FACULTY
SENATE
FULL
MINUTES OF APRIL 18, 2006
The
eighth regular meeting of the 2005-2006 Faculty Senate was held on Tuesday,
April 18, 2006, in the
Agenda
Item I. Call to Order
Catherine
Rigsby (Geology), Chair of the Faculty, called the meeting to order at 12:30
p.m.
Agenda
Item II. Approval of Minutes
The March 21, 2006 and March 28, 2006 meeting
minutes were approved as presented.
Agenda
Item III. Special Order of the Day
A. Roll Call
Senator
absent was: Professor Warren (Education).
Alternates
present were: Professors Wolfe for Avenarius (Anthropology), Tedesco for
Deena (English), and Coddington for Ciesielski (Technology and Computer
Science).
B. Announcements
1. Special thanks were extended to Chancellor Steve Ballard
for covering the cost of lunch and for all of the refreshments throughout the
year for the Faculty Senate meetings.
2. Faculty
members are reminded that very soon Chancellor Ballard would call for
candidates for the prestigious 2006/2007 Oliver Max
http://www.ecu.edu/cs-acad/fsonline/customcf/committee/aa/maxgardneraward.doc
3. A
preliminary call for nominations for the Board
of Governors Award for Excellence in Teaching, Board of Governors Distinguished Professor for Teaching Award, Alumni
Award for Outstanding Teaching, and University Award for Outstanding
Teaching has been distributed. Nomination materials will be due September 1
and portfolios due November 1. Information on the different award nominating
procedures is available at
http://www.ecu.edu/cs-acad/fsonline/aa/academicawards.cfm.
4. There is no longer a curriculum submission deadline for inclusion in the
official ECU catalog. Please direct any questions to members of the University
Curriculum Committee at cuc@mail.ecu.edu. Faculty are reminded that
the official ECU catalog is the on-line catalog and available online at http://www.ecu.edu/cs-acad/aa/SrchCatalog.cfm.
5. Faculty
interested in periodically receiving issues of The Chronicle of Higher Education are asked to call the Faculty
Senate office at 328-6537 and place their name on a list for distribution.
6. The following people have been asked by
Provost Jim Smith to serve on the ECU Child Care Facility Committee: Bruce Flye
(Chair/Administration and Finance), Rick Niswander (Business), Scott Buck
(Administration and Finance), John Toller (Human Resources), Mark Sprague
(Physics), Nancy Lee (Child Development and Family Relations), and Lessie Bass
(Social Work). The charge of the
Committee will be to meet to discuss and gather information relevant to
possibilities for child care for ECU employees.
7. The
Educational Policies and Planning Committee recommended to Chancellor Ballard
on April 10, 2006, the approval of the Notification of Intent to Plan a DDS
degree
program.
Following the announcements,
Chair Rigsby requested a moment of silence in memory of those faculty members
and administrators who had passed away during the year which included:
Linda J. Allred (Psychology)
Deana L. Astle (Academic Library Services)
William
D. Bulloch (retired, Physics, Astronomy, and Mathematics)
Mary B. Eron (Mathematics)
Chia-yu Li (Chemistry)
James L. White (retired, Education)
Gay Wilentz (English)
Chair Rigsby asked for a
motion to consider Unfinished Business first.
Then to address Special Order of the Day at 2:30 and Report of
Committees at 4:30. The motion was made
and approved.
Faculty Governance Committee, Puri
Discussion on proposed
revisions to the ECU Faculty Manual, Appendix D. Tenure and Promotion Policies
and Procedures began with the proposed amendment (proposed by Ken Wilson,
Sociology) as follows:
“Amend Section IV.E.1. (2nd
paragraph) to read: “A quorum is defined as three quarters of the membership
for a committee that has twenty or fewer members; and a quorum is defined as
two thirds of the membership for a committee that has more than twenty
members. A list of all committee members
who were absent during a vote on a personnel action will be forwarded with the
recommendation. The committee may develop policies to designate certain
absences as excused absences. Absences
should be considered in annual evaluations.”
