michael924 wrote: This will not end well for ABCers

michael924 wrote:

---------------------------------------------
--- biggoodwolf wrote:

I sent a follow-up letter to the co-chairmen of the Senate Select Committee on UNC BOG. Below is a copy of my letter. I see no reason that the General Assembly should not begin this year bringing the BOG membership back into balance. (Thanks to LEHart for the distribution numbers for the initial BOG.)

******************
Dear Senators Soucek and Tillman:

I wrote to each of you yesterday as members of the Senate Select Committee on UNC Board of Governors regarding the imbalance of members affiliated with the various schools within the UNC system. I have read that the 1971 Higher Education Reorganization Act specified equitable distribution of the initial Board of Governors by requiring that it be made up of the following membership:

3 from East Carolina Board of Trustees
2 from Appalachian State BOT
2 NCA&T BOT
2 NC Central BOT
2 Western Carolina BOT
1 Elizabeth City State BOT
1 Fayetteville State BOT
1 UNC School of the Arts BOT
1 Pembroke State BOT
1 Winston Salem State BOT
16 from the Consolidated BOT representing NCSU, UNC-CH and UNC-G

 

After a lot of searching, I have been unable to verify the above. However, I remember that there was an effort to achieve some degree of balance in the selection of BOG members. As you can see from the above, if in fact it is correct, all members of the BOG were also to be members of the BOT of their respective schools. I don't think that is true today, nor should it be. Some members, in my opinion, should be from business, industry and education and not affiliated with any UNC school. Also, four schools that are now part of the UNC system are not on the above list. I assume they were added later. Whatever balance there may have been in the beginning, it no longer exists; there is no balance today.

 

As you select this year's nominees, I request that you make every effort to begin bringing the system into some semblance of reasonable balance. There currently are thirty-two voting members of the BOG. I suggest that you strive for the following guidelines for school affiliation:

 

Five with UNC-Chapel Hill

Five with NC State

Two with UNC-Greensboro

One with each remaining school

Six with no UNC affiliation

 (These should come from business, industry and education)

 

It may take two or three years to achieve reasonable balance, but that should be the goal. You may decide on a different distribution scenario, but whatever you decide, there should be an equal number from our two flagship institutions.

 

Thank you for your consideration. I would appreciate hearing your thoughts and comments.

 

Sincerely,

---------------------------------------------

Why two from unc-G?? And none from ECU , a much bigger school?? Makes no sense.

LEHart wrote:

biggoodwolf wrote:

PackMan97 wrote: As a followup to this note, don't focus on NC State...focus instead on all of the UNC system schools being represented. Right now it's all Chapel Hill and hardly anyone else.

Great suggestion.

There currently are 33 members of the BOG. My view of a good distribution would be six to eight each affiliated with UNC-CH, six to eight affiliated with NC State, and six to eight affiliated with one of the other UNC schools. The rest should be well qualified people from business, industry and education who have no affiliation with the UNC system.

The 1971 Higher Education Reorganization Act specified equitable distribution of the first BOG by requiring that it be made up of the following membership:

3 from East Carolina Board of Trustees
2 from Appalacian State BOT
2 NCA&T BOT
2 NC Central BOT
2 Western Carolina BOT
1 Elizabeth City State BOT
1 Fayetteville State BOT
1 UNC School of the Arts BOT
1 Pembroke State BOT
1 Winston Salem State BOT
16 from the  Consolidated BOT representing NCSU, UNC-CH and UNC-G

Since 1971 the distribution has become heavily biased towards UNC-CH at least partly due to GA bias. The GA should use the original distrubution as a guide in getting this board back into balance. Now is a good time for them to start working on it.

LEHart wrote:

LEHart wrote:

biggoodwolf wrote:

PackMan97 wrote: As a followup to this note, don't focus on NC State...focus instead on all of the UNC system schools being represented. Right now it's all Chapel Hill and hardly anyone else.

Great suggestion.

There currently are 33 members of the BOG. My view of a good distribution would be six to eight each affiliated with UNC-CH, six to eight affiliated with NC State, and six to eight affiliated with one of the other UNC schools. The rest should be well qualified people from business, industry and education who have no affiliation with the UNC system.

