepared it he probably could
have published another major paper or to have at least had the time to do the
research to be ready to write another paper now. He looked at me with surprise
and said that he hoped that he would get an offer from NCSU and if he did that
he would accept it, and he did.
The statement of Academic Freedom
and the ranks used and the requirements of each for appointment, promotion and
tenure can be found in several sections of the latest Faculty Handbook
(the 1988 edition).
Named
Professors
In 1959 there were seven named professors
in the School of Engineering, thirteen in Agriculture, four in Textiles, and
two in Forestry. Each of these were supported by endowments that provided salary
supplements. Today there are many more of these named professors. In 1959, Shirley
served on a committee for the UNC system which came up with guidelines for named
professor positions. This was implemented, but on June 20, 1960, that policy
was modified slightly for NCSC. Caldwell stated the following guidelines and
procedures for named professors.
To insure
that only men of real stature are so recognized, the distinction of the candidate
must be measured against:
1. All the members of the department
to which he is to be assigned. He must clearly be the outstanding scholar and
teacher in the department, or of distinction equal to that of other named professors
in that department. 2. The whole faculty of the institution.
The quality of these men must be such that they command the respect and admiration
of the general faculty of the institution and the University. 3. The community of scholars
of the nation and the world. Named professors should be favorably known to scholars
in their fields beyond the University and the State and the Region. Active participation
and recognition in the professional societies and organizations of the nation
will normally be expected of men of this distinction.
The procedure was to have the dean
of the school notify the Chancellor when such a position became vacant and that
dean would appoint a committee with the Chancellor's approval. During Thomas'
term as Chancellor, he delegated to the Provost the responsibility to review
and to give the dean approval of the committee's membership. This process continues
today. Nominations would be open to faculty. The dean would then present his
and the committee's recommendation to the Chancellor, the Dean of the Faculty
(Provost), and the Dean of the Graduate School. The Chancellor after consultation
with those two, accepted or rejected the dean's recommendation. During Chancellor
Thomas' term the Dean (Vice Chancellor) for Research was added to the list of
the Chancellor's consultants. The appointment then went to the Trustees, and
after the Board of Governors came into existence, if there was a salary increase
involved (and it usually was), it went to the BOG.
The process has changed based on
the recommendation of the Senate and school deans. The committee which the dean
recommends and the Chancellor (Provost) approves:
is to
consist of no fewer than three or more than five persons. The membership of
the committee shall be persons, no one of whom would himself be under consideration
for the position. The members shall be active or emeritus professors of North
Carolina State University or of another faculty of the University, although
the committee may include one or more members of some faculty outside of the
University. The members of the committee shall be persons who would have knowledge,
and judgment in the field of scholarship of the named professorship.
Ample opportunity shall be provided
for members of all departments concerned to nominate to the Dean's committee
any person in the world of scholarship thought to be worthy of the position
without regard to his known availability. The committee may consider persons
nominated by members of the committee itself. The committee shall procure essential
information on the teaching, and research qualifications of the nominees.
In 1986 the process was very similar
except that it was called Professorships of Distinction. It also stated that:
"The selection process described shall not apply to special award professorships."
Special award professorships were defined to include only those professorships
which are for a defined term, an example being the Alumni Distinguished Professorships.
The alumni professorships were always chosen by an entirely different process,
and there have come into being several other award professorships in the various
schools. There was also added the following category: "In special circumstances
where the conditions of an endowment require special procedures of filling an
Endowed Professorship, these procedures may be amended by the Chancellor."
The Professorships in a particular
school are selected by the previously described processes, and the initial committees
are appointed by the dean with the concurrence of the Provost. These make up
a majority of the named professorships. Committees to nominate University Professors
that have not been allocated to be appointed only in a specific program or school/college
are appointed by the Provost after consultation with the Chancellor, the Vice
Chancellor for Research and the Dean of the Graduate School. This trio reviews
the proposals from schools/colleges to determine which unit will make the search
for the next University Professor except for those limited to a specific field.
They then make their recommendations to the Chancellor. In all cases of University
Professors, the Provost will make certain to appoint a committee to review the
credentials of prospects to determine that they indeed meet the qualifications
for a University Professor.
We established the title of Distinguished
Visiting Scholar in 1990. These were to be members of the national academies
or organizations of similar distinction who came to NCSU after their retirement
at other institutions. Committees for the review of their credentials were appointed
by the Provost. We now have two such scholars. These two would probably have
been appointed as adjunct faculty in departments if we had not have the Distinguished
Visiting Scholar title. In this way we have received a far more beneficial and
intimate association with each. These and the University Professors, make up
the Council of University Professors. This council was established at the request
of several University Professors who felt that we were not using them adequately
except in their departmental and college functions, and the recommendation was
liked very much by Chancellor Poulton. The idea was that we should from time
to time seek the council of this distinguished group of scholars on subjects
of interest and concern and especially in areas of scholarship. The council
may also discuss areas about which they want to advise the Chancellor and Provost.
The Chancellor and Provost met with the Council about once a semester while
I was Provost. In some cases the Provost attended additional meetings. These
faculty sometimes came to see me individually for a cup of coffee and to offer
me their advice.
Members of the Council of University
Professors are members of the faculty in their departments and are expected
to serve as role models and are , if funded from academic affairs budgets, to
do some teaching at both the undergraduate and the graduate levels. It was not
expected that they would carry a full teaching load, but they were to provide
scholarly leadership in their departments and colleges. Some of these professors
were likely to be appointed to serve on a variety of special and ad hoc
committees as needed by University administrators or by the college deans.
University Professorships have come
from several sources. The first five were from a special Legislative appropriation
to enable us to bring some additional distinguished scholars to our campus.
They were allocated, with two to the School of Engineering, two to PAMS and
one to SALS for biology. When vacated these positions were to continue to be
allocated in Engineering and in the Sciences (including math), but the administration
was free to assign them to other departments. Each time that a member of our
faculty is elected into the National Academy of Science or the National Academy
of Engineering the Provost appoints a committee to review their credentials
for a University Professorship. Faculty elected to other organizations of similar
distinction could also be nominated for consideration. Another group was added
when the University (Chancellor Poulton was the primary driver and originator
of this appropriation) received an appropriation for three positions in biotechnology
and for four additional high technology positions. These last were accompanied
by an annual appropriation of $250,000 each, which was to pay the salaries and
the fringe benefits. Any remaining funds were for support. Most of these have
grown in value because of salary increases received by the professors who held
these positions. We (the Chancellor, Provost, Vice Chancellor for Research and
the Dean of the Graduate School) received applications from the schools which
suggested potential nominees and reasons why we should assign these positions
to a school or program. The positions were expected to be filled by members
of the national academies. They were allocated to chemical engineering, computer
engineering, computer science and to biotechnology (animal science). The position
in computer engineering, in so far as I can tell, had never been filled and
the position in chemical engineering was vacant in 1993. The three biotechnology
positions which were appropriated included salaries and some support but were
not at the high support levels mentioned earlier. These were allocated after
review to chemical engineering, botany and microbiology. The microbiologist
had not been proposed for membership as a University Professor in 1993 and was
initially hired at the associate professor level. In recent years another group
of distinguished professors has come into being with incentives provided by
the Legislature and by industry. These are the "million dollar chairs." This
means that they are supported by endowments of one million dollars each. Most
of the salary and a head count position was provided by the school deans or
the Provost with some funds for salary coming from the endowment also. Two of
these were given to the University in such a way that any unit on campus was
eligible for them, the Moore and the Friday Professorships. Each of these million
dollar endowed chairs is eligible for consideration for membership in the Council
of University Professors. In 1993 only one of these had been nominated and selected
for membership. This was the Kobe Steel Professorship filled by Professor Robert
Davis. From time to time we have a very distinguished scholar who may be nominated
for membership in the council. These may continue to occupy their current positions
as do most members of the national academy members. At times, and in one case
of a National Academy of Science member, a position was created by the Provost.
