Revised 11-6-07
FACULTY SENATE
FULL MINUTES OF OCTOBER 9, 2007
The second
regular meeting of the 2007-2008
Agenda Item I. Call to Order
Mark Taggart, Chair of the Faculty called the meeting to
order at 2:10 p.m.
Agenda Item II. Approval of Minutes
The minutes of September
11, 2007, were approved as distributed.
Agenda Item III. Special Order of the Day
A. Roll Call
Senators absent were: Professors Lazure and Zoller (Art and
Design), Manner (Education), Cable (Health Sciences Library), Bode (Medicine),
Grymes (Music), Lowery (Nursing), Vice Chancellor Mageean, Vice Chancellor
Horns, Deans’ Representative Niswander, and Chancellor Ballard.
Alternates present were: Professors Lillian for Tovey
(English), Coleman for Schenarts (Medicine), Dobbs for Fletcher (Medicine), and
Moll for Hall (Music).
B. Announcements
1. Faculty
members not located on main campus (Allied Health Sciences, Health and Human
Performance, Health Sciences Library, Medicine, and Nursing,) and who serve on
various academic standing committees are reminded of special courtesy parking
permits available from the office of Parking and Transportation Services. Special
Courtesy Permits allow faculty members
attending meetings, etc. to park in "A1/B1” lots on main campus. These permits are issued to unit heads at no
charge and are to be used in conjunction with a paid parking permit. Additional
information is available from Mike Vanderven, Director of Parking and
Transportation Services at 328-1961.
2. Faculty are reminded of the call for nominations for the Annual Lifetime and Five-Year University
Research/Creative Activity Awards. The deadline for
submission of materials (which include 7 copies of departmental and unit review committee nominating letters,
complete CV, and 3 letters from outside referees) is November 1, 2007. All relevant procedures are
available online at http://www.ecu.edu/cs-acad/fsonline/aa/academicawards.cfm.
Please direct any questions to Professor Patricia
Dragon, Chair of the Academic Awards Committee, at 328-0296 or dragonp@ecu.edu.
3. Announcements
related to the Research/ Creative Activity Grants will be circulated in the
near future to ECU faculty. Any proposed changes to the guidelines from last
year will be considered by the
C. Steve
Ballard, Chancellor
Chancellor Steve Ballard and Phyllis Horns, Interim Vice Chancellor
for Health Sciences (later added to the agenda), were both out of town and
unable to attend the meeting.
D. Terry
Holland, Director of Athletics
Mr. Holland provided an overview of the university athletic
programs. He described frustrations regarding athlete class attendance and
stated that the conference and NCAA needed to assist in making sure that
athletic schedules did not interfere with class attendance. He stated that the men’s basketball team had
13 conference games and the athletes would not have to miss any classes due to
the conference schedule. Mr. Holland
stated further that this was not the situation with other conference
teams. Discussion continued relative to
athletic participation and academics and that athletes are aware that academic
achievement and graduation are priorities over athletic involvement. Mr.
Holland reported on a situation where ECU received sanctions from the APR due
to the non-acceptance of a qualified athlete who did not meet academic
standards. The athlete was accepted at a University having a low APR ranking.
Mr. Holland also commended Professor Dosser for his work on
the University Athletics Committee. He finished his report by discussing recent
neighborhood complaints relative to longer tail-gating times.
E. David Dosser,
Chair of the University Athletics Committee’s Academic Integrity Subcommittee
Professor Dosser began by thanking Mr. Holland for his
support as the faculty athletic representative.
Professor Dosser discussed his role as the faculty athletic
representative and asked for continued faculty understanding about athletic
activities and athletes in general.
Further reports were provided by Professor Dosser relative to the reform
of athletics and academics and are linked below. He stated that student athletics has a good
academic performance rate and Dosser referred to the handout distributed in the
meeting (se below). He reported that a 60% graduation rate is good for athletes
and that ECU is 4th in Conference
Professor Vail-Smith (Health and Human Performance)
acknowledged Professor Dosser’s involvement with
student athletics and his presence at the athletic activities.