Brown (Psychology) offered a
friendly amendment to change the second sentence to read: “A list of all
committee members who were absent during a vote on a personnel action will be
forwarded to the unit administrator.”
McMillen (Medicine) spoke
against the motion as he did not see the advantage of sending this list. What is its purpose other than to flog
faculty into attending the meeting.
Chairperson Rigsby stated that a when a person is not there this is
considered a no vote and asked if Faculty Governance could address this issue. Edson Justiniano (Physics, member of the Faculty
Governance Committee) stated that the governance committee was worried that
providing a list would reveal the vote count.
The recommendation was not to do this.
He stated that such a list would lead to problems in keeping vote
results a secret.
Following discussion, the
amendment to Professor Wilson’s motion was approved and Chairperson Rigsby
reread the amendment for discussion.
Tovey (English) offered a
friendly amendment to the first sentence to read “… and a quorum is defined as
a majority (50% plus one) of the membership for a committee that has more than
twenty members.” There was no discussion and the friendly amendment to
Professor Wilson’s original motion was accepted.
Brown (Education) offered an
editorial revision to include “Unexcused” in the last sentence to read:
“Unexcused absences should be considered in annual evaluations.” This was accepted by the body as editorial.
Cope (Psychology) asked does
an excused and/or an unexcused absence count as a no vote.
Sprague (Physics) moved to
replace “(50% plus one)” with “…as a majority, defined as 50% plus one, of the
membership for a committee that has more than twenty members.” This was also
accepted by the body as editorial.
Following discussion, the
proposed revision to Section IV.E.1. was approved as amended and reads as
follows: “A quorum is defined as three quarters of the membership for a
committee that has twenty or fewer members; and a quorum is defined as a
majority, defined as 50% plus one, of the membership for a committee that has
more than twenty members. A list of all committee members who were absent
during a vote on a personnel action will be forwarded to the unit
administrator. The committee may develop
policies to designate certain absences as excused absences. Unexcused absences should be considered in
annual evaluations.”
Puri Martinez (Foreign
Languages and Literatures), Chair of the Faculty Governance Committee, noted
that due to the recently approved revisions to Part XII of the ECU Faculty Manual, additional wording
was necessary to Section IV.F.
Brown (Psychology) moved to add the following text to Section IV.F. to coincide
with the new Part XII. fo the ECU Faculty
Manual: “The notification letter
from the Tenure Committee and the notification letter from the unit
admiistrator shall contain (a) the cumulative evaluation of the candidate’s
teaching, research and service, and any other relevant duties, in accordance
with section B.3. Recommendations for Tenure of Part XII. Personnel Action
Dossier of the ECU Faculty Manual and
(b) the statement that the candidate has four working days from the date of the
notification letter to include a response to the cumulative evaluation, in
accordance with section D. Supporting Materials of Part XII. Personnel Action
Dossier.”
Niswander (Business) asked
if there were any conflicts in what was being added.
Following discussion, the
proposed addition to Section IV.F. was approved.
McMillen (Medicine) asked,
in reference to Section V.B.1. who would train members of the Hearing
Committee. Taggart (Music) stated we could provide a handbook for training
faculty members . Rigsby noted that we
are not sure of this yet. It is a
problem we are trying to work out.
Horst (Music) asked why
“sexual orientation” and “University Equal Employment Opportunity” were missing from Section V.B.2. Rigsby
stated that Section 604B was included here in part and that references to those
items did not go against 604B. Taggart (Music) stated that we are all right
here as other issues are covered in other sections.
Sprague (Physics) moved to
add “states in part” to Section IV.B.2., second paragraph to clarify this
issue.
Following discussion, McMillen (Medicine) stated that the proposed “states in
part” was not necessary. Sprague
(Physics) withdrew his motion.
