The third regular meeting of the 2005-2006 Faculty Senate was held on Tuesday, November 8, 2005, in the Mendenhall Student Center Great Room.


Agenda Item I.  Call to Order

Catherine Rigsby, Chair of the Faculty called the meeting to order at 2:10 p.m.


Agenda Item II.  Approval of Minutes

The minutes of October 11, 2005, were approved as presented. 


Agenda Item III.  Special Order of the Day

A.  Roll Call

Senators absent were: Professors Dobbs (Medicine), Chandler (Nutrition and Hospitality Management), Funaro (Theatre and Dance), and Vice Chancellor Lewis.


Alternates present were: Professors Coonin for Winstead (Academic Library Services), Boklage for Schenarts (Medicine), Cox for Willson (Medicine), Butler for Morris (Political Science), and Cope for Allred (Psychology).  Hewan-Lowe for Dobbs (Medicine) was denied a seat in error.


B.  Announcements

Candidate’s portfolio of evaluative materials (teaching philosophy, nominating letter, list of courses taught, student and peer evaluations, and 3 letters of support from former students) for the University Award for Outstanding Teaching and Robert L. Jones Award for Outstanding Teaching should be submitted to the Ad Hoc Teaching Awards Committee via the Faculty Senate office, 140 Rawl Annex by Thursday, December 1, 2005. 


Candidate’s portfolio of evaluative materials for the Board of Governors Distinguished Professor for Teaching Awards and the Board of Governors Award for Excellence in Teaching should be submitted to the Faculty Development Center, 122 Ragsdale by Thursday, December 1, 2005. 


Nominee’s materials (departmental and unit review committee nominating letters, complete CV, and 3 letters from outside referees) for the ECU Awards for Excellence in Research or Creative Activity should be submitted to the Academic Awards Committee via the Faculty Senate office, 140 Rawl Annex by Thursday, December 1, 2005.


The Committee on Committees is charged with filling two upcoming delegate and alternate vacancies on the UNC Faculty Assembly.  Information has been distributed to all faculty and nomination forms are due in the Faculty Senate office by Tuesday, November 8, 2005.


The Committee on Committees has been charged to seek volunteers to serve on the various academic, appellate, administrative, Board of Trustees, and student union committees.  Faculty are strongly encouraged to participate in this component of shared faculty governance and return the volunteer form by February 15, 2006.  Committee appointments will be finalized at the April 25, 2006, Faculty Senate meeting.

Faculty members have two ways to note their preference for service on the various standing University committees. 

1)  On OneStop under Employee Section, faculty members click on “Faculty Committee Volunteer Form” and complete the committee volunteer  preference form.  This information is then submitted directly to the Committee on Committees via the Faculty Senate office.   

2)  A faculty member may complete the volunteer preference form that is available on the Faculty Senate web site at

      http://www.ecu.edu/cs-acad/fsonline/customcf/committee/callforvolunteers.htm and forward the completed form via email to the Faculty Senate office at facultysenate@mail.ecu.edu.


Letters concerning unit elections for 2006-2007 Faculty Senate representation will be mailed to unit code administrators in early January.  In accordance with the ECU Faculty Manual, Appendix A, elections are to be held during the month of February.  Please call the Faculty Senate office if you have any questions.


The following persons were elected to serve as faculty representatives on the Search Committee for the Dean of the Graduate School: Patricia Anderson (Curriculum & Instruction), Jim Decker (Exercise & Sport Science), Gerhard Kalmus (Biology), George Kasperek (Biochemistry & Molecular Biology), Larry Toburen (Physics), and Michael Van Scott (Physiology).


