East Carolina University




The second regular meeting of the 2008-2009 Faculty Senate was held on Tuesday, October 7, 2008, in the Mendenhall Student Center.


Agenda Item I.  Call to Order

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


Agenda Item II.  Approval of Minutes

Action on the minutes of September 9, 2008, were postponed until November.


Agenda Item III.  Special Order of the Day

A. Roll Call

Senators absent were: Professors Stapleton (Education), Talente (Medicine), Coddington and Ciesielski (Technology and Computer Science) and Vice Chancellor Mageean. 


Alternates present were: Professors Boswell for Glascoff (Health and Human Performance), Felts for McCammon (Health and Human Performance), Boklage for Gilliland (Medicine), Hodson for Levine (Medicine), and Larson for Eason (Nursing).


B. Announcements

1.         We have the following vacancies on standing University Committees and ask that anyone interested please contact Janice Tovey, Chair of the Faculty, at toveyj@ecu.edu. 

·    Admission and Retention Policies Committee, Chair of the Faculty representative

·    Calendar Committee, Faculty Senate representative

·    Continuing and Career Education Committee, Faculty Senate representative

·    Libraries Committee, Chair of the Faculty representative

·    Research/Creative Activity Grants Committee, regular member term

·    Teaching Grants Committee, regular member term

2.         Faculty are eligible for the following university-wide teaching awards: Board of Governors Award for Excellence in Teaching, Board of Governors Distinguished Professor for Teaching Award, Alumni Award for Outstanding Teaching, and Max Ray Joyner Award for Faculty Service Through Continuing Education. Portfolios of nominated faculty members are due November 3, 2008.  Evaluation materials submitted by past year’s winners are available for review in the Center for Faculty Excellence (Old Cafeteria, room 2305, 328-6470).  A description of each award is available online at: http://www.ecu.edu/cs-acad/fsonline/aa/academicawards.cfm.

3.         The deadline for submission of nomination materials for the annual Lifetime and Five-Year University Research/Creative Activity Awards (which includes 7 copies of departmental and unit review committee nominating letters, complete CV, and 3 letters from outside referees) is November 3, 2008 (November 3, 2008). Evaluation materials submitted by past year’s winners are available for review in the Center for Faculty Excellence (Old Cafeteria, room 2305, 328-6470).  All relevant procedures are available online at: http://www.ecu.edu/cs-acad/fsonline/customcf/committee/aa/researchspecifics.htm.

4.         The Committee on Committees is seeking nominees from the faculty for the election of one delegate and one alternate to the 2009-2010 UNC Faculty Assembly.  Nominees should be full-time faculty, holding no administrative duties outside his/her department.  The names of those nominated to the Committee on Committees will be submitted to the Faculty Senate in January 2009.  Following elections, the new delegates and alternates will begin their terms in August 2009.  Information has been distributed to all faculty and nomination forms will be due in the Faculty Senate office by Tuesday, November 4, 2008


C.        Steve Ballard, Chancellor

Chancellor Ballard stated that the University had initiated a process to assure that all SPA employees will make a “living wage” of at least $25,000 a year. This has been a four year process, and only UNC-Charlotte has committed to a similar assurance that all employees will make a “living wage”. The cost to ECU for this commitment is about $200,000.  He also stated that higher education may be affected a little more slowly than other economic sectors by the global economic climate; but that there will be impacts on the State revenues and therefore the University system. The cutbacks will be steady and increasing as we see the full economic implications and extent of the global economic crisis. The Governor and the State Budget Office has announced an immediate 2% non recurring cut back effective immediately. This amounts to $5 million; the Chancellor stated that he anticipated an additional non recurring cut of between $5 -$8 million at mid year. This is on top of the $2.4 million dollars in non recurring cuts that were required of all State universities in the last biennium. The Chancellor stated that the University was trying to anticipate these cuts so that essential services that are provided to the students are not drastically impacted


The Chancellor stated his concern for students and their ability to afford a college education.  He noted that ECU had the highest requirement for financial assistance of any University in the system.  Money for financial aid is a concern, as well as, when and if the ECU will require mandatory health insurance for all students. The number one goal should be the ability of ECU students to complete their education in a reasonable period of time.