Horst (Music) moved to
revise the first sentence under Section IV.B.2. to read: “The basis for a request for a hearing must
be found in one or more of the following reasons: (a) the decision was based on any ground
stated to be impermissible in Section 604B of The Code of The University of
North Carolina; (b) the decision violated the University’s Equal Employment
Opportunity policy; (c) the decision was attended by a material procedural
irregularity.” Taggart (Music) stated
that 604B contains all the necessary criteria.
Niswander
(Business) stated that UNCC says that we can do things and our code says we can
do things but we need to make sure we are in compliance with the UNCC. Rigsby stated that this is the exact language
from the UNCC.
Robbins
(Biology) asked for a point of order. He
stated that the Senate should only be discussing changes proposed by the
Faculty Governance Committee and not any new text. Horst (Music) withdrew her motion. Chairperson Rigsby reminded everyone that
only those areas changed could be amended.
Robinson
(Mathematics) moved to add a new paragraph under Section IV.B.2. to read “In
addition, the University Equal Employment Opportunity policy prohibits
employment discrimination based on sexual orientation.” Given (Foreign Languages and Literatures)
spoke in favor of the amendment.
Sprague
(Physics) suggested a friendly amendment to make Robinson wording into a new
paragraph. Dobbs (Medicine) stated that adding the wording does not solve the
problem.
Following
discussion, the proposed new paragraph under Section IV.B.2. was approved as
presented.
Long (History) discussed his
concerns about University Attorneys’ involvement in appellate hearings as
referenced in Section V.B.1. He spoke
against the change as there is a conflict of interest. How can you advise the respondents in an
appeal hearing and advise the committee as well? How can you have loyalty to serve different
clients?
University Attorney Paul
Zigas responded by stating that UNC policy states that it is acceptable policy
to council both groups. We are very
sensitive on how we implement this process.
He spoke of the process of fire walls.
Gilliland (Medicine) stated
that she works with attorneys a lot and sees fire walls as effective. The attorneys have fire walls in their
heads. Yalcin (Philosophy) responded
that we are not talking psychological capabilities. It is a point of ethics not to represent
both.
Rose (Nursing) stated can we
keep things separate. Taggart (Music) stated this addition is in reference to
when the Due Process Committee asks for council from the University attorney.
Zigas noted we are very
strict about observing fire walls.
Rigsby asked did the Hearing Committee
meet with Governance about conflict issues.
Robinson (Mathematics) stated that the University Attorneys’ job was to shield
the University from legal liability and that there is a conflict of interest in
this section. He then moved to strike the paragraph in Section V.B.1. that
reads: “The committee may at any time consult with an attorney in the office of
the University Attorney who is not presently nor previously substantively
involved in the matter giving rise to the hearing, nor will advise the
University administrator(s) following the committee action(s). (See Part
VIII, Responsibilities of Administrative Officers.)”
Brown (Psychology) spoke against the motion
stating the Office of the University Attorney ‘s job is to give council to all
and that the word “may” gives the committee the option to consult or not.
Long (History) spoke for the amendment and
stated that this is fine until it is you or a colleague and the University
Office of the Attorney has access to your personnel file. He has never read where a fire wall can
adequately cover the Office of the Attorney.
The attorney cannot advise two different parties in a proceeding. May consult does not matter. This is wrong.
Eason (Nursing) spoke against the motion,
noting that as it stands the committee should have the privilege to utilize the
University Attorneys’ office if necessary. McMillen (Medicine) spoke against
the motion and asked that when the committee has a procedureal question who is
the best person to answer the inquiry?
An out side attorney could not come up to speed very quickly and this would be
costly.
Taggart (Music) states we are talking about
the Due Process Committee, which deals with the lowering of rank. Attorneys at this point are most likely
already in service. It is very important
for the committee to be able to speak with the University Attorney. He reiterates again that this is the Due
Process Committee.
Gilliland (Medicine) stated that this is a
fairly narrow issue. It is not a matter
of taking sides for or against the person in question but making sure we have
dotted all the I’s and crossed all the T’s.