The 1971 Higher Education Reorganization Act specified equitable distribution of the first BOG by requiring that it be made up of the following membership:

3 from East Carolina Board of Trustees
2 from Appalacian State BOT
2 NCA&T BOT
2 NC Central BOT
2 Western Carolina BOT
1 Elizabeth City State BOT
1 Fayetteville State BOT
1 UNC School of the Arts BOT
1 Pembroke State BOT
1 Winston Salem State BOT
16 from the  Consolidated BOT representing NCSU, UNC-CH and UNC-G

Since 1971 the distribution has become heavily biased towards UNC-CH at least partly due to GA bias. The GA should use the original distrubution as a guide in getting this board back into balance. Now is a good time for them to start working on it.

One correction to this is that by 1971 the Consolidated BOT was representing UNC-C, UNC-A, and UNC-W as well as the original members NCSU, UNC-CH, and UNC-G. So by selecting 16 members from this group all 16 member institutions were represented. The idea is still the same in that no single school had a dominate representation.

biggoodwolf wrote: I sent a follow-up letter to the co-chairmen of the Senate Select Committee on UNC BOG. Below is a copy of my letter. I see no reason that the General Assembly should not begin this year bringing the BOG membership back into balance. (Thanks to LEHart for the distribution numbers for the initial BOG.)
...

SupplyChainPack wrote: ^ Even if you disagree with some of the proposals above about apportionment, I hope you will see the need to encourage the GA to get rid of the overwhelming over-representation of unc-CH.

Please, help by contacting your GA reps and the members on the committees mentioned above.

jncope wrote:

biggoodwolf wrote: I sent a follow-up letter to the co-chairmen of the Senate Select Committee on UNC BOG. Below is a copy of my letter. I see no reason that the General Assembly should not begin this year bringing the BOG membership back into balance. (Thanks to LEHart for the distribution numbers for the initial BOG.)
...

My interpretation of what LEHart posted isn't just that those were the numbers from the original board but that it was the mandated apportionment of the board seats for the future until the law is changed.  Maybe I am misinterpreting but if so, then the current apportionment is in violation of that (law?).

Of the 16 seats allotted collectively to NCSU, UNC-CH and UNC-G; UNC-G currently has no representation, NCSU has four (one of which also got his JD from UNC) and and UNC-CH has fourteen (more if you include grad degrees).

Tensor wrote: So why is it that you guys think NCSU deserves equal representation to UNC, but the other two similarly sized research institutions (Charlotte & ECU) do not?

I'm detecting a bit of elitism from State fans here that is not so uncarolina-like.

There are a number of paths:

1.  Three seperate systems, UNC and NCSU and one for the rest - sort of the Texas model.   2.  Two seperate systems - the California model - UNC/NCSU/ECU/UNC-Charlotte and the rest. 3.  A free for all.  There are many more.

ECU and UNC Charlotte do not have nor should they have, national missions.   

jncope wrote:

eccdogg wrote: Could someone who has them handy post the stats on college attended numbers for each university?

Also it looks like Senate link goes to House.

I did this in a rush so forgive the sloppiness and shorthand:

	Undergraduate	Masters	PhD	JD	DDS
Peter Hans	UNC-CH
H Frank Grainger	WCCC
Ann Goodnight	State
W. Louis Bissette, Jr.	WFU	UVA		UNC-CH
John Blackburn	Kings College	Va Tech
Peaches Gunter Blank	State
Laura Buffaloe	Elizabeth City State	NCCU	Va Tech
Cameron Carswell	App
Walter Davenport	Morehouse
James Deal, Jr.	App			UNC-CH
Phillip Dixon	ECU			UNC-CH
Fred Eshelman	UNC-CH
John Fennebresque	UNC			Vandy
Dudley Flood	NCCU	ECU	Duke
Paul Fulton	UNC-CH
Hannah Gage	UNC-CH
Thomas Harrelson	UNC-CH
James Holhouser, Jr.	Davidson			UNC-CH
G Leroy Lail	UNC-CH
Mary Ann Maxwell	UNC-CH
Franklin McCain	A&T	State
W Edwin McMahan	UNC-CH
Charles H Mercer, Jr	UNC-CH
Fred Mills	UNC-CH
Burley Mitchell, Jr.	State		State	UNC-CH
Hari Nath	Missouri
David Powers	State	Campgell
Irvin Roseman	UNC-CH				UNC-CH
Dick Taylor	UNC-CH
Raiford Trask III	UNC-CH
Phillip Walker	WCU
J Bradley Wilson	App		Duke	WFU
David Young	UNC-CH

