regular meeting of the 2005-2006
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
Agenda Item III. Special Order of the Day
A. Roll Call
Senators absent were: Professors Schisler (Business), Wang (Geography), and Long (History).
present were: Professors Wolfe for Avenarius (Anthropology),
Chancellor has approved the following resolutions from the January 31, 2006,
06-01 Curriculum matters contained in the minutes of the December 8, 2005, and January 12, 2006, University Curriculum Committee meetings.
06-03 Resolution on Health Insurance.
06-04 Practical measures to reduce the class days missed due to athletic competition.
06-05 Revision to the ECU Undergraduate Catalog, Section 5. Academic Regulations,
relating to Class Attendance and Participation Regulations.
2. The annual Teaching Awards Ceremony is scheduled for Tuesday, April 25, 2006, at 11:00 a.m. in the Mendenhall Student Center Great Room. A reception will follow immediately afterwards. Faculty awarded for their teaching achievements will be recognized at this event and all faculty are welcome to attend.
3. Letters concerning unit elections for
4. Thanks to
5. There will be a Faculty Officers’ Candidate Forum on Tuesday, April 11, 2006, from 2:30 – 4:30 p.m. in the Mendenhall Student Center Great Room. All faculty are invited to attend and discuss issues of importance with the faculty officer candidates.
7. Additional items distributed to Senators included a preliminary list of faculty priorities compiled from the survey last month, process and timeline information on the Task Force on Graduate Education, and a comparison of ECU to its Peer Institutions.
C. Steve Ballard, Chancellor
Chancellor Ballard detailed recent developments in the General Administration, stating that “shared governance” is a priority of President Eskine Bowles. Chancellor Ballard stated that our priorities have improved and listed six important items that were not the definitive list, but areas of great importance:
- Administrative efficiency – All campuses must be evaluated for administrative costs.
- K – 12 partnerships and the teacher shortage crisis
- Collaboration with Community Colleges
- Access and affordability of higher education
- Distance Education
Chancellor Ballard stated that ECU was the only campus mentioned by name as a leader in many of these areas. President Bowles wants the other 15 campuses to follow ECU’s lead. Chancellor Ballard stated that ECU must continue to invest in distance education, noting that ECU’s reputation is our quality.
connection with budget requests, the Chancellor stated that according to
President Bowles all campuses must agree and all 16 campuses must identify
their priorities. Chancellor Ballard
noted that ECU has a lot of work to do to make sure we get our fair share.
ECU’s priorities include a
The Chancellor also said a few words about the discussions to take place today concerning the revisions to Appendix C and D. He stated that the Faculty Governance Committee had worked very hard and he encouraged the debate on these important issues. He stated that he valued shared governance and viewed this as critical. Chancellor Ballard stated that we must work together as we lead the system. We must ensure that our lead is maintained and collaboration is the key. We can work out the tensions in our system with openness and collaboration. He encouraged everyone to keep our eye on tomorrow, improve our systems, and create new doctorial degrees. We have a great reputation and we must maintain our flexibility and capability in the future. We can all be committed to the nature of the process.
Tovey (English) asked about the last 3 peer institutions and them being seen as “competitors”. The Chancellor responded that the preparation of this list took a long time and joked that it was worse than a root canal. He stated that the competitive peers come up as a compromise. They had better figures in research dollars but ECU is doing better in other areas. Competitive peers get us to a place to do right things. Provost Smith also stated that without change this list would not have been possible. Many judgments had to be made and that to have these peers ahead of us and on the list will do a lot for us.
Provost Jim Smith provided the following remarks and reiterated them at the meeting:
1. Considerations of the
Faculty Governance Recommendations on Faculty Personnel Policies (Including
Appendices C and D: Many thanks to the hard-working membership
of the Governance Committee for their long weeks (and months!) of work
preparing these recommendations. It is a tribute to our long history of
shared governance at
2. Enrollment Projections for 2006-2207: We are predicting a student enrollment for 2005-06 that, while in contains a considerable increase in student credit hours (SCHs), will still probable come in under our projections for the year. We have been funded on the basis of those projections. The point is that, while we are projecting another considerable increase for next year, the General Administration may hold us for next year flat to our projection for this year, since we will not achieve it. If they do, that will mean no enrollment increase monies for next year. If that is the case, then the additional faculty positions, operating dollars, library funding increases, and general institutional support monies (this latter category alone was $4.6million in 04-05 and $6.5million in 05-06) will not come our way. Stated differently, what GA tells us in the next few days or weeks will have a profound impact on the 2006-07 budget year. We will share more with you when we know more.