It is not for the attorney to decide but for the committee to
decide. She spoke against the motion.
Following discussion, the motion to strike a
paragraph in Section V.B.1. failed.
Winstead (Academic Library Services) stated
that she had a faculty member inquiring as to Faculty Senate Resolution #99-10.
At this point all of the section had been reviewed and Chairperson
Rigsby asked for a motion to accept the document. However further discussion continued.
Taggart (Music) made a
motion to consider a new revisions to Section IV.A.c.10. to read: “The unit
Personnel Committee may, at its discretion, appoint a search committee to
fulfill the responsibilities of soliciting and screening applicants and
recommending to the unit’s Personnel Committee candidates for initial
appointments. For initial appointments for tenured and tenure track faculty, at
least two-thirds of the membership of the search committee must consist of
voting faculty either from the unit conducting the search or from units whose
members would provide expertise useful for a successful search. At the
discretion of the unit Personnel Committee, additional members may consist of
fixed-term faculty, staff and/or students invited to participate on the search
committee in an advisory capacity without vote. For initial appointments of
fixed-term faculty, a majority of the membership of the search committee must
consist of voting faculty. The remaining
members of the committee may be fixed-term faculty (with vote) and/or staff and
students without vote.” Taggart made reference to Don Sexauer and stated that
the section as written would not pass his test.
It is this spirit that he makes this motion. By a standing vote, the motion was accepted
for consideration.
Tovey (English) spoke against the motion stating that it replaces “prescribed
by unit code” and that the wording of the motion can be included in unit codes.
Winstead (Academic Library Services) agreed with Tovey and spoke against the
motion stating that the search committee recommends to the personnel committee.
Given (Foreign Languages and
Literatures) spoke against the motion stating that it is important that we have
diversity on a search committee. Spoke
of when as a student he was on a search committee. He had a vote and was able to make a
different. We need diversity of opinion
and you will get the best candidates this way.
Horst (Music) spoke in favor
of the motion stating that it allows for a diversity of views. Robinson (Mathematics) spoke in favor of the
motion noting his preference to using faculty from other units.
Taggart (Music) stated that
he has respect for diversity but we must acknowledge those who have the
necessary expertise.
McMillen (Medicine) spoke
against the motion pointed out that we have outstanding faculty who are
fixed-term and choose to be. With this
amendment they would have no vote.
Taggart stated that this was not true.
Rigsby stated that the amendment allows fixed-term faculty to serve on
fixed-term positions, however, McMillen still spoke against the motion.
Schisler (Business) spoke
against the motion stating that it micromanages the units and does not let
units decide for themselves.
Sprague (Physics) stated
that he was unclear as to the wording.
We are speaking about voting faculty and voting and we need to clear up
the wording.
At 2:45, the body stopped
discussion on Appendix D to address other items on the agenda.
Agenda
Item III. Special Order of the Day
C. Chancellor’s
Report.
The
chancellor addressed the master planning process. The Board is very anxious to get a handle on
this. We have a lot of opportunities and
a lot of needs. We must integrate our
thinking about safety. We will not make
major promises without a city guarantee of safety. More must be done. We do not have an outside source of funds to
buy the sites we need and it must be part of the planning process. It will be at least a year before any
decisions are made as to what properties will be acquired.
The
Chancellor offered some perspective on the past year and made reference to the
advances we have made. We have great
capacity, which is being recognized. He
stated that faculty recruitment must be funded and we must be able to get our
first choices. No position should be
taken away if not hired in year one. He
said that nothing is more important than what we do for new faculty in the
first three years of their employment including start up funds and teaching
loads. With 100 searches this year and
40 next year, this is a tough job to do.
We are making great progress and if we do this everything else will be
positive.
The
Chancellor stated that our new President, Eskine Bowles, has taken a great
interest in our University and was blown away by the quality of what we are
doing. We are a leader and he sees this
not only in distance education but other areas as well.
