|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mr. Nieman offered a substitute motion to amend the portion of the main motion
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
of the Supplemental Budget Request regarding undergraduate tuition recommendations as
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
follows: “Tuition increases at UNC Chapel Hill and North Carolina State University be set at
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$200 (or $300, if the financial aid package is not approved) for one year, and a 2.1 percent across
|
|
|
|
the board for the entire university, excluding other specific campus requests.”
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mr. Sanders seconded Mr. Nieman’s amendment to the main motion. Following a request by
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mr. Farris, Mr. Nieman agreed to permit a separate treatment of three of the campus-initiated
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
requests (ECU, UNC Charlotte, and UNC Wilmington), rather than considering the tuition
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
increase recommendation as a whole. Mr. Sanders concurred in Mr. Farris’ request but pointed
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
out that the motion would substitute President Broad’s recommendation with respect to
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
undergraduate tuition for the recommendations of the Budget and Finance Committee with
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
respect to undergraduate tuition at the five institutions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In the discussion which followed, Mr. Robinson, legal counsel and
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
parliamentarian for the meeting, ruled the motion was a substitute motion and Mr. Nieman
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
restated his motion, noting that the board consider separately the campus-initiated requests.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There was considerable discussion surrounding the substitute motion and a number of members
|
|
|
|
|
|
raised questions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mr. Nieman explained his substitute motion. [In order to clarify further the
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
substitute motion, Mr. Sanders said, “the effect of the motion is to substitute President Broad’s
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
recommendations for $200 or $300 per year, one-time at Raleigh and Chapel Hill, and no other
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
undergraduate increases at this time.] Following additional discussion, Mr. Nieman withdrew
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
his permission to consider Mr. Farris’ request for a separate treatment of the campuses and asked
|
|
|
|
|
that his substitute motion be voted upon first.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In his comments opposing the substitute motion, Mr. Warwick said:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I would like to speak in opposition to the substitute motion. The Budget and Finance
Committee has considered a very comprehensive tuition program and there are a number
of elements that are being left out if you adopt the substitute motion. I don’t think that
everybody fully understands the effect of that. For instance, there is nothing in Jeff’s
motion to provide for East Carolina University going to a Doctoral II status and there is
nothing to provide the additional tuition for the law school at Chapel Hill, the business
school at UNC Wilmington, and some other graduate increases that were in the total
package.
|
|
|