Chancellor Ballard stated that he expected the UNC Board of Governors to restrict, if not prohibit, any increase in campus based tuition. The only increases will be related to the welfare of the students, which further restricts ECU’s flexibility to respond to budget issues. The Chancellor distributed a memorandum from Vice Chancellor for Administration and Finance, Kevin Seitz entitled Non-Recurring Budget Management Guidelines indicating the current actions that have been taken to reduce spending on campus. The memo indicates four actions that will take effect immediately. One of the items already implemented is that no hiring will be permitted until January. This is lapsed salary money that will not take away any academic positions. Travel restrictions are also described in the memo. The Chancellor stated that every option will be evaluated in view of protecting the core functions of the University mission and reminded faculty that this may be just the beginning of a couple of hard years for higher education.


Professor Taggart (Music) asked about student affordability and the mandatory health insurance. The Chancellor stated that, since the policy will be for the entire UNC system, the insurance carrier had already been determined but that with abnormal times, more time would be needed to make sure that the financial impact on ECU’s students was known before proceeding with requiring health insurance.


Professor Sprague (Physics) stated that he served on the Task Force for a Child Care Center and asked where does the proposed child care center stand now with the budgetary restraints. Chancellor Ballard responded that right now he must be concerned about the revenue stream and not the idea of having a child care center. He stressed the need to make sure the University could meet the first year expenses of the proposed child care center of almost $1 million and that essential foundation items must come first. Chair Tovey (English) stated that Senators had been given a copy of a letter drafted by her, as Chair of the Faculty, and Professor Bruce Southard, Chair of the Faculty Welfare Committee in support of the proposed child care center. Chancellor Ballard’s response to the letter was also available.   Chair Tovey stated that the three year cost for the child care center was around $2 million and that there were some possibilities of a partnership with the hospital which would reduce the costs for the University. 


Professor Martinez (Foreign Languages and Literatures) asked about the rumored financial error in budget projections for the formula funding matrix and student credit hours which resulted in a loss to the University’s funding. The Chancellor stated that the formula funding matrix for student credit hours was very complicated, and every year in the past there had been a multi-review process.  He agreed that mistakes were made at ECU. Each year the University would submit funding numbers to UNC General Administration and they would react with a counter proposal. ECU would make the University counter proposal and some time over the course of the Fall, ECU and General Administration would agree on what the enrollment projections for the coming year would be. Assuming the legislature would approve those projections, ECU would then get money for anticipated student enrollment. Chancellor Ballard stated that ECU had never gotten funding for every credit hour that was produced.  For example, when we generate 80% of D.E. in the system we do not get 80% of the costs of generating credit hours.  Chancellor Ballard stated that last year the negotiation process did not happen. The system was self correcting according to Dr. Mabe, with UNC General Administration, since the funding would be based on credit hours achieved. 


Provost Sheerer stated that the University did not have to return any money because of this error because student credit hours could not be used to compensate for budget cuts. She stated that there was no relationship between the double entry calculation error made in the projection of enrollment growth and the source of funding that can be used for the budget cut backs. One lesson that was learned was that the review and negotiation process was helpful and another lesson was that their needed to be some reorganization done within ECU’s Institutional Research Office.


Professor Rigsby (Geology) stated that she understood that some numbers were transposed but wanted to know how much the error was because the rumored number kept changing.  Dr. Sheerer introduced Robert Frye, Interim Director of Planning and Institutional Research, who stated that the error was around $20 - 25 million, but that ECU would still not have gotten that money if the normal review process had occurred.  ECU received about $9 million this year and one in every 8 dollars that the entire UNC system received from the appropriation. Mr. Frye concluded that there was a mistake made, and that the mistake was made due to the lack of review and self correction at several levels, not just within ECU.


D.        Phyllis Horns, Interim Vice Chancellor for Health Sciences

Interim Vice Chancellor Horns stated for the last twenty one months she had been acting as the Interim Dean of the Brody School of Medicine and Interim Vice Chancellor for Health Sciences. She stated that she was delighted to have an opportunity to introduce the new Dean of the Medical School, Dr. Paul Cunningham. Dr. Cunningham stated that the School’s mission was to provide education for students, patient care, and research and contribute to the cultural make up of Eastern N.C. He also noted that much of the school’s patient population had no insurance at all and that the funding for the safety net for these services must be sought with the assistance of the Chancellor.