Each of these are reviewed by a special committee appointed by the Provost.
Not all nominated to become a University Professor have been made a University
Professor and a member of the Council. In 1993 three present or former members
of the Council had been chosen by this route.
On December 13, 1977, a policy was
established for the appointment of Distinguished Extension Specialists. Those
appointed so far are the Phillip Morris Specialists in SALS. There are three
of these.
The awards to professors for whatever
reason, and the Alumni Distinguished Professorships, have meant a lot to the
University because they finally gave us the ability to recognize excellence
in teaching, research and extension with a financial recognition in addition
to a certificate. At first, in 1968, the Alumni Professors were awarded only
to teachers of undergraduate students. These awards were for $2000 a year for
five years. In time the number of awards increased. We all agreed we had so
many excellent teachers that it would be better to give more awards each year.
The length of the award was changed to three years. The Alumni Association increased
the funding too and added an award for excellence in graduate teaching. Once
a person is named as an Alumni Distinguished Professor, they retain the title
until retirement.
The named professors, named extension
specialists, University professors, the million dollar chairs, the awards to
special professors, and the distinguished scholars all have been very valuable
to us in attracting and keeping our faculty. They have enabled us to be better
in all that we do in teaching, research and extension at NCSU. With these as
with all other appointments or title changes, the Chancellor signs the appointment
letters.
Teaching,
Research and Extension Faculty
One of the first functions assigned
to the new Dean of the Faculty by Chancellor Bostian in 1955 was oversight of
the teaching function. This was done in part to look at teaching loads to provide
a better basis to allocate new positions. No mention was made at this time about
responsibility for allocating these new positions. In a statistical report in
1958, the average full-time faculty teaching load was described as 14 credit
hours. Later while Kelly was Provost, the full time faculty load was usually
described as three courses. In addition, an increasing number of faculty were
expected to contribute to research and/or scholarship. For faculty who were
not involved in scholarship and research the described load was 12 credit hours
per semester. Both groups were expected to render service to the department,
school and to the University. Of course there have always been some large classes.
At times there might be three or more full time equivalent faculty teaching
a single course to a few hundred students. In these cases several faculty equivalents
might be teaching full time on one course of three or four credit hours, and
shown on such a record as teaching one-third or one-fourth of a course. To explain
the range and each type of example, always took too much time and might get
misinterpreted. I could imagine seeing a newspaper headline that might say there
are teachers at NCSU who do not teach a whole course.
Over the years there have been complaints
about poor teaching and large classes. In 1959 a letter to the Technician
created a stir on and off-campus. The references were to several departments
in the physical sciences and in engineering. It turned out that the letter was
fictitious. At least there was no such student enrolled at NCSC. We had then
and continued to have some large classes, but we also had many small classes.
Some but not all of the large classes had smaller laboratory, discussion or
review sections. Most large sections are not bad educational experiences for
students, and some small sections are not well taught. I am sure that the current
practice of a mixture of large and small classes will continue. I do know that
we were concerned about the size of composition classes and wanted them to be
small enough for the instructor to have individual time with each student both
in and out of the scheduled class time. We did not wish to continue the high
school practice of individual teachers having so many students and papers to
grade that they could not give adequate attention to the problems of each student
after the papers were graded. Of course there never has been an educational
rationale that all subjects should have classes of similar sizes. Individual
teachers may be very good in large sections and so valuable that more students
should have the opportunity to be taught by that teacher. Unfortunately all
large classes are not taught by such teachers, but most are. We did encourage
departments to move those who were less effective in large classes to the teaching
of other smaller classes. In turn, teachers of large classes usually had graders
and certainly would not teach the same number of sections if they were to be
accessible to students outside of the scheduled class time In other words, uniformity
or equality of work-load is not definable, but it is also educationally very
undesirable if interpreted to mean the same number of classes, sections or numbers
of students taught.
Shirley was responsible for enhancing
the faculty quality and reviewing all appointments. He soon began to interview
most new faculty appointments. This practice was continued until several years
after I became Provost. While I was Assistant Provost, Chancellor Caldwell asked
Kelly to have me interview all instructors who were expected to enter the tenure
tracks. At least faculty of the rank of assistant professor and above were interviewed
by the Provost or one of his assistants whether they were to be involved in
teaching, research, extension or any combinations of these functions. In most
cases when the interviewee was to be a professor, a department head or an assistant
dean, the Chancellor also interviewed the candidates. Later he came to interview
only the final candidates for department head and assistant dean positions.
He continued to interview all candidates for named professorships, major directors
and deans. For many years the Chancellors usually had separate interviews. At
other times and when possible, to save the interviewee's time, we had joint
interviews until Chancellor Poulton began to interview only the final candidate
for these several positions. My staff and I continued to interview all the faculty,
assistant dean, dean and vice chancellor candidates who came to campus. At times
I was asked to interview assistant and associate vice chancellor candidates.
The numbers of faculty nominees
became too large for the Dean of the Faculty to interview them all. When I became
Assistant Provost I interviewed the assistant professors and if I was unavailable
Mr. Simpson interviewed them, as he sometimes had before I joined Kelly's staff.
When I became Provost these became the responsibility of Dr. Downs and Dr. Clark.
The numbers of assistant professors became large and the amount of other work
that had to be done grew too fast. So they dropped the interviews of assistant
professors and began to interview only the associate professors unless there
was a special request by the hiring department or dean. When Dr. Witherspoon
joined our staff he also interviewed some of the associate professors. By then
I interviewed only the professor and administrator candidates. I still think
that interviewing all faculty candidates was of benefit. When I interviewed
all of the assistant professors I knew at least a little bit about all of the
new faculty, what they were interested in, and what they wanted to accomplish.
They also felt that they knew me, Downs or Clark, for they had met someone from
the University administration. When Monteith became Chancellor he indicated
to me that he would continue the practice set by Poulton of interviewing only
the final candidate for department head, assistant dean and University Professor
positions.