C.  Steve Ballard, Chancellor

Chancellor Ballard stated that his impression with his visit with President-elect Bowles was excellent and ECU is in a great position with the new President.   He understands this institution and wants it to do well.  He knows a lot about us and has no prejudices against this institution.  He may not have the academic background but he wants to learn about what we are doing.   He is clearly a supporter of our distance education program.   The Chancellor also discussed with him the next five years of financing in higher education.   His opinion was no different than anyone else in that it is dismal.   Medicaid will push out higher education and will dominate the state budget process.   We need to decide how we can best respond to that portion of our budget (is a little over 1/3) which is provided by the state.  Distance Education has helped our budget situtaion but it cannot grow in the future as fast as it has in the past.  We all need to answer how we will respond to that fiscal situation.   What we do now will make a huge difference in the years 2010, 2012.   He challenges the Provost and the Faculty Senate to work together to think whether the decentralized budget model -- which appears to have been successful in this University -- might work in resources areas that have not yet been aggressively pursued, particularly Continuing Education and Summer Programs.  He is not proposing that we do something different there but it may be an option and we may already have the model to find a way to use it to our advantage as we think about the reality that the state percentage of the cost of educating our students will surely decline.  Few other options to generate state revenue can possibly exist other than enrollment increases and to be very aggressive with some targeted legislative strategies.   He would like to put this on the agenda for discussion this year. 


The Chancellor also talked about the planning process.  He hopes we can generate many forums for participation and we will move forward.  The planning process needs to answer the fundamental questions of our daily lives such as how big our classrooms will be, the size of this institution, and healthcare issues versus childcare.  We need campus input to answer these questions.  Also, what new degree programs should we pursue and at what cost at the graduate and undergraduate levels.  He again encourages everyone’s participation.  He stated that at a very different kind of level, the 30,000 ft. level, we need to contemplate what type of institution we are and four things strike the Chancellor as unusual about this University.  First, we have great strength and stability yet the pressure for change occurs daily.   Second, we are a mission-driven University and we must not forget this as the pressures to be a profit-driven institution are huge.   President Bowles does feel our mission statement could use a little review and the Chancellor agrees and the mission-driven aspect of our University is critical.  Third, we compete on quality in a global way and this is critical in whether we are successful or not.   President Bowles recognizes the quality of our academic programs and he understands that quality exists here but the policy debate is about the cost of education and not about the competitiveness.  However, to the Chancellor the way to be competitive in higher education is through quality programming.   Fourth, our system of shared governance makes a difference in how we make decisions.  


Sprague (Physics) asked about the status of the childcare facility.  The Chancellor stated that this will be a responsibility of the Provost but that we are committed to look at the options concerning this issue.   We are looking at the possibility of partnerships with private providers, however, we must be concerned with costs.


Brown (Education) asked about Chancellor Ballard’s ideas for continuing education and summer school programs.  The Chancellor stated that perhaps our success with a decentralized model may help in these areas and that distance education may also help these areas be successful.


Wilson (Sociology) discussed issues relating to classes canceled after Halloween.  He asked Chancellor Ballard to provide a list of those classes cancelled that can be distributed to the Faculty Senate.  He stated that it was not to chastise the faculty, but attempt to understand the issue.  Chancellor Ballard, in turn, asked Provost Smith to provide this data for the Senators.


Robinson (Mathematics) stated his support of Chancellor Ballard’s statements on being a mission driven versus profit driven institution and the importance of shared governance.


Given (Foreign Languages) expressed his concern that President-elect Erskine Bowles has no experience in academia.  He asked Chancellor Ballard to discuss shared faculty governance with him and the Chancellor agreed to do that.


Warren (Education) asked what the enrollment projections were for the next 5 years.  He noted the need to provide a competitive edge in respect to recruiting and hiring new faculty. Niswander (Business) noted that as of July 1, 2005, a full time employee of the UNC System or a spouse or dependent child of that employee, will qualify for resident tuition.


D.  Mike Lewis, Vice Chancellor for Health Sciences

Vice Chancellor Lewis was unable to attend the Senate meeting, yet provided the Senators with the following information prior to the meeting. The newest addition to the Health Sciences Academic Campus will consist of a 300,000 gross square foot building which will house the School of Allied Health Sciences, the School of Nursing, and the William E. Laupus Health Sciences Library. The building structural and facade work is basically completed.  Installation of windows and completion of dry-in of the building will finish shortly.  Installation of metal stud walls and HVAC rough-ins are completed throughout the building.  Installation of drywall is complete in the Library, ongoing in Allied Health, and starting in Nursing.  Painting, installation of ceiling grid, and HVAC ceiling work has started in the Library and will be moving into Allied Health and then Nursing.  Installation of flooring and finishes will follow this work.  The underground utilities, rough grading, and parking lots are completed on the site.  The final asphalt paving surface, irrigation and landscaping is the site work that remains.  The bidding of Audio/Visual equipment and negotiation of furniture purchases in underway.  The project schedule is still working toward moving Allied Health at Spring Break as planned, and then moving Nursing and the Library after commencement in May.