Dr. Horns reported that the appropriate rate of growth and the service mission of the Health Science Division are currently being discussed. The College of Nursing was recently designated as a Center of Excellence, with only 20 other institutions in the country having reached this level. She also recognized Professor Marianna Walker (Allied Health Sciences), Vice Chair of the Faculty, for recently receiving the Barbara W. Bremmer Distinguished Professor of Literacy and Language. Dr. Horns noted that the new Dean of the Dental School would begin in October and that building plans were moving forward for the new Dental School, with construction beginning as early as the beginning of 2009.


No questions were posed to Interim Vice Chancellor Horns at this time.


E.        Janice Tovey, Chair of the Faculty

Professor Tovey stated that she would to begin with an explanation for one item on the agenda: unfinished business. After consulting with Committee on Committees and reviewing the charge of the Educational Policies and Planning Committee, she has determined that the Senate will be voting on all programs, both undergraduate and graduate that are reported on. Therefore, the Faculty Senate we will be voting on the PhD proposal for Curriculum and Instruction that we did not vote on at the September meeting. 


Chair Tovey also stated that the Board of Trustees, at their last meeting, heard a preliminary report from Kemal Atkins about the Mendenhall Student Center and a recommendation that the university build a new center with renovations to MSC as a part of the project. That committee will meet again next week to continue it’s work.


The board also heard the preliminary report from Dr. Bailey on Enrollment Management: the report that will be presented today. She stated that the process being put in place is so that all faculty, students, and staff can take part in the conversation about the best ways to manage enrollment growth in a way that benefits all constituents.  Today, Dr. Bailey will present an overview of the preliminary report to provide faculty with the context in which the task force worked and the key points about smart management. Faculty Senators have received a copy of her report and, following the Senate meeting today, the preliminary draft of the report will be released to all faculty, students, and staff. Then beginning after Fall break, the Task Force will have several open meetings for faculty and staff and other meetings that will target students. These meetings will be an opportunity for all faculty to respond, question, argue, etc. about the options presented. She also stated that she would like Senators and Alternates to consider meetings in your units to get feedback and response.


Chair Tovey also stated that she was asking faculty who were members of the Task Force to facilitate the open meetings in order to report to the Faculty Senate in November on the conversations and, then, to continue discussion during the Faculty Senate meeting. Finally, Chair Tovey will provide a summary of the conversations about the draft to the Strategic Enrollment Management Task Force and to the Board of Trustees at their November meeting.  Chair Tovey stated that she looked forward to hearing faculty responses and questions about the report.


Professor Vail-Smith (Health and Human Performance) asked if the University was planning to purchase North Campus Crossing Apartments.  Chancellor Ballard indicated that the Board of Trustees had not made a decision. Dr. Ballard also indicated that there was a political dimension and a financial component to this question and that the financial aspect will probably “ win out “.  The Chancellor stated that Vice Chancellor Kevin Seitz was the only one who could really speak to this. Professor Christian (Business) asked if the Board of Trustees had a financial interest in the property. Chancellor Ballard responded that he was not aware of one. Professor Niswander (Business) replied that none of the Trustees had any financial interest other than an interest in what was appropriate for the University.  Chair Tovey also noted that the complex was built in a flood plain.


Professor Rigsby (Geology) asked which standing academic committees had been working on the strategic enrollment management plan. Chair Tovey stated that members of the task force will be asked to help her to report the conversations to the various standing academic committees, but at this point there were no specific recommendations coming forward for final approval until after the open hearings.


F.         Judi Bailey, Senior Executive Director of Enrollment Management

Executive Director Bailey listed a number of the Faculty Senators who were on the Strategic Enrollment Management Task Force.  She stated that the Task Force was charged in February 2008 and that participation was excellent.  She noted four critical areas included in the report distributed to the Senators entitled Preliminary Report to the Faculty Senate.  A Strategic Enrollment Management Task Force Project Status Update was also distributed to members of the group. 