Professor Wilson (Sociology) asked if there was any
information regarding students that the subcommittee is not receiving. Professor Dosser replied by requesting that
faculty should let the Athletics Department or him know of such problems,
involving preferential or unusual treatment of student athletes.
Professor Robinson (Mathematics) thanked Mr. Holland and
Professor Dosser for their involvement with academic standards and athletes.
Robinson asked about specific websites (NCAA.org) involving the coalition of
intercollegiate athletes, which may be accessed to increase faculty involvement
with athletics.
Professor Dosser’s
full
comments to the Faculty Senate and reports on the activities of the Faculty Athletics Representative, Academic Integrity Subcommittee, 2006/07 Academic Rankings of Squads in Conference
USA, NCAA Division I 2005-06 Academic Progress Rate, and Graduation Rate are available online and
are linked here in the minutes.
F. Jack Brinn,
Interim Chief Information Officer
Dr. Brinn thanked Professor Taggart for faculty
collaboration. He discussed ITCS and its major role in Banner. Dr. Brinn
continued his report by discussing the history and status of Banner, including
budget information (18.7 million), software considerations, and organization
(Kevin Seitz – project owner, Don Sweet - project manager, Jack Brinn – Banner
Executive Steering Committee Chair). Dr.
Brinn also discussed the data base transfer, from the old to the new system
(Banner) and reported that 99% of the data was correct, according to the
Registrar. Brinn continued his report by
describing Banner use at other state universities. He stated that he plans to
redesign Banner based on user needs from One-Stop. Dr. Brinn continued his report by informing
the senate that on October 19, Human Resources will be connected to Banner,
paychecks will be processed under Legacy on October 31, and by November 15 all
paychecks will by processed under Banner. He also stated that there may be
problems at the unit level with this change. Dr. Brinn’s
full report to the
Dr. Brinn stated that the old data system (MVS) will be
turned off on December 31, due to server maintenance. Professor Glascoff
(Health and Human Performance, Vice Chair of the Faculty) asked Dr. Brinn about
MVS and student data in relation to graduation.
She was reminded about the December 31 date, which answered her question
about the possible problems of the data transition, relative to a December
graduation date.
Professor Smith (Technology and Computer Science) asked
about ECU’s
Professor Smith (Technology and
Computer Science) asked about getting improvements made in the user interface
as there were significant problems with it currently (i.e. very unnecessarily
awkward and time consuming to use). Dr. Brinn acknowledged that there were
user interface issues, but that it would not be until January 2008 before they
could begin to address these issues.
Professor Stiller (Biology) discussed the problems of Banner
relative to the size of ECU, in comparison to other smaller universities. He
asked Dr. Brinn whether ECU would continue to experience problems as the
university grows. Dr. Brinn responded
that the result should be the opposite and that the efficiency of Banner will
only improve with continued use.
Professor Wilson (Sociology) questioned the use of Banner in
relationship to Senior Summaries. Mrs.
Anderson (Registrar) stated that Banner would be in place relative to Senior
Summaries. She referred to CAPP and reported that the Registrar will be
examining catalog updates and curriculum.
She reported that CAPP@ecu.edu was the
email address for Generic CAPP regarding coding.
Professor Glascoff (Health and Human Performance, Vice Chair
of the Faculty) discussed the apparent discrepancies in GPA between MVS, ecuBIC
and Banner and questioned about how this will affect senior summary completion
and accuracy. Mrs. Anderson (Registrar)
stated that there had been only one problem so far. Mrs. Anderson stated that
other problems will arise, primarily due to transfer courses, but the problems
will be tracked and handled in another way. She encouraged faculty to find
discrepancies and to direct all problems directly to her. Mrs. Anderson also provided a listing
of informational websites to the senators.
G. Catherine
Rigsby, UNC Faculty Assembly Delegate
Professor Rigsby (Geology, Past Chair of the Faculty)
discussed her Faculty
Assembly report that was distributed to faculty. Additional information on
the September 28, 2007, UNC
Faculty Assembly meeting is available online. Professor Rigsby described the recommendation to
change the UNC code, relative to dismissal of tenured faculty and post-tenure
faculty review, as a process to remove tenured faculty. She called attention to
specific wording in the document relative to the use of “unsatisfactory” to
describe teaching and research, which can be use by an administrative
committee. Professor Rigsby called for the need of faculty resolutions at
individual institutions to address these issues.