The School of Allied Health Sciences (SAHS) will be the first to move into the new building with the inaugural day for classes being held on March 20, 2006 (Monday after Spring Break).  This will allow extensive renovations to begin on the Carol Belk Building.  During a one week time span, all nine departments in the School will move over 80 faculty and staff, and 562 degree-seeking students, most of whom are at the Masters and Doctoral levels.  To help accomplish this extraordinary task, SAHS hired a new Assistant Dean for Special Projects, whose primary focus will be moving and settling the School into its new facilities.  Sixteen different teaching and research labs and clinics will also be moved requiring a timely transition that will not interfere with student instruction and patient services.  Large and delicate equipment requiring specialized handling and calibration will need to be moved and installed, such as audiology sound booths, floor pressure plates, autoclave (sterilizer), chemistry analyzer, and balance chair to name a few.  Hazardous materials used in the Department of Clinical Laboratory Science teaching labs will also require special packing and handling. As a result of this mid-semester move, SAHS needed to develop two classroom schedules for the 2006 spring semester—one for the Belk building and one for the new facility.  Of particular concern is ensuring that students, staff, and faculty have a place to park and know how to find classrooms, labs, and offices in the 127,000 square feet assigned to the School.  Telephone numbers will change, wireless classrooms will be radically different than the dated Belk Building teaching environment, and for the first time, Allied Health will not sit alone, separated from the other Schools in the Division of Health Sciences.  Long-term goals are to create one-stop services for students on the West Campus (e.g., registrar, cashier, admissions, financial aid, parking office, dining and recreational services, student health services, and easy access to the East Campus).  For the first time, we will be able to create a unified Academic Health Center that will strengthen the proud heritage of ECU as a leader in the East and an innovator in the state.


The School of Nursing is looking forward with great enthusiasm to occupying its space in the new building on the West Campus in May, 2006.  The School plans to relocate all of its 85+ faculty, 30+ staff, 32+ Graduate Assistants and 800+ undergraduate and graduate majors.  Of special note will be the new teaching laboratories where clinical simulation of patient care scenarios will be the closest thing to “reality” as students learn the application of the latest technologies to managing clinical care.  In addition, dedicated space for research, which has been totally lacking in the current location, will allow expansion of research programs of faculty and doctoral students.  Classroom spaces with state-of-the-art technology will be present to accommodate a growing student enrollment in all programs. New and modern faculty offices (most have windows) will be a welcome and pleasant change for the faculty.  While preparing for a move of this magnitude is somewhat overwhelming, this is truly an exciting time for the school as this new building brings the Health Sciences Division schools in closer geographic proximity, thus facilitating advancement of interdisciplinary teaching, research, and practice initiatives.  


Mid May 2006 is the target move date for the Laupus Library.  In order to facilitate an efficient and timely transition, access to the library will need to be suspended during the move.  A two-week time period is anticipated to complete the move.    One of the goals during the transition period is to maintain access to the library’s electronic resources.  Loss of electronic resources is anticipated to be less than a day.   All current library resources and collections will be moved and accessible in the new library.  A total of 42 employees (14 EPA and 28 SPA employees) will be affected by the move. There are 149,200 estimated items to be relocated, i.e., 42,600 monographs or books; 94,000 bound journals; 4,600 audio visual programs; and 8,000 microform units.  The new library is significantly larger than the present facility. An atmosphere conducive to study, research, technology use and collaboration has been incorporated into the design of the new area.  Some of the additional features of the new library include: more and better group and individual study rooms, improved soft/casual seating, comfortable study space and computer use space, lots of natural light, instructional technology space, wireless capability, space devoted to History of Medicine collections and artifacts, and special events space on the 4th floor