Professor Bauer (English) asked how the academic committees would be able to meet the timeline set forth in the distributed material. Dr. Bailey indicated that the draft report listed individual committees that would meet to advise the Faculty Senate’s standing academic committees on the various recommendations and that the faculty’s involvement through the academic committees was essential to developing the recommendations further.  Other groups within the University would also be involved with the draft report now available for the various university groups to consider.  The timelines allow for the Faculty Senate’s standing academic committees and other interested groups to work on the recommendations.


Professor Robinson (Mathematics) asked what the nature of the Final Task Force Report to the Board of Trustees in February 2009 would be. Dr. Bailey responded that a report on the issues that the task force dealt with would be included in her remarks to the Board.  Some of the concerns voiced by the Task Force may lead to recommendations; some of which may be adopted in the near future, some of which need to be discussed in a spirit of shared governance, and some of which may never be adopted.


Professor Rigsby (Geology) reminded the Faculty Senators and Faculty Officers that the Faculty Senate had many standing academic committees that should be asked to be involved in the discussion on the recommendations from the Task Force. She stated that a lot of the information being compiled and discussed relating to enrollment management involves not just numbers, but quality and is intimately tied to the SACS. She then asked about the relationship of this report with SACS preparatory process.  Dr. Bailey indicated that Dr. Weismiller had been peripherally involved up to this point but would be more involved in the review process that will begin next.


G.        Terry Holland, Director of Athletics

Director Holland stated that the Board of Trustees had approved  a new contract for Skip Holtz as the football coach, with the contract tied to revenue streams such as fundraising and ticket sales.  He stated that success on the football field generated funds for compensating the coach and that the salary could also be reduced. He mentioned that he would like to build a new soccer field, softball field, and track area and that this would be a $20 million project.  No questions were posed to Director Holland.


H.        David Dosser, Chair of the University Athletics Committee’s Academic Integrity Subcommittee

Professor Dosser provided several reports for the Faculty Senators and links have been provided here:

·        University Athletics Committee Academic Integrity Subcommittee Report

·        Graduation Success Rate

·         Freshman Cohort Graduation Rates

·         Academic Rankings of Squads in Conference USA


Professor Wilson (Sociology) asked if Professor Dosser felt confident that there were no integrity concerns within Athletics.  Subcommittee Chair Dosser responded that he did not have any integrity issues that are systematic, such as with Florida State University and the academic cheating scandal within athletics, but he did have major concerns about the general student population and cheating. He suggested that Chair Tovey ask a standing academic committee to address this growing problem. 


Professor Matthews (Anthropology) stated that reports reflect that athletes are doing better than the average students at ECU.  She asked what was the source of funding for athletes because currently faculty are asking student tutors to be volunteers. Professor Dosser stated that tutoring for athletes was paid for out of the general funding of the University for tutoring all students.


Professor Vail Smith (Health and Human Performance) asked how many men versus women sports were there at ECU and how many men coaches versus women. Professor Dosser provided those numbers.


Professor Dosser also recognized Professor Michael Felts (Health and Human Performance), Chair of the University Athletics Committee, who provided an overview of the University Athletics Committee and the Gender Equity Subcommittee. No questions were posed to Professor Felts.


I.          Mark Sprague, Faculty Assembly Delegate

Professor Sprague provided Faculty Senators a written report on the September 19, 2008, Faculty Assembly Meeting.


Professor Martinez (Foreign Languages and Literatures) asked how the Task Force on Strategic Enrollment Management would address online education.  She also requested additional information on the proposed “trimester” being routinely discussed by Erskine Bowles. Professor Sprague responded that President Bowles was considering on- line education as one of the ways to make infrastructure go further. He stated that President Bowles considered the “tri-semester system” as a way of getting better utilization of University facilities over the summer and that faculty would be asked to teach two of the three semesters.


Professor Sprague also stated that while President Bowles talked about how the UNC system had been successful in getting money from the legislature on the basis of enrollment growth, he indicated that this caused an emphasis on quantity rather than quality.  President Bowles also believed that the University can not grow their way into a better quality of education and success in funding. He concluded that the revenue stream model was flawed


Professor Sharer (English) stated that there was a contradiction of the issue when using under-utilized facilities versus reducing energy and eliminating wasteful uses of utilities. Professor Sprague stated that there was a presentation on energy conservation at the meeting and that guidelines were coming for energy efficient buildings.  He gave the example that new construction must be 30% more efficient and renovations must be 20% more efficient than the current standards.