Students have always had a keen
interest and desire to evaluate the teaching faculty. The first such University-wide
evaluation was started under Provost Kelly. A committee of faculty developed
an instrument to evaluate the effectiveness of teaching and an instrument for
course evaluation. The instruments were simple and their use was strongly encouraged
for several years. Groups of students used this information from computer printouts
along with other information in deciding which faculty to recommend as new members
of the Academy of Outstanding Teachers. The individual faculty evaluations went
to the department head but not to the school dean or Provost. Each faculty member
received a copy of the instrument's summary for the courses that they taught.
Most faculty also asked for and got written comments from the students enrolled
in their classes. One time a student on the committee to select Outstanding
Teachers took the information from the computer printout and published anonymously
in the Technician a list of faculty with the lowest scores on a single
summary question on teaching. The headline read something similar to "The 99
Worst Teachers at NCSU." This created an uproar, for he also published each
person's salary too. These were available at that time to the public in a State
governmental office. Of course the questionnaire was not designed to rate the
quality of teachers on this question only. Even on this one question many listed
had received a rating over 7.0 on a 1 to 10 scale. Our students gave our teachers
better grades than the teachers gave the students. According to the scale a
rating of five was supposed to be average, and very few faculty were rated that
low. The average score on the summary question was well above seven each year.
This Technician story caused a loss of confidence by the faculty in the
questionnaire and in its confidentiality. We had a great debate on campus about
evaluation, and a number of faculty no longer wished to participate. Many of
the faculty had never liked the instrument, but we still felt there was a need
for student input into the evaluation process. With the advice of the Faculty
and Student Senates, our next step was to have the departments devise their
own evaluation procedures and to have a copy of them on record with the Provost.
This effort was coordinated by Dr. Downs. We continued to encourage evaluation
each semester.
Some faculty would not be evaluated
by the students. I recall one teacher who got no merit salary increase who complained
to me. I told him that I had reviewed his case with the dean and his increase
was based on the supposed poor quality of his teaching. He showed me a few letters
from students, all written in several different semesters about an upper level
course, which indicated that he was good. He did not have all of the students
participate in the evaluation of that course and none in any of his other courses.
The department head had told both the dean and me that he had advised the faculty
member that the only things that he had to use in evaluating his teaching were
student complaints. They were numerous, universally bad, and he had not one
good report to use.
At a later time the students became
unhappy with the evaluation process of the departments and decided to do their
own evaluation. We supported them, but they had to do all the work in sending
out the questionnaires, collecting them, and getting the results published.
We had the Computer Center score the evaluations, summarize them, and do the
analysis that the students wanted. The students soon found after only a few
years that this was a lot of hard work and that the evaluations did not change
much from year to year. They soon lost interest and discontinued the project.
It was at about this time that the
Faculty Senate realized that the subject of teaching evaluation and improvement
was not only very important, but it also took up a lot of the Senate's time.
They proposed that a standing committee be appointed and that any policy proposals
developed by the committee come back to the Senate before they were acted upon.
We did this, and the Teaching Effectiveness and Evaluation Committee was established.
It advised the Provost on policies and programs for the enhancement of teaching.
It conducted a major survey of the effectiveness of TAs, advised on the selection
of mini-grants for innovative teaching and for computing grants, designed the
first Teacher Handbook and it recommended and monitored the procedures
for the selection of Outstanding Teachers. It was in the mid eighties that the
Teaching Effectiveness and Evaluation Committee began to organize an orientation
session for new faculty just before the beginning of each fall semester, which
emphasized excellence in teaching. These were coordinated by Dr. Downs and the
committee with assistance from the associate deans of academic affairs in the
schools. Some of our truly great teachers have been involved. This committee
also was the review committee for the mini-grants awarded to teachers. The role
of teaching evaluations is discussed further in the Rank and Tenure section
of this chapter.
Our students, their parents and
others complained about the accents of foreign faculty and teaching assistants.
There are letters and newspaper stories in the files. We did have many foreign
born teachers. In certain fields, if we had no foreign born faculty, we would
not have an adequate number faculty to teach. Students have complained about
any accent, even those of the persons from England, Canada or Australia. I guess
that it was tough for students to realize that some of the accents of certain
areas of our state of North Carolina are also difficult to understand. The majority
of foreign born faculty have been in those fields that do not produce enough
doctorates in this country to fill the available positions in universities.
At NCSU these have been in math, engineering and in some science and applied
science fields. We have a few foreign born faculty in most areas of the University
and this has been educationally sound and good for us. At times they are among
the very best qualified persons in their scholarly fields in the world. The
accent as a serious problem rarely exists, and certainly not nearly as much
as the students and the newspapers make it out to be. There seems to be a revival
of complaints every few years. I recall one example of a father calling President
Friday to complain about our foreign faculty who could not speak English and
he also complained about the poor quality of faculty advisers. President Friday
gave me the name of the student and the course and wanted me to call him back
with the results of my inquiry. I looked into the accusations and called the
President back, but he decided that he would rather I called the father with
the detailed and complicated message. This is the story. The student was in
a course in engineering with a foreign born teacher. The department head said
that he had never before had a complaint about this teacher's accent. I continued
to look into the advising accusation. It seemed that the student had a B.S.
from another university and wanted to enter graduate school at NCSU in the fall.
Although he was not a student here the faculty member looked at the student's
transcript and found several deficiencies in the student's background. He advised
the student to take specific math and physics courses in each of the two sessions
of summer school and then he would be prepared to take a very fast 400 level
course in the fall which would enable him to make up the deficiency of two other
undergraduate engineering courses. He told him that if he did well in that course
then he would recommend that the graduate school admit him into the desired
MS degree program. He told me that he had spent a large amount of time studying
the transcript and talking to the young man on at least two occasions. The young
man flunked the 400 level course and told his father he couldn't understand
the foreign teacher and that was why he flunked the course. He told his father
that almost all of the students in the course flunked. Upon further checking
we found that he was the only student who failed the course. The student had
taken none of the math and physics courses in summer school. He hadn't enrolled
for any courses in summer school. He had no trouble with the teacher's accent,
but he was so unprepared for the course he couldn't understand the vocabulary
of the course, much less be able to work the problems assigned. I called the
father and the father said, "I don't believe you, but I'll find out." In a few
hours he called back and apologized for his son's behavior, for the trouble
he had caused and for falsely accusing us on two counts. I don't know what happened
to his son, but based on his discussion with me, I'll bet that it wasn't pleasant.
Over the years many changes have
been made in our grading systems, and these are described in Chapter Two. I
doubt if any of these changes have substantially improved learning or teaching.