Professor Rigsby recommended that the UNC code committee
should review the existing code to strengthen and streamline it. She reported
that NCSU and UNC stated that the faculty assembly code committee went beyond
its charge. Professor Robinson (Mathematics) discussed the Faculty Assembly
website and the involvement of the UNC Faculty Council and NCSU
Whereas,
academic freedom and tenure are core values of the American academic system and
thus are of significant concern to faculty; and
Whereas,
the UNC system, as the oldest public university in the nation, has been and
should continue to be a leader in best practices in academic; and
Whereas,
the UNC Faculty Assembly has pointed out significant problems with key aspects
of the revisions proposed by the “Code 603/604 Committee” (as of July 17,
2007), particularly those relating to institutional guarantees of tenure,
grounds for discharge, utilization of post tenure review for discharge, and
rights of “special faculty”; and
Whereas,
the UNC Faculty Assembly has noted that there are areas in which the language
of the proposed changes needs to be clarified in order to avoid possible future
confusion and has developed alternative language to address its concerns with
the “Code 603/604 Committee” proposal;
and
Whereas,
it is the view of both the UNC Faculty Assembly and the ECU faculty that the
Code Review Committee’s work exceeded its charge insofar as it included
recommendations regarding post-tenure review processes that are inconsistent
with policies reviewed and supported by the Assembly in late Spring 2007, as
reported to the Board of Governors Committee on Personnel and Tenure in June
2007; and
Whereas,
the UNC Faculty Assembly has sought additional review from faculty from the
constituent UNC campuses.
Therefore
Be It Resolved, that the ECU faculty affirms its support for UNC Faculty
Assembly’s criticisms of the changes proposed by the “Code 603/604 Committee”
in its July 2007 draft.
Be It
Further Resolved, that the ECU faculty respectfully requests that the
administration of ECU join with the
Professor Corbett (Geology) questioned the source and
history of the proposed resolution and spoke in favor of the resolution.
Professor Killingsworth (Business/Faculty Assembly
Chairperson) stated that the faculty assembly was going to delay its vote until
further information could be collected. Professor Jones (Criminal Justice)
inquired about the faculty assembly webpage. Professor Rigsby replied that
there is a link from the
Professor Rose (Nursing) inquired about the date of the
proposed resolution (ECU
Professor Killingsworth discussed the deferral of the
Faculty Assembly in response to the UNC Code and that a meeting would be taking
place in early October.
Professor Deena (English) stated that these current UNC code
changes are just a “weapon of removal” for faculty and not really about
post-tenure review.
Professor Rigsby (Geology, Past Chair of the Faculty)
discussed that these type of procedures are already in place, but these actions
are too difficult in the removal of tenured faculty.
Professor Wilson (Sociology) moved
to revised the “Be It Further Resolved” to read:
“Be It
Further Resolved, that the ECU faculty requests that submittal of the “Code
603/604 Committee” recommendations be deferred so that appropriate
Following discussion the proposed resolution concerning
proposed changes to the UNC Code was approved as amended. RESOLUTION #07-21
Professor Rigsby then presented the approval of revisions to
UNC Faculty Assembly Charter. This was discussed at the September Senate
meeting, but Senators failed to act on the change. Following brief discussion
the proposed revisions to the UNC Faculty Assembly Charter, the Charter was
approved as presented. RESOLUTION #07-22
H. Mark Taggart,
Chair of the Faculty
Professor
Taggart stated that in the past few weeks, he had
conversations with many faculty members regarding transparency and the state of
shared governance at ECU. He thanked all for their input and for sharing their
views. He stated that some had told him
that, since the recent change in upper administrative positions, combined with the restructuring of the
division of Academic Affairs and Student Life and creation of a Task Force on
Administrative Leadership, there might be some clouds forming over the
transparency of shared governance at ECU.