3. Task Force on Fixed Term Appointments: The Task Force met for the first time on February 9th and will meet again this Thursday, February 23rd, and every two weeks until the work is finished. Two fixed term appointees will be invited to join the group this week. The Task Force will issue a draft report at the April Senate meeting and will be finished with its work in time to share a report with the Governance Committee at its Organizational Meeting in the fall semester. Issues determined to be important for Task Force discussion are as follows:
--preamble to the report underscoring the central value to the institutional mission of tenure-track and tenured appointments at ECU
--actual categories and present uses of fixed term appointees
--a summation of the justifications for each of these categories and uses
--possible multi-yr contracts and associated by-out clauses and appointee performance evaluation mechanisms
--voting rights for fixed term appointees, as well as possible search committee membership
--annually updated academic unit staffing plans that would include use of any fixed term appointees
--unit annual reports that include rationales for fixed term use, fixed term staffing plan components, as well as comprehensive unit-goal setting/ evaluation discussions.
--other topics as discussion proceeds.
Data of various kinds is being gathered to better inform the discussion.
Smith concluded with a thanks to everyone for all they do for
There were no questions for Provost Smith.
D. UNC Faculty Assembly Report
John Cope (Psychology) prepared a written report on the February 17, 2006, UNC Faculty Assembly meeting. There were no questions posed to Professor Cope about this report.
E. Election of Faculty Officers Nominating Committee
According to the ECU Faculty Manual, Appendix A, Section VII., the following Faculty Senators were elected by acclamation to serve on the Faculty Officers Nominating Committee: Professors Louis Warren (Education), John Cope (Psychology), Ken Wilson (Sociology), James Holloway (Business), and Frances Eason (Nursing).
Committee will present a slate of 2006-2007 Faculty Officers to the
F. Catherine Rigsby, Chair of the Faculty
Professor Rigsby discussed the work behind the process of bringing the documentation for discussion today. She stated that there was a lot of discussion this week aimed at the Faculty Senate office. She wanted to share her thoughts on shared governance. What is it? It is the process where faculty and staff participate in the business of the institution. It is the creation and dissemination of ideas. How do we succeed with this mission? Faculty is in the best place to select colleagues and evaluate that faculty. They also set goals and guide student life. Our system does all those things and we do them very well. To any system of higher education this is important. SACS recognizes this and looks to the faculty manual as an important document and the importance of the Faculty Senate. Shared governance is the system of checks and balances. It is essential to our mission, which cannot be achieved unless there is a balance of governance. Who has the strongest voice is based on what you debate. The principals of shared governance state that the faculty are the experts when it comes to research, faculty status, curriculum and student life. Decisions in these areas should come first from the faculty. All statements of shared governance say the primary responsibility lays with the faculty. We must take our deliberations very seriously. The President and the Chancellor do not write the laws (the Faculty Manual); the faculty does, because we are the experts. A few years ago we redid our committee structure to allow more administrative personnel to be on Senate committees. These committees bring resolutions to the Senate – resolutions which changes the faculty manual. With 25% administration on most of our committees we are encoding collaboration into the system. As a faculty we want the collaboration of everyone.
Chairperson Rigsby was very pleased with the attendance at the forums in connection with Appendix D. There was lots of participation from all levels. She wants to set the tone for the big issues of today. Everyone who wanted to be included was and no one will ever be excluded.
G. Question Period
Sprague (Physics) inquired about the faculty priority survey and the preliminary results and asked about the “error bars”. Rigsby replied that the range was huge and that the data will be made available and is being used to create a more formal survey with Professor Ken Wilson’s assistance.