Effective teaching occurs when learning occurs. Learning appears to occur when
the students are enrolled in a class for which they have the appropriate background,
skills and prerequisites, and if the student is sufficiently motivated to put
out the necessary effort required to learn that subject. Teachers can encourage
motivation and they can discourage it. There is ample evidence that a teacher's
attitude toward students does enhance learning and that remarks that degrade
a student, whether based on race, gender or any other things, can discourage
student learning. Of course knowledge of the subject by the teacher is essential,
and if it is presented in an interesting manner and organized in a learnable
way, student learning is enhanced.
Most research faculty have traditionally
been appointed to 12 month positions. The summer is essential to do field research
in programs in agriculture and forestry. Faculty in many others areas of the
University do research in the summer, but they are not appointed on research
budgets and their salaries are paid from grants and contracts in the summer.
In 1982 the issue of whether or not the 12 month appointment was a right came
up. The issue was whether the faculty on partial research or on full time research
and now on a 12 month research appointment could be placed on a nine month basis.
I said:
It has
always been this institutions understanding that regardless of whether or
not a faculty member has permanent tenure, an appointment can be changed from
a 12 to a 9 month basis from one year to the next depending upon various circumstances.
To state the proposition more directly, the fact that a faculty member received
a 12 month appointment at the time he or she was notified that permanent tenure
was effective does not constitute a promise by the University that the individual
will have a 12 month appointment until he or she retires or resigns. The term
of appointment can be changed annually just as the faculty member's salary
can.
We began to change contracts in
some schools and faculty were converted to a nine month basis. The faculty members
who were not productive in research were returned to a nine month basis with
only an appropriate salary increase on the nine month base salary and were rewarded
for the quality of their teaching and service. In other cases we had very grossly
underpaid excellent faculty and did not have the funds to make adequate salary
adjustments. In these cases we gave the faculty member sufficient time to obtain
grants that would pay their summer salaries and used a substantial portion of
their current 12 month salaries to increase the nine month base. This practice
was used extensively in Textiles, and for all of the budgeted 12 month research
faculty in engineering and PAMS. It was used to a lesser extent in Forest Resources.
I recall no person being converted in SALS or in Forest Resources who were paid
from Experiment Station or Extension Service funds.
In 1977 the Legislature required
that a study of faculty work loads be conducted by the Board of Governors with
a report to the General Assembly no later than February 1, 1979. It was pointed
out in a memorandum of October 19, 1977, from Roger Fites, Chairman of the Faculty
Senate, who attended the meeting with VP Dawson, that such a study had been
conducted in 26 states at the request of other legislatures. The reason for
the North Carolina study was that the Legislators did not know what faculty
did because they had a contact hours in the classroom view of full time work.
It was really railroaded through by one legislator who seemed to have a dislike
for universities, and especially faculty. He definitely did not think that they
worked very much. Dawson said: "There have been a number of studies that have
attempted to elicit the reasons for what many consider to be Legislative intrusion
into the realm of faculty work." Fites wrote to the Faculty Senate members explaining
the rationale. He goes on in that memorandum to say that most studies had shown
the faculty to work on the average from 55 to 60 hours per week at their jobs.
When we did our study our faculty fell into this range too. The study did make
a lot of work. Dr. Dawson selected a typical week and had every faculty member
in the UNC system record what they were doing during this week. I don't think
that this ever satisfied certain legislators because the question continued
to come up with an inference that the faculty didn't work enough. It was nice
to be able to refer to the study from time to time, so it was worth something.
Just before I retired the Legislature also wanted another work load study. We
were fortunate in this instance because they were satisfied with a sample of
institutions and NCSU was not asked to participate.
Every year we had a report from
Institutional Research that gave the credit and contact hours taught in each
department by course level and with a total of both undergraduate hours and
graduate hours. We also had the average number of each per full time equivalent
faculty position assigned to the department. After computerization these calculations
were easier. We could and did obtain this information for every course. In this
way we could look up specific information about each course or section taught
by every faculty member. I recall when I was teaching Biological Science 100,
I was concerned that the grades in one laboratory section were very good and
in another they were very poor. I asked through channels to find out what the
average grades of students in each section were in other courses taken by these
students earlier at NCSU. I found that by the luck of the draw I had one laboratory
filled with students with good GPAs and in the other with much poorer GPAs.
I began to offer the poorer performing section extra help and time. Their grades
did improve some with the extra time, but they were not as good as those in
the other section.
The credit hour summary data was
very useful in faculty position allocations and will be discussed in Chapter
Five in the section on Budget Allocation.
The individual course data was used less frequently but occasionally for specific
complaints of students or to provide information to faculty. We did use this
information to determine which courses or sections of courses flunked the most
freshmen. This has been discussed earlier in Chapter Two in the section on Advising.
For many years it was required that
all faculty attend graduation. To miss it required the approval of the Chancellor.
With time it came to be a large matter to review requests for absences. Many
more faculty were absent without having requested approval. So the approval
process was delegated to the school deans. It does little good to have the Chancellor
approving something when no one pays attention. It soon became obvious that
most faculty were not in attendance and were not getting approval to be absent
from the deans either. When we looked at the school procedures in 1986, only
the Dean of Veterinary Medicine was still requiring faculty to attend or to
get approval not to attend. So we changed the rule and began to just encourage
faculty to attend. With this voluntary process as many attended as before and
we still had almost all of the seats in the coliseum assigned for faculty filled.
If all had attended we could not have seated them in the faculty section. It
was embarrassing to the School of Design students and the School Dean one year,
for Chancellor Poulton to ask all of the faculty in the schools to stand at
graduation when degrees were awarded to undergraduates from each school. There
was only one faculty member, Bob Burns, from the School of Design present. From
that time on there were at least a few more Design faculty at the general graduation
exercises.
In the late eighties there were
many national stories claiming that professors at research universities didn't
teach undergraduates. The Raleigh News & Observer naturally followed
suit and assigned a reporter to do a story locally. On our campus we had just
completed a survey which showed that almost all of the faculty except those
budgeted against organized research and extension funds, taught undergraduates.
A very large proportion in those departments which offered freshmen and sophomore
courses also taught freshmen and sophomores. The reporter was given a lot of
information from this report by me when he called, but he expected a propaganda
line from me and wanted to get the "facts" from the teachers and students. I
suggested that he talk to faculty in the Senate, and to persons in PAMS and
CHASS, the colleges which teach the majority of freshman and sophomore courses.
I even suggested that he talk to Dr. Abraham Holtzman, a professor of distinction,
who had just been named in the prior year as one of the nation's best teachers
and had won an award as North Carolina's top undergraduate college teacher.
When the story came out in the News &Observer it involved mostly
conversations with Duke and UNC-CH. There was a discussion with Holtzman, however
I would never have figured out from the story that he taught at the undergraduate
level. The story reported what the national stories had shown but did not reflect
at all what our professors were doing at NCSU. Since NCSU has become a nationally
prominent research university the press consistently equates all the triangle
universities as if they were all peas in the same pod and that the pod has only
one pea.