Professor Martinez (Foreign Languages and Literatures) referenced the low productivity/low enrollment programs identified by General Administration and asked how it reflected on the responsibility of the Educational Policies and Planning Committee to formulate guidelines that faculty and academic units should consider. Chair Tovey indicated that the programs that General Administration identified as low productivity programs indicated in the memorandum from Harold Martin were on the basis of numbers . Marketing strategies and other needs were not a part of the equation. Professor Sprague also indicated that while 20 graduates might trigger a closer look at a program, there might be a sound reason for some programs to have a low number of graduates. This is an opportunity for the University system to look at all our programs.


J.         Question Period

Chair Tovey noted that representatives from ECU Dowdy Student Stores were available for questions on the distributed information relating to Response Regarding Textbooks and Half-Priced Textbooks.


Professor Sharer (English) referenced the end of October 2008 deadline for all textbooks for introductory courses, stating that all must participate in the buy-back or rental program.  She then asked if all instructors now need to select from a list. Wanda Scarborough with Dowdy Student Stores responded no. 


Professor Bauer (English) stated that she was a member of the SACS undergraduate working committee, but had not been notified of when they were meeting. Provost Sheerer responded that Professor Bauer should contact David Weismiller.


Professor Jesse (Nursing) asked if the previous year’s $500 incentive for online textbook adoption program was successful and if so, which academic units were successful in meeting the goal and earning the $500.  Wanda Scarborough with Dowdy Student Stores responded yes, that the adoption program was successful and that she would let Professor Jesse know which unit earned the $500.


Chair Tovey also noted that there were representatives from ECU Admissions available for questions on their Report on the 2008 Freshman Class and Home Schooled Admissions. No questions were posed to the representative from the Admissions office.


Agenda Item IV.  Unfinished Business

Chair Tovey acknowledged that there had been confusion on what items of business from the standing Academic Committees could the Faculty Senate actually act on.  It was clarified that the Faculty Senate acts on all committee business, whether relating to undergraduate or graduate issues. Professor Sandra Warren (Chair of Educational Policies and Planning Committee) was then recognized to present for approval the earlier Request for Authorization to Establish a PhD Program in Curriculum and Instruction in the College of Education.  There was no discussion and the proposed request for authorization was approved as presented.    RESOLUTION #08-40


Agenda Item V.  Report of Committees

Professor Rigsby (Geology) moved to reorganize the Faculty Senate agenda in order to hear the Faculty Governance Committee’s reports prior to losing a quorum. It was stated that the Committee was working hard to meet an extended October 10 General Administration deadline.  The motion passed.


C.        Faculty Governance Committee

Professor Puri Martinez (Foreign Languages and Literatures), Chair of the Committee, presented first the proposed Guidelines for Preparing a Cumulative Evaluation.  It was noted that there would be placed an electronic link to the appropriate section in the online ECU Faculty Manual to aid faculty going through the cumulative evaluation.  There were no questions and the

proposed Guidelines for Preparing a Cumulative Evaluation were approved as presented.  RESOLUTION #08-41


Professor Martinez then presented the proposed revisions to the ECU Faculty Manual, Appendix B. Policy for the Cumulative Review of Permanently Tenured Faculty of ECU. She stated that

these revisions needed to be submitted to General Administration as soon as possible and that the guidelines only needed minor adjustments since in compliance. 


Professor Bauer (English) asked if each unit needed to create a review committee.  Professor Martinez responded yes, same as before.  Following discussion, the proposed revisions to the ECU Faculty Manual, Appendix B. Policy for the Cumulative Review of Permanently Tenured Faculty of ECU were approved as presented.  RESOLUTION #08-42


Professor Martinez then presented a report on the proposed review of administrators. She provided her own personal perspective of the current situation and related the proposed document to a democratic model based on an AUUP definition. She stated that under this AAUP model, the vote was a summary evaluation of an administrator.


