March,2007 From: George F.Sheldon Response to Issues Questionnaire 1. To what extent do faculty interests different from those of administrators? The interests should be the same on a macro level, i.e., to make this the best University it can be and a place of ideas. The responsibilities differ which is where the interface may have some conflict. A central problem is that administrator's terms are short. The average Dean in a School of Medicine is less than four years. The average tenure of a Chancellor is about five years. Administrators are usually feeling pressure to start new programs or make changes before they understand the environment. Most are usually positioning for higher office which also dilutes their effectiveness, and most don't listen effectively. An improved faculty-administrator interface would be useful 2. How is academic integrity maintained in the face of increasing financial pressures? Academic integrity is a very personal issue. Faculty with values and character will be quite comfortable in knowing ``right from wrong''. However many situations exist where the lines are blurred and it is not completely clear what is proper and what is not. For the complex issues, such as receipt of funds from private companies, etc. the Office of Research Planning can help; there are many organizational standards and guidelines that can be accessed if a question arises. Most of all, faculty need some guidance's and mentoring in the areas of professionalism. The questions were framed as it is the finances that challenge integrity .It is, of course more. 3. Views on tenure track, fixed term appointments, and differing faculty salaries. The categories of faculty appointment have been badly managed. It seems that efforts have been made to level all of the potential categories; one is told that a clinical professor and tenure track professor are really equal. However, no one really believes it. This dialogue should be revisited in the context of the Carnegie Foundation definitions of Scholarship. The requirement for a faculty rank should be scholarship, and not just the scholarship of discovery which is what is usually thought, but the scholarship of teaching scholarship of integration and others. Faculty salaries are somewhat easier to address, surprisingly. Faculty salaries should be referfenced to the mean of the salary for a comparable discipline rank, and longevity at a peer and/or national benchmark, of which data is available. 4. How would you respond on behalf of the faculty if learned that administrators had circumvented serious faculty consultation to pursue major outside funding of controversial new curriculum? The question seems to have some basis in one or two examples in the past few years. There is not a specific answer to the question, as it depends on the details. Several thoughts: Faculty are part of a large organization and are unlikely to agree with all initiatives.Administrators have a difficult job as the 21st Century university is an educational site, an entertainment location via athletics ,etc, an institution for basic research, and populated by a very mobile group of workers who often are dependent on their own efforts to secure funding for scholarly activities. The organizational structure of the University through faculty governance and other should provide the opportunity for input. Resolutions, sit ins, petitions, bra burning are immature approaches to problem solution. 5 Question of role of faculty governance focus .academic freedom /educational policy, or faculty benefits and salary? Those are important issues and should be standing Agenda items., However, I think faculty's potential contributions are infrequently utilized in the planning process, depriving administrators who lack expertise input on a range of projects, such as Carolina North. The Chair of the Faculty council have been active and energetic contributors in recent years. Perhaps an expanded executive committee would be of use.