With the exception of SALS, Forest
Resources, and to a lesser extent Textiles, there are very few faculty hired
from Organized Research and Organized Extension budget funds. In SALS there
are more faculty lines or positions from each of those two sources than there
are from the Instruction-Departmental Research budget. In SALS and Forestry
there are a large number of faculty who are paid from only one of the three
sources. There also are many faculty who may be paid from two or more sources.
It is not unusual for a member to be paid from extension and research funds
or instructional and research funds, or from other combinations of funds with
the commensurate responsibilities. In each case the faculty member has responsibility
in the proportion of his/her budgeted salary to perform in the various areas.
Research faculty normally did not teach except when budgeted against instructional
funds. They did have graduate students and supervised their research and served
on graduate student advisory committees. As the years have passed more extension
personnel are performing these functions. Some of both advised undergraduates
but did so on a voluntary basis. Similarly extension personnel have taught at
both on and off-campus sites and at times have taught courses for credit. However,
most of these offerings were non-credit instructional courses or short courses.
In later years extension personnel have begun to do much testing of research
findings at a variety of sites and to do more and more applied research. In
Textiles the organized research lines were usually split with instructional
or extension lines. A few extension lines were full time, however many other
textile faculty taught some off-campus extension credit and short courses on
an overload basis. In Engineering most extension lines were full-time. In Education
and CHASS the few lines were part-time with instruction. In these two colleges
a person might be on extension for only a short time and then others would be
assigned to these functions. In Engineering some organized research lines were
full time, but those few lines that existed in all of the other schools were
used on a part time basis with instruction or for release time.
When I came to NCSU in 1953 the
work week was for five and one-half days. In 1957 there was a survey to determine
whether we would change from a day that started at 8:30 and lasted until 5:30
for five days a week. Neither faculty or staff wanted that change. I don't know
when we changed to an eight to five workday for five days a week, but we did.
Later we provided where it was possible, opportunity for the staff to use flex
time. Many did change based on their individual home and sometimes child care
circumstances. In the Provost's Office we had a number of staff who came at
7:00 and left at 4:00. Other who had to drop off children might arrive at 8:30
or even 9:00. The faculty hours and work days were quite variable. The faculty
were theoretically at work all of the time. I have known of professors who worked
on a sensitive experiment for a continuous 24 hour period or longer. It was
expected that they would in turn take off a similar amount of time because we
did not pay a faculty member for overtime.
You will find faculty and their
various functions discussed in much greater detail in almost all of the other
sections of this history.
Professional
EPA Faculty Who Hold No Academic Rank
From the appointment of Shirley
until Hart left the Provost's Office there were disagreements with the State
Personnel System about whether professional staff who hold no faculty professorial
academic rank should be classified as EPA. After Kelly became the Dean of the
Faculty the issue was raised about the EPA status of librarians. In 1964 the
Administrative Council of the Consolidated Office determined that they were
EPA and that they should have faculty status.
On November 22, 1957, there was
correspondence which clarified that the campuses would have responsibility for
positions involved in teaching and research. Precise definitions were not included
for either function, and that was probably intentional. One major basis for
disagreement was what comprised the two functions. NCSU and the UNC-Chapel Hill
campus tended to make our own decisions and to treat the definitions broadly.
I believe that all of the other campuses of the old UNC consolidated system
capitulated eons ago. We always considered those doing extension work as teachers
and researchers, and they are. Many areas of Student Affairs provide teaching,
primarily but not entirely, in the form of non-credit instruction. They also
frequently provide counseling and advising which are components of the teaching
function. Our definitions would include EPA personnel in admissions, financial
aid, registration, student center, crafts, institutional planners and researchers
and other similar types. The issue was raised after Caldwell came in 1960 with
no conclusion, at least I found none in the files, but NCSC continued to follow
the same practices as before. A very important area for us were research assistants,
research associates (the SPA system has the same titles) and post-doctorates
where personnel do research on a grant or in projects which might be State supported,
but they are not the major investigators and they do not have a professorial
rank. The ability to make quick decisions with only simple job descriptions
enabled us to hire such employees as soon as a grant was funded, even on the
same day if necessary. This flexibility rather than having the positions classified
(we believed improperly) in some SPA job descriptions, has been fundamental
to our ability to deliver quickly on research and other types of grants which
provide us with the majority of our funds for graduate student support, for
cost of research and for the salaries of many personnel including many who are
and should be SPA personnel and for graduate student stipends. I used the concept
of an individual's doing independent research rather than having to be supervised,
to separate these categories of personnel. The only job description that I was
interested in receiving was that the person was to do research in civil engineering,
textile chemistry, or whatever field was involved. The SPA system wanted a complete
job description in the format of SPA forms to study the description to determine
if the positions should be SPA or EPA before it was filled.
The most difficult group to defend
was that group of employees in the areas of Public Affairs and Development.
The issues regarding these and many other individuals were raised in 1964 when
Dr. William Turner the Business Manager, argued that:
There
are, at this time, a relatively small group of employees at NC State who are
neither faculty nor subject to the Personnel Act. This group includes librarians,
student counselors, editors, and others who are closely allied to teaching
and research. They are making substantial contributions to the objectives
of the University; yet there has been considerable confusion regarding the
long-run status of these positions. They are currently budgeted and administered
as positions exempt from the Personnel Act. The Personnel Department, however,
on several occasions has reviewed the duties and responsibilities of these
positions, apparently with the intent of incorporating them into its classification
plan.
We submit that there are many of
our higher-level professional positions that should be exempt form the Personnel
Act even though faculty rank may never be assigned thereto. Non-faculty EPA
positions should include those now in the so-called gray area, plus a relatively
few that are now subject to the Personnel Act. The recognition of a third category,
identified as Academic Professionals, would eliminate the "gray" list. A more
liberal interpretation of that portion of the Personnel Act which exempts employees
from its provisions and controls would be most helpful. In another portion of Turner's memorandum,
he states: The problem is accentuated by the
fact that these employees must work shoulder to shoulder with all academic administrators
on campus. These employees are charged with responsibility and authority that
require them to hold their own with deans, directors and department heads. The
area of their responsibility crossed all organizational lines. The level of
concern embraces judgments and decisions which affect directly all management
and operational activities of the university.
I saw no response in the files to
Turner's memorandum, but NCSU continued to operate on the same basis as before.
In these cases these employees are significant administrators and in our view
need to be EPA because of the status needed to work in both on and off-campus
settings. These and the other positions have always been EPA going back at least
to the days of Harrelson. We felt that a change and movement into the SPA Classification
arena would cripple our efforts.
