November 30, 1993

CEFO Minutes
(J. Carter, Secretary)

M I N U T E S

COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING FACULTY ORGANIZATION Special Faculty Meeting to Discuss Strategic Planning Tuesday, November 30, 1993 @ 12:30 PM Friday Building, Room 17

Dr. Rafic Makki opened the meeting at 12:37 PM. The following signed the attendance sheet:

COLLEGE OF ENGR: R. Snyder, S. Middleton. COMPUTER SCIENCE: M. Allen, R. Lejk, B. Chu, J. Frazier, M. Hadzikadic. ENGINEERING TECHNOLOGY: E. Braun, F. Auchey, J. Carter, J. Chaffin, R. Lollar, C. Mobley, T. Owen, R. Priebe, B. Routt, B. Shelnutt, D. Smith. CIVIL ENGINEERING: E. King, J. Evett, D. Hanks, H. Hilger, , G. Murgel, I. Runge, J. Wu, D. Young. MECHANICAL ENGR & ENGR SCIENCE: I. Bodur, R. Dubler, H. Estrada, J. Hill, G. Mohanty, S. Patterson. ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING: F. Tranjan, R. Coleman, A. Edwards, M. Feldman, Y. Kakad, F. Kiamilev, R. Makki, M. Miri, S. Simanapalli, CAMERON A.R.C.: T. Rufty, ENGR RES & IND DEVMT: J. Roblin. COMPUTING SVCS & LABS: R. Wolny. GUESTS: J. Woodward. Total documented attendance: 45.

I. Report on the College Vision Statement, R. Lejk. Discussed the variety of sources from which the vision statement was formed, from faculty retreats to the present. It was noted that the latest copy of the vision statement was sent out with the meeting announcement.

The of the following were pointed out:

Student education is paramount over specialization. Equality of opportunity, rewards and decision making structure: recognizes the role of faculty as its primary means for achieving the vision. Internal and external partnerships: We are the technological resource for the University. The statement is shared, modifiable, and supported by the reward system.

Discussion:

Discrimination statement should be reconsidered. The word “mechanism” on page two, paragraph two could be changed. Consider changing the word “teaching” in paragraph two to “student learning”.

II. Dean’s Report on Strategic Planning, R. Snyder. This has been an active year. The following are some of the activities which have been underway.

Agenda for the College. The Advisory Committee on Administrative Computing is completing its work. They have been studying how to meet administrative computing needs, including interfaces with faculty and students. They are putting together a report which will be ready by the end of the semester. Steps are still being taken to have the implementation of the Ph.D. programs in place by January. CAPCC is deliberating on the academic progression requirements. A task force on academic advising has been set up within the previous two weeks. College steering committee for curriculum revisions is working. Will be providing advice to departments. The Shared Vision Statement has been prepared The College Promotion and Tenure Document was passed. However, it already needs revision because of an administrative memo requiring that peer review of teaching be specifically included. Bill of Rights for non-tenured faculty was tabled. It needs to be brought back. The Vice Chancellor has distributed a document (November 1) which intends to set a context for the Academic Planning process. The departments will have to develop academic and strategic plans (as does the college and University). Past efforts have not been very successful. A college-wide planning committee will be formed. The same should be done at the department level. There is a time constraint: the department draft plans are due on May 1. The documents need to be forwarded on June 1. These plans should include the setting of goals and developed plans for achieving those goals.

III. Chancellor’s Report on Strategic Planning, J. Woodward. The following is a close paraphrase of the statement made by Chancellor Woodward.

Development of Institution. We are a public University. We have to anticipate the public need and put in place means to anticipate those needs. The external environment influences us and limits us in some areas. Fifty Years. This region is under-served by its educational resources. There is not as much here as there is in other large metropolitan areas. The number of degrees awarded per-capita is low; availability of degrees is low. The region is changing, and the needs are expanding. We are the only University that can respond to this need. UNCC will be a large institution, about 25,000 students. However, it will still be small enough to retain the feel of a campus. Off-Campus Sites. We will be developing off-campus sites to accommodate people with such need. This may include Uptown Charlotte, Union County, South Charlotte and Iredell County. We will become a comprehensive Doctoral granting institution with a broader array of bachelor’s level programs. We will be developing graduate programs in Industrial Management or Industrial Engineering, and bachelor of science programs in health areas. We will be growing in size as we meet needs of the community, depending on what happens in Raleigh and what people feel the need is. Academic Planning. The academic planning process should be able to influence resource and program allocation, and it is necessary to get that planning process underway now. My preference is the development of a model for reallocation based on the academic planning process. In this planning process we cannot get hung up on accurate boundary conditions, but include external factors what are variable and modifiable. The academic planning process is already getting kicked off. It started with a revision of the mission statement for the college. We now have a plan for developing technological support for the campus. Resources have come from one-time money resources. Also, students have contributed. The general assembly provided some additional funds which have provided about $2 million to implement plans. Master Plan for the Campus. We have on hand about 1000 acres as a resource. We must be careful in the use of limited resources. Some errors have been made in he past. We need to be involved in the planning of the use of this resource. Over the next twelve months a plan is going to be considered: a new lake, new entrances, separate research and teaching space, placement of dormitories. That plan will influence campus life for a long time. To do these things we must get more funding out of North Carolina. Though our arguments are rational, they must come out of the Board of Governors and the legislature. Our lobbying activity is pressing in these areas. This Fall. We have broken ground on the new Athletic Fieldhouse. There has been over $750,000 in private money. It will provide support for students with restaurants and concessions. Last week work began on the Student Activity Center, funded by student fees and private giving. The cost is about $23 million, and a large private donation of over $1.5 million has been made. Architectural work is done and we are ready to submit requests for bids on the new classroom building and the third floor of the Friday building. These were paid for by the passing of the State educational bond issue. A new parking deck will be paid for out of the parking fees. Success. Our endeavors have been successful. We have a proven track record and we deserve it. Our faculty has always delivered on their promises. The College of Engineering has the best track record and leads the University in this area. The focus is on undergraduate teaching. The plan for campus technological support has been ahead of the other colleges. This helped raise support for funding in other areas. We will not get all we deserve, but the trend will show progress. “I am proud of this college, and even of the Dean at times”. (Subtle laughter followed).

Discussion

At 1:56PM was made to adjourn.