He
stated that huge progress has been seen in the Health Sciences Division. We have the opportunity to be seen not only
in the state but also in the nation. Our
partnership between faculty and administration is one of best.
The
Board of Governors has recognized the status of ECU and the
The
Chancellor stated that the funding of the academic building will be a tough
process. We are also thinking about a
fine arts center. The funding will be
there to support our growth. He
appreciates all the work of the Faculty Senate.
Tabrizi
(Technology and Computer Science) stated concerns with the diversity ratio of
faculty and students. He stated that we
do not have guidance from Administration to deal with this issue and asked for
a task force to consider this issue.
Chancellor Ballard responded that we need to do more and asked that
Provost Smith address this issue with members of the Diversity Council.
Brown
(Education) asked where the site would be for the new academic building.
Chancellor Ballard responded that if he knew he would say. There are some site he would like but if he
mentioned them the price goes up. We
need to do more assessing before we can answer that question.
D. Kevin Seitz, Vice Chancellor for
Administration and Finance
Vice Chancellor Seitz discussed the update on the Master Plan. He stated that they are trying to be very
careful that the process will be open and will provide the most benefits to
everyone. They are looking at how they
want to structure the process. They need
to plan for where buildings will go as well as for those which may need
updating. The Academic Plan must be in
place. The plan will include both
campuses and all aspects of the physical plant including green space. We have not gotten that far into it yet.
Christian (Business) asked
for the 2 top capital projects for 2006 and what would the 4.5 million be used
for. Seitz responded the
Wolfe (Anthropology) asked
about the progress of the
Sprague (Physics) stated his
concerns with the carnival set-up in the Frisbee Golf area. This carnival
was never brought to the Green Space Committee for approval. Vice Chancellor Seitz stated the carnival was
moved to this spot for the Pig Skin Pig Out.
He was not at the meeting to discuss this. He responded that there has been a
communication problem with how that came about and that Chancellor Ballard has
asked for future procedures to include faculty input. This will not happen again and the Green
Space Committee will be included.
E. Catherine Rigsby, Chair of the Faculty
Professor Rigsby thanked
everyone who attended the faculty officer’s forum and she hopes that this will
continue in the future.
Chair Rigsby took a moment
to commend the UNC Faculty Assembly Chair, Brenda Killingsworth (Business) for
her efforts on behalf of all faculty within the UNC system. She complimented Professor Killingsworth on
her speech at President Bowles’ installation ceremony and noted that Professor
Killingsworth was representing the faculty well in her talks with various
people in the General Administration, UNC Board of Governors, and Legislature
and encouraged her to keep up the good work.
F. Brief Moment in History
Henry Ferrell (History)
continued a story begun a couple of months ago.
He spoke of a dark time in our history where student fees were handled
incorrectly and many faculty were dismissed without due process. But the University has always prevailed and
weeded out those Presidents and Trustees who did not act in the interest of the
school.
G. Written Report on the Faculty Assembly Meeting of April 7,
2006.
John Cope (Psychology)
presented a written report on the Faculty Assembly
Meeting.
H. Question Period
Robinson
(Mathematics) thanked the Chancellor for the pay raise initiative for the lowest
paid SPA employees. He spoke of the
revision to Appendix C and was concerned that the Deans would be encouraging
the veto of this revision through close door meetings. He asked the Provost how can we resolve this.
Provost
Smith stated that there really wasn’t anything to be resolved. The Deans may have some issues but he is not
aware of anyone asking the Chancellor to veto Appendix C and he expects that he
will approve it. He made reference to
the Fixed –Term task force and stated there was a completeness issue. Without the report from the task force the
information was not complete for approval.
An issue of concern is the meeting of the Dean or Director with the
Personnel Committee. Completeness of the
evaluation process needs to be addressed.
He stated that there is no great veto engine out there. He would rise to speak if he had any great
issues. His respect for the Faculty
Manual is intact. He stated that there
is a lot of work to be done next year.