During the later years of my term
as Provost there was a constant effort to have more of the other EPA staff positions
reviewed for SPA status by the State Personnel System. This continued throughout
Provost Hart's term. The effort included getting position descriptions for review
by the Personnel System before we would set up or fill the position. These professionals
would determine whether the positions would be EPA or SPA. For the last several
years the UNC staff represented by Dr. Raymond Dawson and later by Dr. William
Little joined into the fray to see if the issues could be resolved. I took the
EPA lists of our employees as provided from the General Administration computers,
excluding those with faculty rank, senior administrators and the librarians,
and prepared a justification which was jotted down on the list on the basis
or our criteria and the functions of the position as provided to us by the holders
of the positions. They were classified when I did the project to include those
that taught, did research or fit otherwise into the system. I performed this
function a second time using some of Dr. Dawson's suggestions. Dr. Hart performed
this same function again. I do not believe that as of July 1, 1993, they had
resolved any of the issues. Of course, senior administrators have always been
excluded from oversight by the State Personnel System.
On October 20, 1988, Chancellor
Poulton wrote to Mr. Richard V. Lee, the Head of State Personnel. I will quote
a part of the letter. "I met with my colleagues here and expressed to them your
concern that we are disadvantaging some people by wrongly classifying them as
EPAs, and I cited some of the examples you gave me. I expressed to them your
concern that we might be creating a legal problem for ourselves."
Legal counsel says in reality everyone
who works at North Carolina State University should be exempt from the personnel
act. Her brief is as follows:
The statutes
clearly state that the Board of Governors have the sole responsibility for
defining the Mission of North Carolina State University. The Board of Governors
have, in fact, defined that mission in writing, and it is a mission that speaks
only to teaching and research. The statutes clearly exempt from the personnel
act those persons who are involved in teaching and research. North Carolina
State University's full spectrum of activities relate to teaching and research.
We have no activities at this University that are not mission related. That
is to say, we have no non-related business activities at North Carolina State
University, although I realize such activities do exist at some universities.
In summary, a combination of statutes
and trustees' policies really dictate that everyone who is employed by North
Carolina State University is employed for the purpose of providing programs
of teaching and research, and therefore all of our employees qualify for exemption
from the State Personnel Act. I will be interested in your reaction,
and if you would like to go to lunch again, let me know.
I think that they did have lunch
again, but I did not see a response to that letter, and the debate continued.
We have a large number of EPA positions
that do not carry faculty rank. It had been our practice, at least under Kelly,
Hart and myself to provide them with the same benefits and privileges as the
faculty with rank except that these employees were not eligible for the TIAA-CREF
retirement option. This was changed in 1990 for the Librarians when they became
eligible. These EPA personnel did not earn tenure and were not appointed to
terms. Unless otherwise indicated in their appointment letters, they were considered
as permanent employees. Most persons employed from soft-money sources did have
conditions applied.
In 1976 Chancellor Thomas approved
a proposal by the committee appointed to study the employment status of individuals
holding professional appointments without faculty rank. This provided for the
establishment of appointment terms. Our campus liked these provisions very much.
Many of the units developed a system of term appointments with reviews, and
a system of reappointments. Others units such as Extension and Student Affairs
did not establish a term system. On January 18, 1979, President Friday sent
to the Chancellors a draft of policies for non-faculty positions not subject
to the State Personnel Act. There was great concern and disagreement on our
campus with the content of this proposal. On February 2, 1979, Chancellor Thomas
wrote to President Friday and proposed that Dr. Banks Talley and Dr. Clauston
Jenkins (Dr. Jenkins had left us earlier and gone to Law School at UNC-CH and
was now NCSU's University Attorney) serve on the committee to study the new
personnel policies. He said, "Since we have almost half of the total participants
in this category on our campus, I believe it would be appropriate to have both
of these individuals serve. I remain very concerned about development of these
policies and fearful of the inevitable results."
After considerable study that committee
recommended a format of privileges for these employees. That policy as it applied
to NCSU was passed on May 22, 1979, by the NCSU Board of Trustees. The most
significant change was that new employees would gain annual leave on a schedule
very similar to that of SPA employees. There were exceptions that could be made
so that the experience of an individual coming from other agencies could be
considered and that the number of days of annual leave that the person had earned
in their last job could be considered and used if they exceeded that adopted
schedule. We were able to retain most of the other privileges that we had made
available to our EPA non-faculty employees. These regulations can be found in
the Faculty Handbook of 1988 on pages 65 through 72.
Salaries
and Salary Administration
When Dean Shirley was appointed
Dean of the Faculty, Chancellor Bostian assigned him the responsibility of reviewing
all salary recommendations of faculty and other EPA personnel for the NCSC administration.
It was not clear in the earlier memoranda what the role of the Dean was in the
allocation of salary increase funds. It appeared from the letters that the Chancellor
continued to do the allocations. However, by 1960 it was apparent that the division
of the salary increase funds for units was made by the Dean of the Faculty followed
by a review with the Chancellor. The Dean of the Faculty then prepared the letters
of allocation for the Chancellor's signature. As a matter of interest, the entire
School of Textiles received a total of $4000 for salary increases in 1960, including
funds for promotion and merit. The Legislature ended its sessions early (around
April 1) and met only every other year, so the increases could be processed
and were always in the July pay-checks.
In 1956 the formula used to convert
a 12 month salary to a 9 month salary, or visa versa, was 20%. About the time
of the establishment of the BOG this was changed to 22%. Except for the faculty
in SALS, Forest Resources and Veterinary Medicine, almost all faculty were and
still are on a 9 month basis. The factor set by the BOG staff for faculty in
Veterinary Medicine for conversion from 9 to 12 month salaries was one-third
of the academic year's salary. Personnel in administrative positions and in
almost all of the positions reporting to a Vice Chancellor are also on a 12
month basis.
In 1960 Chancellor Caldwell added
to Shirley's responsibilities the authority to negotiate salary recommendations
with Deans and Directors. This practice continued with all of the persons who
held this position. The primary difference was that as the University increased
in the number of such employees, the amount of review by the Chancellor decreased.
For instance, when I was Provost, Chancellor Caldwell wanted to review only
those who were associate or assistant deans or their equivalents. He also wished
to review those salaries that I planned to question with a school dean. This
practice continued with Chancellor Thomas and Chancellor Poulton. In their first
year or two, both Thomas and Poulton reviewed all of the salary increases of
one or more groups. For example, Chancellor Poulton reviewed all persons his
first year. Salaries for school deans and for the Vice Chancellors were set
by the Chancellors; however, each always asked me to suggest increases for the
school deans. Sometimes they agreed with my recommendations, and sometimes they
didn't. I understand that this practice continued under Monteith while Hart
was Provost. The Chancellors always wished to know what had been recommended
for a few individuals. There were times when they did not agree with the dean's
proposed salaries or with the Provost on some of the salaries that the Provost
planned to question with the deans. After review by the Chancellor, the Provost
had a meeting with the School Dean, the Vice Chancellor or with other unit heads
who did not report through a school or Vice Chancellor. Chancellor Poulton sometimes
handled the entire review of the salary increases proposed by a Vice Chancellor.
Dean Shirley proposed that all academic
year employees be paid their academic year's salary in 12 monthly installments.