Deirdre Mageean, Vice Chancellor for Research and Graduate Studies, noted the persons elected to serve as faculty representatives on the Search Committee for the Dean of the Graduate School: Patricia Anderson (Curriculum & Instruction), Jim Decker (Exercise & Sport Science), Gerhard Kalmus (Biology), George Kasperek (Biochemistry & Molecular Biology), Larry Toburen (Physics), and Michael Van Scott (Physiology).  She then asked the body if she could also appoint a graduate student as an ex-officio member without vote to serve on this search committee.  Chair Rigsby noted that this went against what is stated in the ECU Faculty Manual. Vice Chancellor Smith responded that the manual did not say that it could not be done. Chair Rigsby offered to discuss this request with both Vice Chancellors following the meeting and, if necessary, ask the Faculty Governance Committee to consider the issue.


Vice Chancellor Mageean also announced that Ronald Newton (Biology) would serve as the Interim Associate Dean of the Graduate School.


Jim Smith, Provost and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs, shared his insights into the new President-elect Bowles.  He has worked in some degree with three previous presidents and he is very impressed with the combination of qualities and traits in this new President.   The Provost noted that at the meeting with the Executive Council, the President viewed his presidency as one of serving the campuses and that resonates very deeply as he feels that they all are working at the Executive Council level to serve the Deans and the academic units.  The Provost stated that the comments made by President Bowles were different from previous presidents and he was very impressed.   The Provost addressed the issue of childcare stating that outsourcing was a possibility but a task force should be formed to address this issue as it is in competition with many budget concerns.   As we get better in budgetary process and revenue source analysis, we will be able to strategically approach many issues. 


Sprague (Physics) noted that the distributed information on positions showed positions in Math for the Engineering degree, but not Physics.  He stressed that the Physics Department would be asked to teach 10 hours of coursework for the new degree and thought that that should be reflected in this report.  The Provost stated he would take this under advisement.


E.  Catherine Rigsby, Chair of the Faculty

Professor Rigsby stated that there was a lot going on campus these days so communication was essential. She encouraged faculty to volunteer for committees.  She noted that in reference to her meeting with President-elect Erskine Bowles, he asked that all refer to his office as General Administration and not the Office of the President.  He stated that he understands the mission to serve faculty in order to keep good faculty.  He discussed his unhappiness with General Assembly and its lack of support for overall academic benefits such as faculty salaries and healthcare.  He asked faculty to tell him what General Administration requires that makes their job harder.  He asked for a list of faculty priorities.  He also stated that in general, the community does not really understand what faculty so so he wants to tell general assembly/legislature what faculty do.


F.  Henry Peel, Interim Director of Institutional Planning, Research, and Effectiveness          

Dr. Peel distributed information on the University’s Strategic Plan and referred to this handout throughout his discussion.  The information given outlined a new planning model and Dr. Peel was asking for expertise from all on campus.   He stated that we are moving into an integrated planning model and away from the Strategic Planning model of the past.   This an open planning model, which will be more encompassing than model used previously.  He encouraged the group to read the first page on their own.  The second page of the handout addressed the general timeline for the plan.  Dr. Peel stressed that input is very important and that he would meet with all officers and faculty chairs to work with him to inform and give feedback.  Dr. Peel reviewed an extensive amount of previous information in order to form a matrix for a possible strategic direction.  Looking at where we have been leads to where we are going.   Page 3 of the handout was an example of how the Integrated Planning Model will work.  The model looks at how the many areas of the University will impact a strategic direction.   Dr. Peel used fund raising as an example of how the model could work.  He also used diversity.  If we have a strategic direction on how we value diversity, we need to not look at how we value diversity but how diversity permeates all that we do.   Page 4 stressed  that we also need to look at the UNC Board of Governors plan and see how their plan integrates and informs our own.   Page five was an example of what a strategic direction might look like and how the model could work.  Dr. Peel stressed that this is an example and not set in stone.   Page 6 shows how this direction could be integrated with and impacted by other areas of the University.  The example shows that when you are looking at an integrated model how everything can fit together.  The remainder of the handout is a draft of five possible strategic directions (please refer to handout).  This draft emerged from all the study conducted by Dr. Peel and from all the information he has gotten so far.  They may be changed or modified as Dr. Peel meets with the officers and other groups but this begins to look like our five strategic directions.  ECU will prepare tomorrow leaders.   Dr. Peel stated that he had received a question already as to how the five-year unit evaluation will fit into this plan.  There is a committee endorsed by the senate that states that the five-year unit plan must more naturally fit the planning process on campus and Dr. Peel is working with the committee to see how this will fit.  He concluded by stating that this open process will naturally connect with the planning that you do.  