The Chancellor may want to wait to see what is coming but he did not
think so.
Long
(History) asked for Provost Smith’s views on a possible Plus/Minus Grading
Policy, stating that a proposed policy approved by the Faculty Senate ten years
ago was denied by the Chancellor. Long
stated that he asked the Chancellor about this who said that he would be in
support if the Administrators were in support.
Since there was no great opposition where do we stand on this
issue? The Provost answered that he was
under such a system when he was a student. He thinks it is a wonderful idea. It is a faculty decision and he is not
against it. He does not remember what
the argument against was.
Yalcin
(Philosophy) asked what was the amount of discretionary funds available. The Chancellor responded that the process
will start in early May. There is 5%
from the legislation, campus based tuition and some one time funds for start up
costs. He wants a clear statement from
the faculty that if we can do nothing else we must do this. If it is childcare or healthcare the faculty
must make this known then as the budget comes in we know where to put the
funds.
Sprague
(Physics) asked for an update on the ECU
Child Care Facility Committee. Provost Smith
responded that it is a committee as opposed to a task force and he has asked
several to serve. He needs to know that
this is a priority. With only 2.5
million to work with this will not go far.
We need the give and take of what we want versus what we have to work
with. Let’s see what the budget is and
then talk.
Levinen
(Medicine) asked about the rationale for, during football season, putting
faculty and staff in the corner near the end zone. The Chancellor responded that this is a money
issue and he will refer the issue to Terry Holland.
Tabrizi
(Technology and Computer Science) stated that the rules of the Faculty Manual
are vague. He stated that Appendix L is
in great need of revision and must be clarified. He asked if the Faculty Governance Committee
would consider take this into consideration.
Asked if the Faculty Chairperson could ask for the revision of Appendix
L be next and create the right process for hiring administration.
McMillen
(Medicine) asked if faculty and students would be asked to serve on the Vice
Chancellor for Student Life Search Committee.
The Chancellor responded that over the next few weeks we first need to
establish an interim. This should occur
before June 1st. Then a full
open national search will take place with student involvement. The process will be the same as other Vice
Chancellor searches.
Glascoff
(Health and Human Performance) commented that many faculty senate members will
not be coming back as their terms are expiring.
She asks for a show of appreciation for all who have been involved in
the senate this year and will not be back next year.
Following
the conclusion of Special Order of the Day, the body returned to discussion on
Appendix D.
In
reference to Taggart’s earlier motion to revise Section IV.A.c.10, Sprague
(Physics) moved to insert the words “on the committee” to the end of sentence
three and in two places in sentence five, so that the text would read: “The unit Personnel Committee may, at its discretion,
appoint a search committee to fulfill the responsibilities of soliciting and
screening applicants and recommending to the unit’s Personnel Committee
candidates for initial appointments. For initial appointments for tenured and
tenure track faculty, at least two-thirds of the membership of the search
committee must consist of voting faculty either from the unit conducting the
search or from units whose members would provide expertise useful for a
successful search. At the discretion of the unit Personnel Committee,
additional members may consist of fixed-term faculty, staff and/or students
invited to participate on the search committee in an advisory capacity without
vote on the committee. For initial appointments of fixed-term faculty, a
majority of the membership of the search committee must consist of voting
faculty. The remaining members of the
committee may be fixed-term faculty on the committee with vote and/or staff and
students without vote on the committee.” The motion passed.
Brown
(Psychology) moved to strike “either” and “conducting the search or from units
whose members would provide expertise useful for a successful search” from
sentence two of the new text in Section IV.A.c.10 and add after that sentence
“In the case of a joint appointment, the personnel committee may appoint voting
members from the second unit to serve on the search committee (with vote on the
committee).”
Provost
Smith stated speaking for the amendment that if you have a joint position this
would solve this issue.
Gilliland (Medicine) spoke against the motion, stating that there were some
units within the
Schisler
(Business) spoke against the motion asking why the unit could not do as they
are need to.