Tensor wrote: So why is it that you guys think NCSU deserves equal representation to UNC, but the other two similarly sized research institutions (Charlotte & ECU) do not?

I'm detecting a bit of elitism from State fans here that is not so uncarolina-like.

LEHart wrote:

jncope wrote:

biggoodwolf wrote: I sent a follow-up letter to the co-chairmen of the Senate Select Committee on UNC BOG. Below is a copy of my letter. I see no reason that the General Assembly should not begin this year bringing the BOG membership back into balance. (Thanks to LEHart for the distribution numbers for the initial BOG.)
...

My interpretation of what LEHart posted isn't just that those were the numbers from the original board but that it was the mandated apportionment of the board seats for the future until the law is changed.  Maybe I am misinterpreting but if so, then the current apportionment is in violation of that (law?).

Of the 16 seats allotted collectively to NCSU, UNC-CH and UNC-G; UNC-G currently has no representation, NCSU has four (one of which also got his JD from UNC) and and UNC-CH has fourteen (more if you include grad degrees).

NC General Statutes Chapter 116 addresses this. Paragraph 116-5 addresses "Initial membership of Board of Governors" so this mandate applies only to the initial membership of 1971. Paragraph 116-6 addresses "Election and terms of members of BOG" as terms of original members expires and this paragraph doesn't address distribution of membership. However, if it was important enough to make it a mandate for the original membership, it has to be important enough for the GA to at least make an effort to maintain a balanced BOG.

TruthBKnownReturns wrote:

Tensor wrote: So why is it that you guys think NCSU deserves equal representation to UNC, but the other two similarly sized research institutions (Charlotte & ECU) do not?

I'm detecting a bit of elitism from State fans here that is not so uncarolina-like.

Two words: Student Population

I have questions born of ignorance so you may freely ridicule or refer me to a former explanation I missed.  Living outside NC I lack perspective.

Can a BOG member make their dissent, disagreement or difference of opinion known publicly without some dire consequnece?  If so, have any done so?

Have any non-baby blue members put up a stink or proposed any action relating to the BOG inaction? 

How did the BOG get so lopsided in the first place?  Seems that most of the other system schools and GA don't consider this so important or is it again the chapelhillerite influence uber alles again? 

direwolfdead wrote:

TruthBKnownReturns wrote:

Tensor wrote: So why is it that you guys think NCSU deserves equal representation to UNC, but the other two similarly sized research institutions (Charlotte & ECU) do not?

I'm detecting a bit of elitism from State fans here that is not so uncarolina-like.

Two words: Student Population

Right, and his point is that Charlotte has 26-7K, ECU has 26-7K, and UNC-CHeat has about the same.  So, student population dictating everything those three should have an equal number of votes and NCSU should have one more.

To the person who said that Charlotte shouldn't have a National mission, you are dead wrong.  A school of 26-7K, ranked as a national research university by outlets such as USNWR, and with nationally ranked programs does, and most certainly should, have a national mission.  As it is, a school like Charlotte has managed to thrive in spite of being in the bottom three in per student funding from the state for something ridiculous like 20 straight years. 

Some of the elitism displayed here is quite nauseating and is what many on this board directly turn their nose up at UNC-CHeat about.  For some reason, some on this board are under the impression that it's bad when Cheat lords its holier-than-thou attitude, but then want to turn around and do it to a school like Charlotte, which has managed to become ranked despite not participating in filling out the ranking forms and in having such low funding.