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. University Curriculum Committee
Cheryl Estes (Health and Human Performance), Secretary of the Committee, presented the curriculum matters contained in the minutes of the January 26, 2006, Committee meeting. There was no discussion and the curriculum matters were approved as presented. RESOLUTION #06-06
B. Academic Awards Committee
Charles Boklage (Medicine), Chair of the Committee, presented the proposal to move all teaching and research award material submission deadlines to November 1 of each year.
Estes (Health and Human Performance) stated that in her unit faculty were not being nominated and informed until the Fall. Boklage explained the process and that Spring and early Fall announcements were distributed via email to all faculty and administrators. Hodge (Education) stated the same occurred in her unit and asked how many members were on the subcommittees. Boklage replied from 5-7 members.
Stapleton (Education) stated that is was ok with her as long as faculty are notified in time to compile their materials.
Brown (Psychology) noted a point of clarification in that solicitation goes out in the Spring and early Fall and that only one of the teaching awards being discussed included nomination from the unit level. All others can be self-nominated.
Following discussion, the proposal to move all teaching and research award material submission deadlines to November 1 of each year was approved as presented. RESOLUTION #06-07
C. Faculty Governance Committee
Taggart (Music) moved to add “in narrative form” following “A cumulative evaluation” to Section C.2.f. and g. in Part XII. The amendment was accepted.
(Technology and Computer Science) asked for clarification about what “criteria”
meant in Section C.1., 2. and 3. He
stated that “criteria” meant exact – that once a criterion is met it is always
met. Whereas ”consideration” meant
things to consider, which meant that the policy needs to specify a number of
publications, etc. At this time,
Professor Ciechalski offered no amendments to the document. Sprague (Physics) offered a definition of
Brown (Psychology) asked if the candidate collects the records of evaluation as noted in Section C. of the document. Professor Martinez responded that unit administrators do not have the responsibility of collecting these materials.
(Nusing) noted concerns with the Cumulative Report Format B and noted that it
should be designed for more than the
Ciechalski (Technology and Computer Science) was still concerned with the use of the word criteria and moved to add “and/or considerations” following “Copies of the criteria” to Sections C.1.a, 2.a., and 3.a. Tovey (English) and Estes (Health and Human Performance) spoke against the motion stating that the definition is clear and allows the latitude necessary. McMillen (Medicine) spoke against the motion and noted that “criteria” is used throughout other University documents. Sprague (Physics) spoke against the motion as the word criteria is in his unit code. Changing the wording would create confusion. Ciechalski (Technology and Computer Science) speaking for his motion stated that criteria in his unit code may be used differently. After the discussion the motion failed.
(Health and Human Performance) offered an editorial change to the Cumulative
Report Format B, Subsection Teaching Activities substituting reference to the
(Foreign Language and Literatures) noted that on the Cumulative Report Format
A, Section I.C. reads “ Citzenship status if born outside of
moved to delete Section C.2.f. and g.
Decker (Health and Human Performance) spoke in favor of the motion. Sprague (Physics) spoke against the motion
stating that deletion could hurt the process and perhaps the problem was with
the word cumulative. After discussion,
Niswander (Business) moved to change his motion to move Section C.2.f. and g.
to a new Section B.3.a. and b. and delete “at least two weeks prior to their
vote”. Decker (Health and Human
Performance) spoke against the motion as amended. Glascoff (Health and Human Performance) spoke
against the motion stating that most committees would not like to see a
consensus report. And that this could create a nightmare when there is a
grievance. She noted that she would
rather see it deleted. Brown (Psychology)
asked why delete “at least two weeks prior to their vote”. Robertson (Math) stated that Dr. Glascoff
comments were clear.
Boklage (Medicine) asked how this would work with a timeline. Justiniano (Physics) feels Dr. Niswander’s motion will fix this concern. He agrees the word evaluation sounds strange but again feels the amendment will solve the problem. Hodge (Education) noted that the timeline was not for the faculty committees but for the Dean, Provost, and Chancellor when considering action.
McMillen (Medicine) spoke against the motion to move both to a new Section B.3.a. and b. noting that he thought it would be hard to get a faculty committee to write a consensus report. Brown (Psychology) spoke in favor of the motion noting that it would now be a recommendation.