He was reminded of Don Sexauer’s definition of
shared governance being that “fragile balancing act between administration and
faculty,” and that he describes some of his recent experiences as if faculty were
trying to balance themselves on a “glass tightrope.”
Professor Taggart stated that he had found the guidance of
former Chairs of the Faculty to be very helpful to him. He stated that there
will
always be some tension or some “give and take” between faculty
and administrators in shared governance. However, one of the things faculty we
must view with caution is the perception of actions not occluding us from what
is actually occurring. He suggested that
we continue to try and address issues that concern faculty in an open, honest,
and forthright manner, noting that it was too frustrating to deal with shadows
and perceptions.
Professor Taggart suggested that we continue to look for
common ground on these matters and follow the procedures that are provided for
us in the ECU Faculty Manual. So much of the contents of the Faculty Manual
are the result of faculty and administration seeking common ground on issues to
tenure, promotion, and governance. And
if there are issues regarding the contents of the Faculty Manual that are
unclear, he would work with Interim Provost Sheerer on providing clarification,
and, if needed, interpretations of ECU’s policies and procedures.
Professor Taggart stated that in recent conversations with
Dr. Ballard and Dr. Sheerer, and other upper administration personnel, all have
continued to express their commitment to shared governance, and to openness and
transparency. Both faculty and
administration are proud of ECU’s role as the pinnacle of shared governance in
the UNC system. But we must continue to
pledge to work together, and to follow the procedures that are outlined for us
in the Faculty Manual, and if there are issues with the contents of the Faculty
Manual, to follow the procedures that we have in place for clarification or
interpretation.
I. Question
Period
Elmer Poe, Associate Vice Chancellor for Academic Outreach,
was presented to address any questions on the approved Continuity
of Instruction: During a Catastrophic Event
plan. Don Joyner, Interim
Director of Admissions, was present to address any questions on the Breakdown of the Freshman Class and number of home-schooled student
admissions.
Professor Wilson (Sociology) inquired about the availability
and sufficiency of IT resources in the event of a catastrophic event. Mr. Poe
replied that IT resources were sufficient. He reported that IT had been
stress-tested, and there did not appear to be problems with the resources.
Professor Lillian (English) discussed her concerns in the
event of a natural disaster. She stated that the potential problems were more
student related and not with faculty.
She questioned whether all students would have access to computers and
on-line access to courses. Mr. Poe replied that all students, regardless of
internet connectivity, should have appropriate accommodations relative to computer
access and completion of course requirements following a catastrophic event.
Professor Rigsby (Geology, Past Chair of the Faculty)
inquired about the cancellation of classes the day after Halloween. Rigsby
stated that previously this issue had been addressed in a letter from the
Provost. Interim Provost Sheerer stated
that a letter would be distributed discussing the issue of class attendance on
the day following Halloween.
Interim Provost Sheerer took a moment to express her views
regarding shared governance. She also
commented about the Chancellor’s lack of attendance at Faculty Senate and
explained that the Chancellor had to attend many meetings, which often conflict
with other commitments. Interim Provost
Sheerer briefly discussed the nature of her administration and pledged to
support the process of shared governance.
Professor Vail-Smith (Health and Human Performance) asked
Mr. Poe, relative to a catastrophic event and secondary problems, whether
faculty should already have a plan in place before such an event occurs. Mr. Poe replied by discussing the nature of a
catastrophic plan, which was only part of the problem and the solution. He discussed academic outreach and
contingency plans relative to the downtime of Blackboard. Mr. Poe recommended
that the faculty include a contingency plan in each class syllabus, including
an alternative plan for students who do not have internet connectivity.
Professor Lillian (English) inquired about parking,
specifically on main campus. She stated that at 3:00 pm, non-A parking holders
may park in “A” parking, which appears to be problematic for “A” parking
patrons. She expressed her concerns regarding general parking and the time
changes. Interim Provost Sheerer stated
that she should pose this question to Vice Chancellor Seitz.
Professor Martinez (Foreign Languages and Literatures)
inquired about Banner. Professor Brinn stated that there was full redundancy of
Banner in the
Agenda Item IV. Unfinished Business
There was no unfinished business to come before the body at
this time.