Robinson (Mathematics) thanked Dr. Peel for addressing the 5 year unit evaluation and asked if units would get a new list of those units on the 5 year unit planning list. Tovey (English) noted that she was a member of the Process Improvement Committee and that they were working on an integrated planning system.  Dr. Peel addressed Robinson question by stating that in order to kick off this plan that perhaps everyone perform a self-assessment and then form a list.  Dr. Rigsby stated that the Provost has asked the Deans to start the process in the colleges. 


After a question presented by Tovey (English), Dr. Peel stated that any individual could e-mail input to him.  The meeting with the Faculty Officers and Faculty Senate Committee Chairs could supply information, which could change everything.


Yalcin (Philosophy) asked what would happen to a unit that did not follow the stated strategic plan.  Dr. Peel stated he would meet with him later to discuss.


Lamson (Child Development and Family Relations) noted that the material only showed areas and issues moving up and that there are plenty of unit activities that must meet the need of these overall plans.  She noted that the arrows should go up and down to accurately reflect the activities of all.


G.  Approval of Fall 2005 Graduation Roster, including honors program graduates

Professor Glascoff (Health and Human Performance) moved the approval of the Fall 2005 Graduation Roster, including honors program graduates, subject to completion of degree requirements.  The roster was accepted by acclamation.  RESOLUTION #05-42 


H.  Brief Moment in History, Henry Ferrell

Professor Ferrell (History) discussed various historical happenings relating to faculty and its evolution.


I.  Question Period

Taggart (Music) noted to Provost Smith that under Appendix L and in relation to quadrennial unit evaluations there was no vehicle for a recommendation by ballot to individuals.  He asked if this could be done.  The Provost stated that this issue needs work and faculty should have input.  Chancellor Muse had come up with a policy but  Chancellor Ballard has not had a chance to review it.  A comprehensive discussion is needed and faculty should have input.  We need to get together with this particular senior administrative team and put this near the top of the list.  


Agenda Item IV.  Unfinished Business

There was no unfinished business to come before the Faculty Senate at this time.


Agenda Item V.  Report of Committees

A. Admission and Retention Policies Committee

Larry Seese (Business), Chair of the Committee, presented a proposed revision to the ECU Undergraduate Catalog, Section 2. Admission and Readmission, relating to Nontraditional Students. 


Tovey (English) spoke against the proposed policy and asked if someone without college experience could attend ECU, since #1 from the old policy was being deleted.


Tagggart (Music) spoke against the proposed policy change.  He asked about a student that joins the military for 6+ years, would he or she be eligible to attend ECU or would they first have to go to a community college.   He also was confused by the age being 24.  This age came from the Presidential office and could not be changed.  Long (history) stated that he agreed with the comments made by Taggert.


Glascoff (Health and Human Performance) spoke against the proposed policy stating that ECU was the leader in distance education and that military personnel are returning to the area with disabilities or GI benefits and the University should encourage their enrollment.  She moved to have  “have had no previous college experience” added as #3 to the proposed policy.


Sprague (Physics) asked if these students would be allowed as traditional student admissions. Don Joyner (Associate Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs) stated that community colleges offer remediation courses and at 24 years of age, students do not have to meet standard SAT requirements.