Professor Taggart (Music) thanked members of the Faculty Governance Committee who were working together to draft a tool for the review of administrators.  He expressed his disappointment in what has transpired and that the final document displayed a lack of transparency.  He hoped that more work could be done between the committee and administrators that would reflect openness, transparency, and accountability. Professor Martinez responded that it was the Chancellor’s job to hire and fire administrators and that the Committee’s report was just an attempt to be systematically involved in the evaluation activity.


Chair Tovey stated that faculty needed to honor provisions of the joint statement and work with the Faculty Governance Committee to find a way to have faculty input and take part in administrative review. Professor Sprague (Physics) moved that the Faculty Senate supports the most recent Faculty Governance Committee policy on the Review of Administrators and the degree of transparency that the policy embodies. Professor Rigsby (Physics) spoke in favor of the motion and stated that this motion provided the Faculty Governance Committee with the much needed support that they need to go forward.  


Professor Coleman (Medicine) asked if the motion passed, would the Chancellor’s suggested revisions be ignored.  Professor Sprague responded that no, the intent was that this body support the original motion that provides for transparency.


Professor Rigsby (Geology) offered a friendly amendment to the motion to read that the Faculty Senate supports the degree of transparency embodied by the Faculty Governance Committee’s policy on the Review of Administrators. Professor MacGilvray (Medicine) expressed a problem with voting for or against something that he had not read prior to the meeting. 


Professor Brown (Psychology) stated that he thought what the motion was saying was that faculty think that the Chancellor should work better with us, and if so, is that what we should say.

Professor Sprague (Physics) stated that this issue was not something that had just been sprung upon the Senators and that it was something that most faculty should be familiar with.


Professor Christian (Business) stated that having been in the Senate for 6 years, it seemed to him that the Chancellor had been transparent. So he stated that there must be reasons why Chancellor Ballard was responding this way about this matter. Professor Martinez stated that the review of administrators’ policy should be created for the University, not just for the Chancellor.


Professor Bauer (English) clarified that the Committee’s work was to make sure that faculty have input into the review of administrators. Professor Zeager (Economics) stated that he did not like this and that this motion was not an appropriate way to exercise the most faculty influence on this issue. Professor Zoller (Art and Design) stated that the purpose of the motion was not to strong arm anyone but that the Committee needed support for their hard work and efforts and needed to know that what they were saying was speaking for the faculty. Professor Niswander (Business) called for a quorum.  Parliamentarian Wilson ruled that a quorum was present. 


Professor Gibson (Business) asked if the Committee had met again with the Chancellor since his latest rewrite of the policy.  Professor Martinez replied that the Committee had extended an invitation to discuss this with Chancellor several times and that he had decided through his conversations with Chair Tovey that he was going to form an ad hoc committee to determine the input from the faculty; taking this issue away from the Faculty Governance Committee.


Professor Vail-Smith (Health and Human Performance) asked why didn’t Senators ask Chancellor Ballard about this issue when he was present earlier in the meeting. Chair Tovey stated that Chancellor Ballard does want faculty input in the evaluation of his administrators and that she would work closely with him to resolve this issue as soon as possible.


Professor Spraque (Physics) called the question.  Following a vote on the amended motion, the final motion read The Faculty Senate supports the degree of transparency embodied by the Faculty Governance Committee’s policy on the Review of Administrators and was approved.  RESOLUTION #08-43


Prior to additional committee reports, Parliamentarian Wilson ruled that a quorum had been lost. 


Discussion and action on the remaining committee reports would be postponed until the November 4, 2008, Faculty Senate meeting.


The meeting adjourned at 5:05 p.m.


Respectfully submitted,


Hunt McKinnon                                                                                  Lori Lee

Secretary of the Faculty                                                                    Faculty Senate

Department of Interior Design and Merchandising                                                          





08-40  Request for Authorization to Establish a PhD Program in Curriculum and Instruction in the College of Education.

Disposition:  Chancellor


08-41  Guidelines for Preparing a Cumulative Evaluation.

Disposition:  Chancellor


08-42  Revisions to the ECU Faculty Manual, Appendix B. Policy for the Cumulative Review of Permanently Tenured Faculty of ECU.

Disposition:  Chancellor


08-43  The Faculty Senate supports the degree of transparency embodied by the Faculty

            Governance Committee’s policy on the Review of Administrators.

Disposition:  Faculty Senate