Agenda Item V. Report of Committees
A. Educational
Policies and Planning Committee
Professor Dale Knickerbocker
(Foreign Languages and Literatures), Chair of the Committee, presented proposed
Request for discontinuance of the Early Childhood Certificate Program in the
Department of Child Development and Family Relations, College of Human Ecology,
Request to offer existing MAEd in B-K Education
Online and a Request for Authorization to Establish Doctor of Audiology (AuD) Program, in the
Department of Communication Sciences and Disorders, College of Allied Health
Sciences.
Professor Jesse (Nursing) inquired about the differences
between the Ph.D. and the AuD degrees. Professor Knickerbocker (Foreign Languages
and Literatures) stated that there was approximately a 12-hour difference
between the two degrees.
Professor Wang (Geography) inquired about the cost of the
new program and in general, how much will the two degree programs cost the University.
Professor Knickerbocker replied that the department had a budget in place,
which included grant funding. Professor Knickerbocker stated that the
Department of Communication Sciences and Disorders had grants to fund half of
the graduate assistantships and that Vice Chancellor Mageean would match the
assistantships.
Following discussion, the requests were approved as
presented. RESOLUTION #07-23.
B. Faculty
Grievance Committee
Professor
Gene Hughes (Business), Chair of the Committee, presented an overview of the
2006/07 Committee Activities. Professor
Rigsby (Geology, Past Chair of the Faculty) questioned the number of 0’s on the
report. Professor Hughes replied that the committee saw neither an increase nor
decline in grievances. He stated that the grievances are constant and at the
present time, there is nothing in process. Overall, he stated that this tally
was about average for the academic period. Following a brief discussion, the
report was accepted by the body.
C. Faculty
Governance Committee
Puri
Professor Rigsby (Geology, Past Chair of the Faculty)
inquired as to whether the task force had reviewed the draft from the Faculty
Governance committee. Professor Martinez stated that members of the Faculty
Governance Committee and Professor Taggart had met and reviewed the draft.
Professor Robinson (Mathematics) stated that the administrator
evaluation document must go through the
Professor Rigsby (Geology, Past Chair of the Faculty)
questioned how the Board of Trustees’ deadline could be met, due to the many
steps that must be undertaken before the Board of Trustees would see the
instrument. She inquired about the time
constraints relative to faculty involvement since the committee must write the
report and then the Chancellor must approve it before November1. Professor
Martinez replied that she could not answer this question.
Professor Robinson made a motion that the
Professor Sprague (Physics) stated that this motion might be
premature, since there would be a third draft of the evaluation form. Professor Rigsby stated that the
Professor
Robinson (Math) then moved to endorse the principles on administrator
evaluation that were enumerated in today’s report by the Faculty Governance
Committee, and to transmit this along with the latest draft of the instrument
proposed by the Faculty Governance Committee to the Task Force on Administrator
Evaluation and Chancellor. The full
resolution stated:
The
Professor Sharer (English) questioned the principles and
changes behind the administrator evaluation instrument. Professor Martinez
stated that the Faculty Governance Committee would change the principles and
make new changes to the document based on feedback.
Following discussion the report
on Faculty Input in the Evaluation of Administrators, including the nine
principles enumerated during the meeting (and included above) were approved as
presented. RESOLUTION #07-24
There was no additional business to come before the
Respectfully submitted,
Marianna Walker Lori
Lee
Secretary of the Faculty Administrative
Officer
College of Allied Health Sciences
FACULTY
SENATE RESOLUTIONS APPROVED AT THE OCTOBER 9, 2007, MEETING
07-21 Resolution on Proposed Changes to the UNC Code as follows:
Whereas,
academic freedom and tenure are core values of the American academic system and
thus are of significant concern to faculty; and
Whereas,
the UNC system, as the oldest public university in the nation, has been and
should continue to be a leader in best practices in academic; and
Whereas,
the UNC Faculty Assembly has pointed out significant problems with key aspects
of the revisions proposed by the “Code 603/604 Committee” (as of July 17,
2007), particularly those relating to institutional guarantees of tenure,
grounds for discharge, utilization of post tenure review for discharge, and
rights of “special faculty”; and
Whereas,
the UNC Faculty Assembly has noted that there are areas in which the language
of the proposed changes needs to be clarified in order to avoid possible future
confusion and has developed alternative language to address its concerns with
the “Code 603/604 Committee” proposal;
and
Whereas,
it is the view of both the UNC Faculty Assembly and the ECU faculty that the
Code Review Committee’s work exceeded its charge insofar as it included
recommendations regarding post-tenure review processes that are inconsistent
with policies reviewed and supported by the Assembly in late Spring 2007, as
reported to the Board of Governors Committee on Personnel and Tenure in June
2007; and
Whereas,
the UNC Faculty Assembly has sought additional review from faculty from the
constituent UNC campuses.