Coonin (Library Services) stated that we need to explore how this would affect the military distance education program at Fort Bragg.  He later stated that NC residency needed to be considered.


Glascoff (Health and Human Performance) asked how many students were disqualified from entering ECU due to spelling, etc.  Joyner responded that 40% wash out at 24 years old with 22% being lost from freshman and sophomore years for various reasons.


Robinson (Math) proposed to amend the amendment by reinserting all the language that was stricken.  Motion was denied.


Levine (Medicine) spoke against the motion stating that our goal was to weed out those 24 year olds that could be successful so maybe additional testing should be asked of those.


Wilson (Sociology) moved to have the proposed revisions to the Nontraditional Student admission policy be returned to the Admissions and Retention Policies Committee to consider a possible rewrite of the North Carolina residence and 24 years of age with no previosu college experience.  Following discussion, the motion was approved and the proposed revision to the ECU Undergraduate Catalog, Section 2. Admission and Readmission, relating to Nontraditional Students was returned to the Committee for further discussion.   RESOLUTION #05-43


B.  Committee on Committees

Henry Ferrell (History), Chair of the Committee, presented first readings of revisions to both the University Athletics Committee and Teaching Grants Committee charges.  Next month, Senators will have an opportunity to propose amendments to these charges.  There was no discussion on this report.


C.  Educational Policies and Planning Committee

Dale Knickerbocker (Foreign Languages and Literatures), Chair of the Committee, presented for information only the Committee’s approval of a request to change the name of MS in Industrial Technology to MS in Technology Systems.  It was noted that a letter of approval had been forwarded to Chancellor Ballard.  There was no discussion on this report.


D.  University Budget Committee

Cal Christian (Business), Chair of the Committee, presented a report on the status of Institutional, State, and Federal Priorities.  He noted the open communication that the University Budget Committee has had with top administration. 


Glascoff (Health and Human Performance) asked for information on the proposed Downtown Center.  Niswander (Business) noted that the possibility of a Downtown Center (hotel, welcome center, etc.) was relatively high, stating that the location and who will be a part of the center was still being discussed. He stated that a report should be forthcoming within 2-3 months. 


E.  University Curriculum Committee

Cheryl Estes (Health and Human Performance), Secretary of the Committee, presented the curriculum matters contained in the minutes of the October 13, 2005, and October 27, 2005, Committee Meetings.  There was no discussion and the curriculum matters were approved as presented.  RESOLUTION #05-44


Agenda Item VI.  New Business

Taggart (Music), as a member of the Faculty Governance Committee, moved to have the Faculty Senate consider new business relating to fixed term faculty members.  Chair Rigsby stated that in order to hear new business, there had to be a vote with 2/3rds of those present and voting agreeing to hear the report. 


Professor Morrison (Chemistry), also a member of the Faculty Governance Committee and past Chair of one of the Fixed Term Faculty Task 
Forces, provided the following information for your review.
The percentage of fixed-term faculty has increased from 10-12% in the 1980’s to about 34-35% in the last few years.  Some of our units
have 40-50% or more of their faculty in fixed-term, visiting, positions.   In his annual report on the employment category for faculty at the 
December 7,1999, meeting of the faculty senate Chancellor Eakin spoke of the “distressing” characteristic on the decline of tenure track 
faculty memberssince 1991, and the increase in non-tenure track positions.  He stated that compared to other UNC institutions, ECU has a 
lower percentage of faculty not on tenure track, but a task force will be empanelled to discover reasons for the gradual increase in non-
tenure track faculty  (Faculty Senate minutes December 7, 1999). 
Last year at a Faculty Assembly meeting President Broad expressed concern about having a segment of the faculty who only teach.  And 
she expressed concern about how this was affecting shared governance. Job security, low pay, academic freedom, and shared 
governance are some of the issues that are associated with our increasing dependence on fixed-term faculty.  These issues are complex 
and emotionally charged, and the Faculty Senate has been discussing them for over twenty years.  