Glascoff (Health and Human Performance) stated that everybody needed to see the same thing and that if the Tenure Committee and administrator wrote cumulative letters then the Provost and Chancellor should; that the faculty shouldn’t be required to validate their evaluation alone. The personnel action dossiers should stand alone. Ceichalski (Technology and Computer Science) spoke for the amendment saying that the tenure committee’s voice should be stronger than the voice of the Unit Administrator.
Decker (Health and Human Performance) still does not see how the timeline will work and noted their inability to achieve this requirement in their large tenure groups. Justiniano (Physics) noted that Appendix D will address some of this issue. It will not be necessary to have the entire body of the faculty participate. Yalcin (Philosophy) stated that the motion was not seen as a check and balance. The motion to move Section C.2.f. and g. to a new Section B.3.a. and b. and delete “at least two weeks prior to their vote” was approved.
Glascoff (Health and Human Performance) moved to delete the new Section B.3.a. and b. and stated having this document could not portray the mood of the faculty, could cause problems in grievances, and may not reflect the true evaluation of the faculty. Morrison (Chemistry-Science & Technology) stated that this was in the faculty manual in the 90’s, that there is a time gap between the time the PAD is submitted and the decision is made, and that the cumulative report provides an opportunity for candidates to do more work that can be included. Justiniano (Physics) stated it is the job of the peers to evaluate the candidate and a document such as this will go a long way in places where unit administration is not enough. McMillen (Medicine) spoke against the motion statoing that faculty who can’t give justification for a vote shouldn’t vote.
(English) spoke in favor of the motion.
Dobbs (Medicine) moved to have the deleted Section F. Patient Care Portfolio moved to the Cumulative Report Format B as a new Section following “Teaching Activities”. Deena (English) asked if faculty representatives from Health Sciences served on the Faculty Governance Committee because there was more work to be done to Form B. Lisa Sutton, Assistant Vice Chancellor for Health Sciences, noted her involvement with the Committee and stated her history with Form B. Chair Rigsby noted that Professor Mary Gilliland was a voting member of the committee and has attended the committee’s meetings once appointed late last year.
Schenarts (Medicine) stated that critical care was important so he supported the motion to include Patient Care Portfolio in the form. Anderson (Parliamentarian) offered a friendly amendment to the motion for consideration. Professor Dobbs declined the friendly amendment.
Sprague (Physics) moved to have the Cumulative Report Format B returned to the Faculty Governance Committee to make appropriate revisions in relation to the Division of Health Sciences.
Glascoff (Health and Human Performance) asked if this stopped all of the discussion on this document. Anderson (Parliamentarian) noted that only this portion would be sent back and the rest would continue to be discussed. Chair Rigsby noted that, yes, the discussion would continue. Glascoff then moved to separate the Format B from the rest of the document being sent back to the Faculty Governance Committee. The motion to separate was approved.
moved to strike the new sentence under Section F that reads “The candidate is
allowed to review and include a response to the cumulative evaluations (see
section C.2.f. and g. above).”
Robinson (Mathematics) spoke against the motion stating that the decision is not made until the end so faculty should have an opportunity to address any factual errors. The motion to strike “The candidate is allowed to review and include a response to the cumulative evaluations (see section C.2.f. and g. above)” failed.
Following a lengthy discussion, Part XII of the ECU Faculty Manual, excluding the Cumulative Report Format B, was approved as amended. RESOLUTION #06-08 The Faculty Governance Committee was asked to make appropriate revisions to Format B in relation to the Division of Health Sciences. Provost Smith agreed to also validate the need for the citizenship status notation on Format A Section I.C.
Following action on this report, the meeting adjourned at 5:20 p.m. The additional items of business from today’s agenda will be carried over and discussed on March 21, 2006.
Christine Zoller Lori Lee
Secretary of the Faculty Administrative Officer
FACULTY SENATE RESOLUTIONS APPROVED AT THE FEBRUARY 21, 2006, MEETING
06-06 Curriculum matters contained in the University Curriculum Committee minutes of the
January 26, 2006, Committee meeting.
06-07 Move all teaching and research award material submission deadlines to November 1 of each
06-08 Revised ECU Faculty Manual, Part XII. Personnel Action Dossier.
06-09 New ECU Faculty Manual, Part XIII. Promotion and Tenure Timeline.