This was accepted. In 1963 salary maxima and salary minima were already in place.
If a faculty member were recommended to receive a salary in excess of the approved
salary maxima from state funds, it had to be approved by the State Department
of Administration. In 1965 the State Budget Officer set the maximum salaries
by rank from state funds. He did not set minimum salaries by rank for the first
time, although the UNC administration did set them for that year. In 1966 the
schedule showed no minimum salary scale. In 1966 the scale was as follows: Dean,
$23,400; Director, $21,000; Distinguished Professor, $25,000; Professor, $17,800;
Associate Professor, $13,900; Assistant Professor, $11,900; and Instructor,
$9,600. Soon after this the salary maxima were set by the Board of Trustees
based on the advice of the President and his staff. When the BOG was established,
a scale was established which included the following salaries from state funds
at NCSU. The salary scale maximum for a dean was the maximum set for the Provost.
Other administrators' salaries, including directors, were set for the maxima
of the particular academic rank of the holder. For example, if an assistant
department head was an assistant professor then his salary maximum was that
set for that rank. The BOG set the salary maxima for all of the vice chancellors
and administrators that reported to the Chancellor. These varied very much among
the various Vice Chancellors. This was one of the reasons that Chancellor Thomas
desired to have Rigney report to me for his salary maximum as set by the BOG
was entirely too low for his value, contributions and experience. Maxima were
also set for the professorial ranks and for instructor. Each year these were
usually increased by the same or just a little over the percentage of the average
salary increase appropriated for that year.
In 1970 Provost Kelly wrote and
signed the letters of allocation for the merit salary increase funds allocated
to the school deans. He may have done this earlier, but these were the first
letters I saw signed by Kelly. Since so many of the guidelines on salary administration
were dictated by the General Administration of UNC and occasionally by the Legislature,
the Provost assumed the responsibility of writing the letters of policy explaining
how the increases would or could be handled, and his staff worked up the allocations
to be included in the letters with any restrictions and the deadlines for each
step in the processing of these increases. He also included any restrictions
imposed by the Chancellor.
There were usually no additional
NCSU restrictions except to encourage as much use of the funds as possible and
as permitted for merit increases. In making the allocation of the funds it was
necessary for the Provost to know of unusual circumstances that would require
a deviation from a proportional distribution of the increase funds. Each source
of pay in the salary of an individual had to pay for the increases in the same
proportion as the position was budgeted. For example, the Legislature did not
appropriate increases for the salary supplements which came from endowments
for the named professors. I sometimes used funds from the increases for vacant
or temporary positions to make up for this deficiency. When I became Provost
I always kept some funds back from the temporarily allocated positions so that
we could increase the salaries of women, because I felt that they were not on
par with those of men by field in 1974. I kept a small amount of funds, as had
Kelly, to use to increase salaries of a few individuals whose contributions
to the University had not been adequately rewarded by the local units. The Chancellor
had to be contacted to see if he had made any promises that must be met. Any
remaining funds were distributed to deans for addition to an individual's increases
or was added to the increases for the continuing personnel in the temporary
positions or for graduate teaching assistants. When Shirley and Kelly were in
office the salary increase funds came as a lump sum for academic affairs except
for those earmarked for the Agricultural Experiment Station and the Agricultural
Extension Service. This meant that there were only three separate salary increase
lines in the appropriations and the increases could not be transferred among
these three budgets. We could if we wished, and did provide at times some extra
funds for increases among the academic affairs units. For example Kelly, and
at first I gave some extra increase funds to the Library's EPA staff, for their
salary levels were so very low. Soon after the University System absorbed the
campuses that had previously reported through the Board of Higher Education,
restrictions among budget lines became more numerous. Soon after I became Provost
we could not transfer salary increase funds from the 101-1310 lines (faculty
lines for teaching and departmental research positions) to those in the other
lines whether administrative, library, organized research, Student Affairs,
organized extension et cetera. But we could transfer salary increase funds from
these budgets to those faculty under the Instructional and Departmental Research
lines. To avoid problems in allocation and use, we made these increase allocations
separately as well as those for the Agricultural Extension Service and the Agricultural
Research Service. One of the things that this accomplished was to make the percentage
increases of continuing faculty greater than those for any others, including
all department heads, deans, directors, vice chancellors, and their associated
assistant and associate positions, the organized research and organized extension
positions. We could use the increase funds allocated for vacant positions or
positions filled temporarily in this budget for continuing personnel. We had
a very small proportion of administrative positions vacant, hence no or little
extra funds were available for these increases. This helped the increases for
continuing faculty except in those units which had a tendency to keep all positions
filled on a permanent basis. This did not change the average salary per full
time equivalent faculty position. In an occasional year we could not apply increases
to vacant positions without justification. All of the Chancellors and Provosts
have approved of this salary increase scheme and have thought this was a very
good idea. Under the Board of Governors directions each year, we were required
to use all salary increase funds for salary increases. No new positions could
be created under these rules with these funds and all salary increase funds
had to be allocated at the same time and none could be held for increases later
on during the year.
Under Thomas and continuing under
Poulton, I began to monitor the increases of the highest paid professors and
of the named and University Professors to insure that they got adequate salary
increases. Chancellors until Poulton's term were almost always the highest paid
individual on campus. Occasionally a salary supplement for a named professor
might make that salary higher, but these were very rare. We soon began to have
(if one converted salaries to a nine-month basis for comparison) a number of
faculty whose salaries were higher than that of the Chancellor. Dr. Poulton
used to brag about the number of faculty whose salaries exceeded his. I did
have to watch these high salaries because there is a tendency not to give similar
percentage increases, even if deserved, if the total increase was very large
and considerably higher than the dean's, associate dean's and department head's
salaries. One practice was to require at least an average percentage increase
unless a lower increase could be justified on the basis of performance, as I
did with the named professors.
A major objective of the salary
reviews by the Provost or Deans of the Faculty was to try to keep the system
honest so that the increases reflected only judgments of quality for any merit
funds awarded. There were always some recommendations for promotions and to
eliminate inequities, but we wanted no bias for reasons of malice or dislike.
This is very hard to judge, but it was almost always true that when a department
head change occurred a few faculty, who were receivers of smaller increases
in the past few years, began to get better increases under the new head. In
a few cases after a change of deans, increases proposed for a faculty member
viewed as exceptional in either the good or bad direction also changed.