It is a commonly held view that as our faculty shifts toward non-tenure track, the balance of power shifts from the faculty to the administration 
and the board of trustees.  Permanent tenure allows you to speak up and defend your rights when they are abused.  Permanent tenure 
allows you to vote on mission-critical issues without fear of reprisal.  Five or six years ago when I was chair of the Academic Freedom 
Committee of the UNC Faculty Assembly, we held several joint meetings with the Benefits and Welfare Committee to discuss those issues 
that surround fixed-term faculty.  As a result, in February 2001 the Office of the President appointed a Non-tenure-track faculty committee, of 
which I was a member.  


During the Fall of 2001 that committee invited fixed-term faculty members to a series of forums held across the state to discuss their

concerns and issues.   One of those forums was conducted at ECU where we invited fixed-term faculty members from Elizabeth City,

Wilmington, Pembroke, and Fayetteville.  Their main concerns were job security, low pay, and academic freedom.  One participant from

another university in a phone conservation said she didn’t want anyone from her university to know that she had spoken with me.  She

didn’t show up for the forum. Job security and freedom to speak are key issues.    


The AAUP statement on tenure and academic freedom states: “Tenure is a means to certain ends; specifically: (1) freedom of teaching

and research and of extramural activities, and (2) a sufficient degree of economic security to make the profession attractive to men and

women of ability.  Freedom and economic security, hence, tenure, are indispensable to the success of an institution in fulfilling its

obligations to its students and to society. “


Here are some things we can do: 1) Determine the appropriate mix of faculty and a plan to achieve that mix. 2) Eliminate the term

 visiting from fixed-term titles except for those positions that are truly temporary.  Use titles such as teaching assistant professor,

teaching associate professor, research assistant professor, etc.  3) In the short term offer 10-year contracts with the presumption of

contract renewal to those who have demonstrated exceptional performance.  (We have many exceptional faculty members in

fixed-term positions.  There are several in chemistry.)  Faculty members on 10-year contracts should have the same rights and

responsibilities as permanently tenured faculty members, including serving on personnel committees, and search committees.

4) Over the long term develop a process for permanently tenuring those who serve in fixed-term positions for long periods of time.

We should tenure the faculty who teach, and who provide clinical or other outreach services.  If a non-tenure-track faculty member

turns out to be needed for twenty years, what has been gained by withholding the protections of tenure?


In the words of the AAUP let’s “make the profession attractive to men and women of ability.” 


Tovey (English) moved to delete “establish a staffing program that”.  Gilliland (Medicine) stated that the body needed more information before establishing a staffing program. She stated that 65% of faculty in the School of Medicine were fixed term faculty members.  Long (History) spoke against the amendment.  Sprague (Physics) offered a friendly amendment to change #3 from “offers” to “encourages”.  The motion to remove  “establish a staffing program that” and change “offers” to “encourages” passed by a voice vote.


Eakes (Nursing) spoke against the resolution stating that the School of Nursing relies heavily on fixed term faculty and that this resolution might limit the number of fixed term faculty members. Painter (Allied Health Sciences) spoke against the resolution stating that the Fixed Term Faculty Task Force has not reported yet.  She stressed the need for a system to promote fixed term faculty and that there were different needs in Academic Affairs and Health Sciences. She did not think that the use of fixed term faculty should be unified across campus. 


Taggart (Music) stated that the Faculty Governance Committee was interested in ways to improve the system.  Martinez (Foreign Languages), Chair of the Faculty Governance Committee, stated that the Committee was not trying to limit the number of fixed term faculty on campus.


Tovey (English) stated that General Administration recommends 3 years for fixed term faculty and that a message needs to be sent to administration.  Sprague (Physics) asked if the Senate shouldn’t wait on pushing the 3 years until solutions are figured out.  McMillen (Medicine) spoke against the resolution stating that it turns everything over to administration.


Long (History) spoke against the resolution stating that it did not force anything.  He offered an amendment deleting “that the Provost and Vice Chancellor for Health Sciences” and replacing it with “the Faculty Senate establish an adhoc committee that will…”  Taggart (Music) offered a friendly amendment changing it to “the Faculty Senate will establish a staffing program”.  Kirkland (English) stated that a report was needed from a Task Force.  Morrison (Chemistry) noted that a task force works at a slow pace and that this needs a higher priority.


