MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 8, 2005
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
absent were: Professors Dobbs (Medicine),
present were: Professors Coonin for Winstead (Academic Library Services),
Boklage for Schenarts (Medicine), Cox for Willson (Medicine),
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
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
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
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
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
2) A faculty member may complete the volunteer preference form that is available on the Faculty Senate web site at
and forward the completed form via email to the
Letters concerning unit elections for 2006-2007
The following persons were elected to serve as faculty
representatives on the Search Committee for the Dean of the
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.
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.
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
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
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
Vice Chancellor Mageean also
announced that Ronald Newton (Biology) would serve as the Interim Associate
Dean of the
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
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
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.
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.
(Health and Human Performance) asked for information on the proposed
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
and issues. One of those forums was
conducted at ECU where we invited fixed-term faculty members 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
Eakes (Nursing) spoke against the
resolution stating that the
Taggart (Music) stated that the
Faculty Governance Committee was interested in ways to improve the system.
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”.
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.
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.
Christine Zoller Lori Lee
Secretary of the Faculty Administrative Officer
FACULTY SENATE RESOLUTIONS APPROVED AT THE NOVEMBER 8, 2005, MEETING
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 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
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