Nobody here is arguing that the UNC-CHeat dominance should not end; but many are arguing to replace it with a two-headed dominance of NCSU and UNC-CHeat, which is no better.  Simply replacing the problem with a new one and everyone is having to fight the same battle except NCSU.  Some of those on here just want to be a part of the dictatorship, rather than actually seeing there not be one.  Give representation based upon student population and nobody should have cause for complaint.

sflahobbitwulf wrote:

I have questions born of ignorance so you may freely ridicule or refer me to a former explanation I missed.  Living outside NC I lack perspective.

Can a BOG member make their dissent, disagreement or difference of opinion known publicly without some dire consequnece?  If so, have any done so?

Have any non-baby blue members put up a stink or proposed any action relating to the BOG inaction? 

How did the BOG get so lopsided in the first place?  Seems that most of the other system schools and GA don't consider this so important or is it again the chapelhillerite influence uber alles again? 

LEHart wrote:

Tensor wrote: So why is it that you guys think NCSU deserves equal representation to UNC, but the other two similarly sized research institutions (Charlotte & ECU) do not?

I'm detecting a bit of elitism from State fans here that is not so uncarolina-like.

UNC-CH, NCSU and Duke are the only universities in North Carolina with a Carnegie Foundation Classification of "Very High Research Activity". I don't know that this is reason to have more representation than any other school in the system but it should be some ammunition to justify NCSU to have representation equitable to UNC-CH. The problem right now is that UNC-CH has overwhelming representation.

direwolfdead wrote:

TruthBKnownReturns wrote:

Tensor wrote: So why is it that you guys think NCSU deserves equal representation to UNC, but the other two similarly sized research institutions (Charlotte & ECU) do not?

I'm detecting a bit of elitism from State fans here that is not so uncarolina-like.

Two words: Student Population

Right, and his point is that Charlotte has 26-7K, ECU has 26-7K, and UNC-CHeat has about the same.  So, student population dictating everything those three should have an equal number of votes and NCSU should have one more.

To the person who said that Charlotte shouldn't have a National mission, you are dead wrong.  A school of 26-7K, ranked as a national research university by outlets such as USNWR, and with nationally ranked programs does, and most certainly should, have a national mission.  As it is, a school like Charlotte has managed to thrive in spite of being in the bottom three in per student funding from the state for something ridiculous like 20 straight years. 

Some of the elitism displayed here is quite nauseating and is what many on this board directly turn their nose up at UNC-CHeat about.  For some reason, some on this board are under the impression that it's bad when Cheat lords its holier-than-thou attitude, but then want to turn around and do it to a school like Charlotte, which has managed to become ranked despite not participating in filling out the ranking forms and in having such low funding.

Nobody here is arguing that the UNC-CHeat dominance should not end; but many are arguing to replace it with a two-headed dominance of NCSU and UNC-CHeat, which is no better.  Simply replacing the problem with a new one and everyone is having to fight the same battle except NCSU.  Some of those on here just want to be a part of the dictatorship, rather than actually seeing there not be one.  Give representation based upon student population and nobody should have cause for complaint.

NCSU4GOP wrote: Just continue what you all are doing by e-mailing your senators and house members. From what I'm hearing every school in the state should be pleased (besides UNC alums maybe since it has been one sided for them since the UNC system was founded). The new legislatures are well aware of the monopoly UNC has had on the board and they are fed up with it as well.

seniorwolf60 wrote:

NCSU4GOP wrote: Just continue what you all are doing by e-mailing your senators and house members. From what I'm hearing every school in the state should be pleased (besides UNC alums maybe since it has been one sided for them since the UNC system was founded). The new legislatures are well aware of the monopoly UNC has had on the board and they are fed up with it as well.

There have always been some members of the legislature who were not pleased with the imbalance of representation on the BOG. I have known a few personally, but their voices have been so minor that there was no real hope to get anything changed. What is important right now is to get a pulse of any shift in thinking that would allow for some serious examination of a very unserving condition. There is also another important thing to consider - be very aware of the lobbyists and special interest coalitions. They need to be identified because they are usually the ones who are behind the strange behavior that occurs in the government.

Wolfs Lare wrote: I emailed each one individually, and I have not received a single response. 

partizanpack wrote: I don't give a **** about school allegiance when it comes to the BOG. What I care about is competence.