Robinson (Mathematics) stated that he did not think that administration had addressed the most elementary starting point of this issue.  Boklage (Medicine) spoke against the amendment noting that fundamental issues were missing such as the rights and responsibilities, protection of tenure, and that some fixed term faculty members did not want the tenure responsibilities.


Wilson (Sociology) spoke against the amendment stating that the Senate was not providing any ways to accomplish this task.  Long (History) stated that we know as little about this issue as we did 3 years ago and that kicking it back to administration was not going to solve the growing problem.  The motion to amend the resolution to change the wording failed by a standing vote.


Wilson (Sociology) moved to have it read that the Provost and Vice Chancellor for Health Sciences “recommend a plan to the Faculty Senate that”.  Glascoff (Health and Human Performance) offered a friendly amendment to read: “Therefore Be It Resolved, that the Faculty Senate recommends, in agreement with the Office of the President’s recommendations of March 6, 2002, that the Provost and Vice Chancellor for Health Sciences recommend a plan to the Faculty Senate that:”  The amendment was approved.


Niswander (Business) moved to have “the Provost and Vice Chancellor for Health Sciences” changed to “Academic Council”.  The amendment was approved as presented. 


Following a lengthy discussion, the proposed resolution on Fixed Term Faculty was approved as amended.  RESOLUTION #05-45


There being no further new business to come before the Faculty Senate at this time, the meeting adjourned at 4:55 p.m.


Respectfully submitted,


Christine Zoller                                                                                 Lori Lee

Secretary of the Faculty                                                                  Administrative Officer        

School of Art and Design                                                                Faculty Senate





05-42  Approval of the Fall 2005 Graduation Roster, including honors program graduates, subject to the completion of degree requirements.

               Disposition:       Chancellor, Board of Trustees


05-43  Proposed revision to the ECU Undergraduate Catalog, Section 2. Admission and Readmission, relating to Nontraditional Students was returned to the Committee for further discussion.

Disposition:           Admission and Retention Policies Committee


05-44    Curriculum matters contained in the minutes of the October 13, 2005, and October 27, 2005, Committee Meetings.

Disposition:           Chancellor


05-44    Resolution on Fixed term Faculty as follows:

Whereas,  the faculty of ECU recognizes the important contribution of fixed term faculty to the success of the university’s mission; and


Whereas, faculty also recognize the diversity of roles played by fixed term faculty in the various colleges and schools of ECU; and


Whereas, faculty recognize that for the institution to achieve its mission and to maintain quality it is necessary to have an appropriate mix of qualified, adequately compensated and supported faculty.


Whereas, the Non-Tenure Track Faculty Task Force of 2002-2003 asked academic units to provide data on fixed term faculty, however this data has not been forthcoming; and


Whereas, in February 2004, the Faculty Senate requested a Fixed-Term Faculty Task Force (Resolution #04-04) to further study the Board of Governors major recommendations and to provide recommendations and draft documents and policies pertaining to non-tenure track faculty to the Faculty Senate by September 2004; and


Whereas, the Fixed-Term Faculty Task Force has not reported to the Faculty Senate; and


Whereas, in April 2005, the Chair of the Faculty requested the Faculty Governance Committee to form an ad hoc committee to review ECU’s utilization of fixed-term faculty, specifically focusing on the recommendations from the Office of the President and on the voting rights currently allowed in ECU’s unit codes.


Therefore Be It Resolved, that the Faculty Senate recommends, in agreement with the Office of the President’s recommendations of March 6, 2002, that the Academic Council recommend a plan to the Faculty Senate that:


1.      Defines the desired mix of various types of faculty appointments and monitor its progress in moving toward its staffing goals.


2.      Provides guidelines and criteria for transforming some of the current fixed term faculty lines into tenured and tenure-track faculty lines.  


3.      Encourages multi-year contracts of three years or more to full-time fixed term faculty who have demonstrated their effectiveness and contributions.

Disposition:           Chancellor, Academic Council