Following
discussion, the proposed amendments to Section IV.A.C.10 were approved by a
standing vote.
Given
(Foreign Languages and Literatures) stated that he wanted to redefine
“expertise” and offered an amendment to the motion on the floor, changing
“additional” to “remaining”, by replacing “in an advisory capacity without
vote” to “with vote” and change the fifth sentence to read: “The remaining
members of the committee may be fixed-term faculty, staff and/or students with
vote on the committee.”
Allen
(Chemistry) asked do we want fixed-term faculty to have vote on search
committees. If my unit allows fixed-term
faculty am I running against the faculty manual. If the original wording does this then way
are we amendment the amendment.
Sprague
(Physics) stated he could live with fixed-term faculty on committees but do we
really want to give vote to staff as well.
Is this where we really want to go?
Tovey
(English) spoke against the motion stated that she does not want Masters’
fixed-term faculty deciding on tenure track faculty. Horst (Music) spoke in
favor of the motion because it gives fixed term faculty voting rights. She is fixed-term faculty and wants to serve
on search committees and feels she is qualified. Brown (Psychology) spoke
against the motion. He understands giving some leeway but we must have
consistency for tenure track faculty.
Positions of this type are best left with the voting members of the
unit.
Following
discussion, the proposed amendments to Section IV.A.C.10 failed.
Taggart
(Music) offered an editorial revision to his original motion changing
“additional” to “the remaining”. The
editorial change was accepted.
Provost
Smith stated that there is a lot at issue here.
We must acknowledge that Health Sciences works differently.
Culbertson
(Allied Health Sciences) spoke against the proposed new wording for Section
IV.A.C.10. and stated that she preferred to keep it as it was originally
proposed by Professor Winstead.
Rose
(Nursing) spoke against the motion stating that it should stay as it was
earlier decided.
Following
the recess, at 4:30, the body again
stopped discussion on Appendix D to address other items on the agenda.
Agenda
Item V. Report of Committees
A. Admission and Retention Policies Committee
Larry Seese (Business),
Chair of the Committee, presented a proposed addition to the Undergraduate
Catalog, Section 4: Academic Advisement, Progression, and Support. The Committee proposed to add the following
underlined two sentences to Section 4, subsection Writing Intensive Requirement
in order to clarify the policy that entering ECU with credit for 1100 &
1200 does not affect the requirement that students must complete 12 s.h. of
writing intensive classes in order to graduate from ECU.
“Writing Intensive Requirement
Students enrolling at
There was no discussion and
the proposed revision to the Undergraduate Catalog were approved as presented. RESOLUTION
#06-17
B. Faculty Welfare Committee
Dawn Clark (Theatre and Dance) presented a report from the
Sprague (Physics) asked if the
Subcommittee would consider changing the speed limit on 10th. street
since it is a school zone. He also
stated that school buses are not yielding to pedestrians.
Long (History) stated that
buses don’t yield and that a University policy officer should be assigned to
the area to patrol for speeding.
Winstead (Academic Library Services) stated that there was a need for a
“No Turn On Red” sign. Tovey (English)
noted that people have to press the correct button at the crosswalk to be given
plenty of time to cross the road.
Tabrizi (Technology and
Computer Science) stated that a pedestrian overpass would solve the
problem.
C. Libraries Committee
Marianna Walker (Allied
Health Sciences), Chair of the Committee, presented a review of both the Joyner
Library and Laupus Library Operating Budgets.
D. University Curriculum Committee
Cheryl
Estes (Health and Human Performance), Secretary of the Committee presented the
curriculum matters contained in the minutes of the March 9, 2006,
and April 13, 2006, Committee Meetings. There was no discussion and the minutes were
approved as presented. RESOLUTION
#06-18
Taggart
(Music) asked if the liaison program was successful. Estes responded that yes liaisons served in
facilitation roles and not approving roles.