I tried to make certain that no
department head gave the same amount or the same percentage increases to all
faculty. If such a recommendation came over it went back to have the salary
recommendations done again. After the second year as Provost I got a few such
recommendations and these were most likely to be from administrative instead
of academic units. In 1988 our time schedule to get the salaries in, processed,
approved and into the payroll was so short that I did not have time to have
many reviews with the deans. In cases of questions I called, but I accepted
almost everything proposed. I did write a couple of deans and told them I did
not think all of the increases which we had accepted because of the short time
schedule, reflected the differences in quality of performance among the faculty
that I knew existed in certain departments, and next year I would expect a greater
spread. One of the problems was that everyone who was involved in salary increases
had a shortened schedule too. In my reviews with the deans I tried to ask enough
questions to make certain that the dean knew and had a reason for all very low
and very high increases. I asked enough questions to feel that the deans knew
why the average increases were proposed too. In a few cases I did change or
caused salary increase changes to be made, usually for a larger increase. My
questioning was to keep the system as honest as I could. I never reviewed more
than a sample of faculty with any dean. Of course I did have some assessments
and computer runs to review before the reviews which gave me lists of females
and others who seemed out of line. It seemed to me that the department heads
and deans did not always adequately reward service to the University and sometimes
even service to the school. Throughout my tenure as Provost I was determined
to get rid of what I could not prove but felt was salary inequity for women.
For this reason, I always made certain that the average percentage increases
of females with faculty rank in the university, exceeded those of males in each
of the seventeen years that I was Provost. When I retired Institutional Research
assured me that there were no statistical differences in salary based on gender.
It was the normal operating procedure
from Shirley to Hart that all salary increases during the year not included
in the normal annual increases for faculty would have to be approved by the
UNC System administrators, and at times the UNC Trustees (or the BOG), and by
the NCSU Trustees. At first under Shirley, there were additional approvals from
State government officials. Approval of increases for research assistants or
other personnel paid from soft money sources and especially research grants
were not usually required. One or another of these was renewed on almost any
day during the year, and renewals usually had funds for salary increases for
these employees. It was such a hassle and involved so many rubber stamp approvals
and extra paper work that this was usually delegated to the local campus and
increases could be approved by the Provost to take effect the day that the grant
was approved or when the funds became available. These increases almost never
required approval by the NCSU Trustees because the salaries were too low and
below the minimum required for their approval. Under Hart there was a period
of a year or two when BOG Administrators had to approve all of these increases
as well as the new positions created under such grants. This created some havoc
and poor morale for these employees and considerable anguish for NCSU administrators
at all levels and for the faculty holding grants which supported these valued
employees.
In the mid-eighties I realized that
we were still paying academic year employees on the basis of teaching days.
I had thought we had changed this much earlier. This made no difference in the
pay that they received if an employee left us at the end of a semester. However,
we did occasionally have a person leave us during the semester. We almost never
had an academic year employee arrive during a semester. In my opinion this led
to overpayment or underpayment depending on when during the semester the person
left. It was very difficult to explain to an employee who had served for one-half
of a semester why they did not receive one-half of their pay. But we had always
done it this way, so it was very difficult to change. My argument was that faculty
worked in the semester before classes started to review instructional materials
and to get their teaching notes and ancillary supporting teaching materials
up to date. Those of us who taught biological science and a number of other
subjects that had laboratory sections had to begin to grow plants or microbes
and to prepare materials for laboratory well in advance of the semester. Considerably
more effort and work in teaching occurred other than just on the days that the
classes met. I argued that for most faculty some work occurred in the few days
after the end of the semester. I tried for several years to get these pay periods
structured on the basis of the proportion of the semester taught. I was determined
that this change would be implemented before I retired. While it affected only
a small number of persons over the years, it was still important. On August
30, 1989, I finally got this method of payment in place in the payroll system.
The spring started on January 1, and ended on May 15, and the fall semester
began on August 16 and ended on December 31.
At the time that Shirley became
Dean of the Faculty the policy of the system was that faculty could be paid
for specific services beyond their duties. Approval in each case required the
approval of the President and the BOT. There were also supplements at this time
for named professors.
In 1962 the policies about supplemental
pay were not uniform or clear. Each action required special approval. The Institute
of Statistics paid supplements from receipts from consulting which were approved
annually. Most of the faculty received payment for Summer School and extension
(off-campus credit and non-credit) teaching. Shirley wrote Ruggles, the Director
of Extension, that we needed to have regular approval by the department head
of the faculty teaching these courses. He said that if we are to have an alert
faculty, we must not permit them to overload themselves to the detriment of
study, research and professional development.
In 1963 the Evening College activities
were merged with the regular functions of the departments and schools and of
the faculty. Salary supplements were no longer paid to faculty who taught on-campus
credit courses in the late afternoon and evening. In 1965 we had one summer
session and the rate set for payment was set at two-ninths of the academic year
salary. When we moved to two sessions this was changed to one-sixth of the academic
years salary for teaching two three-credit courses. Rates were a little higher
if two four credit courses were taught. On March 4, 1968, the Consolidated Council
approved the following guidelines for extra compensation for EPA employees:
1. During
the regular academic year, an EPA employee on a 9 month or a 12 month contract
may earn extra compensation up to 20% of his/her annual salary by teaching
in the Continuing Education program.
2. By teaching during the summer
school, an EPA employee on a 9 month contract may earn extra compensation up
to 20% of his/her regular 9 month salary. If an employee earns more than 20%
for teaching during summer school, justification must be submitted and the Provost
must approve an exception to this policy. A teaching load of 6 hours is considered
full time, and an employee may not work full time in both summer sessions. 3. During the summer, an EPA
employee on a 9 month contract in research may earn extra compensation up to
three ninths of his/her regular salary. The maximum that a research employee
may earn during one month is one ninth of his/her salary. 4. For an EPA employee on a 9
month contract who is involved in both teaching and research, total summer earnings
may not exceed 33.3% of his/her regular salary. An employee is not allowed to
work more than full time in the summer.
I am certain that the figure of
20% was associated with the formula for conversion from a nine to a twelve month
contract, which happened to be 20% at this time.
Once the question of payment to
teach in summer school arose for a 12 month employee. The request was for overload
pay. I wrote back that I had never approved payment for overload teaching for
a 12 month employee in summer school or for a 12 month person employed 100%
in research at any time. I did explain that there were several cases of released
time being used to hire someone to perform those functions not now performed
by the 12 month employee. The units were compensated but not the faculty member.
After Charles Edwin Bishop in the
Consolidated Office as Vice President for Research and Extension devised the
policy described earlier, summer payrolls were still being sent to the Chancellor
for approval as late as 1973, with a copy to the Provost since his staff had
to check salaries and make certain that an excess salary over the 20% was not
being paid. When I became Provost, Caldwell assigned this function to me for
approval since my office did all of the checking. I also was assigned the responsibility
to approve exceptions to this policy in the rare circumstance where it was justified
and necessary for the program to be completed. We also permitted up to 20% of
the nine-month salary as earnings in Summer School with approval by the Provost
to teach and earn more than that under extenuating circumstances. With the increased
emphasis on research it sometimes became impossible to find another qualified
teacher for these courses in the summer in a few fields. We strongly discouraged
this because we felt that some vacation in the summer was needed.
We had a provision that under certain
circumstances, such as directing a major summer project in a training program
in summer school, a faculty member cou | 