Therefore
Be It Resolved, that the ECU faculty affirms its support for UNC Faculty
Assembly’s criticisms of the changes proposed by the “Code 603/604 Committee”
in its July 2007 draft.
Be It
Further Resolved, that the ECU faculty requests that submittal of the “Code
603/604 Committee” recommendations be deferred so that appropriate
Disposition: Brenda Killingsworth, Chairperson of the UNC
Faculty Assembly and Chancellor
07-22 Revisions to the UNC Faculty Assembly Charter to read
as follows:
1.
Representation in
the Assembly shall be apportioned among the constituent institutions of The
University of North Carolina with regard to the number of full-time faculty and
professional staff members in the service of each institution. Each institution
shall selected the number of delegates based on the percent that their
full-time faculty comprise of the full system-wide faculty according to the
following cut-offs: <2%, two (2) delegates; >2 and <5%, three (3)
delegates; >5% and <10%, four (4) delegates; and >10%, five (5)
delegates. At any time that the number of full-time faculty and professional staff
members of an institution changes as to entitle it to a larger or smaller
number of delegates under the foregoing formula, the number of its delegates
forthwith shall be changed accordingly. An exception to this will be made at
the time of change to the charter (spring ‘07 date) such that no institution
will decrease its number of delegates in the year of the change to the
formula. Every delegate to the Assembly
shall be a full-time faculty or professional staff member of the institution he
seeks to represent. The manner of selection of delegates shall be determined by
the faculties of the respective institutions consistent with their
institutional practices. It is highly recommended, however, that one of the
delegates from each institution be the Chair of the faculty senate (faculty
council) for that institution. Terms and rotation of delegates shall be
specified in the bylaws.
2.
The Assembly
shall have a Chair and other such officers, who shall be chosen in such manner
and for such terms, as the Assembly may provide its bylaws.
3.
Each
institutional delegation to the Assembly shall make available to the faculty of
its institution the official minutes of the proceedings of the Assembly,
together with the written report of the delegation.
Disposition: Brenda Killingsworth, Chairperson of the UNC
Faculty Assembly
07-23 Request for discontinuance of the
Early Childhood Certificate Program in the Department of Child Development and
Family
Relations,
Disposition: Chancellor
07-24 The
·
The
Chancellor or his representatives is responsible for reviewing the
administrative performance of the academic officers.
·
The
evaluation of administrators should be drawing on all informed sectors of the
university community.
·
The
evaluation needs to be done periodically.
·
The
evaluation should be a collaborative endeavor involving the faculty, the
administration and other campus constituencies.
·
The
evaluation must be constructive and developmental; its ultimate purpose should
be to offer guidance on improving performance.
·
There
should be a commitment of all parties to a generally understood and agreed-upon
procedure to carrying the review.
·
According
to the nature of the administrative post, there should be a distinction of the
appropriate level of faculty involvement.
·
The
voice of the faculty is to be weightiest at the departmental and decanal level,
and more diluted by the necessary presence ofother
institutional constituencies in the review of administrators above the level of
dean.
·
Faculty
need to have reason to believe that their participation in the review has been
meaningfully taken into consideration in the outcome.
Disposition: Chancellor and Task Force on Administrator
Evaluation