She noted that the curriculum volume was overwhelming and that the
liaison program was needed. She stated
that the Committee was surveying units and that there would be some fine-tuning
to the program, but the service provided was invaluable and making positive
difference to the process.
Following discussion of
Committee Reports, the body again addressed issues relating to proposed changes
to Appendix D.
Brown
(Psychology) spoke against the most recent motion on the floor to include
“Units may continue to follow search committee procedures currently prescribed
by their unit code.” He stated that this
is about protecting tenured faculty and this is very important to the
Cope
(Psychology) stated that Appendix L addresses some of these issues and offered
a substitute motion to read “The Division of Health Sciences may define voting
faculty for the purpose of this provision in accordance with their unique
structure, subject to the approval of the Faculty Senate.” Winstead (Academic
Library Services) noted that faculty and staff in her unit were still being
left out. Dobbs (Medicine) spoke against the motion.
Tovey
(English) asked if Appendix L actually said what Cope said it does. Chairperson Rigsby stated that it does and
reread the amendment again.
Following
discussion, the proposed substitute motion passed. Brown (Psychology) called
the question and a vote was held on the original motion, as now amended to
Section IV.A.c.10 to read: “The unit
Personnel Committee may, at its discretion, appoint a search committee to
fulfill the responsibilities of soliciting and screening applicants and
recommending to the unit’s Personnel Committee candidates for initial
appointments. For initial appointments for tenured and tenure track faculty, at
least two-thirds of the membership of the search committee must consist of
voting faculty from the unit. In the case of
a joint appointment, the personnel committee may appoint voting members from
the second unit to serve on the search committee (with vote on the committee). At the discretion of the unit Personnel Committee,
the remaining members may consist of fixed-term faculty, staff and/or students
invited to participate on the search committee in an advisory capacity without
vote on the committee. For initial appointments of fixed-term faculty, a
majority of the membership of the search committee must consist of voting
faculty. The remaining members of the
committee may be fixed-term faculty on the committee with vote and/or staff and
students without vote on the committee. The Division of Health Sciences may
define voting faculty for the purpose of this provision in accordance with
their unique structure, subject to the approval of the Faculty Senate.” The motion failed.
Therefore,
the text in Section IV.A.c.10 remains as follows: “The personnel committee may
elect a search committee as prescribed by the unit’s code to fulfill the
responsibilities of soliciting and screening applicants and recommending to the
unit’s Personnel Committee candidates for initial appointments. A majority of the search committee must be
voting faculty.”
Discussion
returned to Appendix D in its entirety.
Provost Smith thanked the current senate officers
and especially Chairperson Rigsby for their efforts this year on iimportant
issues.
Given (Foreing Languages and
Literatures) spoke against the interpretation stating that it went against Robert’s Rules of Order. Parliamentarian
Following discussion, the
joint conditional interpretation that the
numbers of faculty votes either yea or nay or abstaining in secret ballot
voting can not be shared with administrators was approved as presented and will
be considered a permanent interpretation until such time that the ECU
Faculty Manual can be revised to reflect this interpretation. RESOLUTION
#06-20
Following approval by
Chancellor Ballard, this interpretation will be added to the ongoing list of
permanent interpretations to the ECU
Faculty Manual that are available online at:
http://www.ecu.edu/cs-acad/fsonline/customcf/facultymanual/interpretations.htm.
Respectfully
submitted,
Christine
Zoller Lori
Lee
Secretary
of the Faculty Administrative
Officer
FACULTY SENATE RESOLUTIONS APPROVED AT
THE APRIL 18, 2006, MEETING
06-17 Addition
to the Undergraduate Catalog, Section 4: Academic Advisement, Progression, and
Support in order to clarify the policy that entering ECU with credit for 1100
& 1200 does not affect the requirement that students must complete 12 s.h.
of writing intensive classes in order to graduate from ECU.
Disposition: Chancellor
Disposition: Chancellor
Disposition: Chancellor, Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs/General Counsel,
President of UNC System
Disposition: Chancellor