FACULTY SENATE
MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 7,
2006
The third
regular meeting of the 2006-2007 Faculty Senate was held on Tuesday, November
7, 2006, in the Mendenhall Student Center Great Room.
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 October
10, 2006, were approved as presented.
Agenda Item III. Special Order of the Day
A. Roll Call
Senators
absent were: Professors Rastatter (Allied Health Sciences), Kim (Art and
Design), Weismiller (Medicine), Niswander (Academic Deans’ Representative),
Rigsby (Past Faculty Chair) and Vice Chancellor Lewis.
Alternates
present were: Professors Coghill for Cable (Health Sciences Library), Lazure
for Kim (Art and Design), and Alligood for Rose (Nursing).
B.
Announcements
1. The Chancellor has approved the
following resolutions from the October 10, 2006, Faculty Senate meeting:
06-24
Curriculum
matters contained in the September
28, 2006, University Curriculum Committee minutes.
06-25 Resolution on Crime Within Our
Community and Neighborhoods.
2. ECU
has two new subscriptions to report: site-wide online access to the Chronicle of Higher Education and online
access to the Gallup Brain. Previously, researchers had to have a username and
password to access the online subscription to the Chronicle. That has now
changed. Campus users may go directly to
the website http://chronicle.com to read
articles from 1995 to present, in addition to viewing the Almanac of Higher
Education and other resources. Off-campus users must connect through a link on
the library's database pages (http://www.ecu.edu/cs-lib/erdbs/erdbs_description.cfm?id=443)
or search the E-Journal Locator and connect to the entry reading
"Miscellaneous E-Journals."
The Gallup Brain, the database of the Gallup Organization,
features Polls, Tuesday Briefings, and more, from 1935 to the present. Connect
from the library's database page: http://www.ecu.edu/cs-lib/erdbs/erdbs_description.cfm?id=436. Please direct any questions to the Joyner
Library Reference Desk at 328-6677.
3. In
an effort to enhance security controls on passphrase resets, ITCS will
implement changes to its passphrase reset procedures. Users are currently
encouraged to register in Signup and use this process to change their PirateID
passphrase. Although many users have registered, large percentages do not
change their passphrase via Signup. Effective
02/01/07, the ITCS Helpdesk will no longer reset PirateID passphrases via the telephone for campus users. All PirateID
passphrase resets for campus users will occur via Signup or users will have to
provide proof of identity for PirateID passphrase resets.
ITCS has begun an awareness campaign immediately to inform
the campus community of the upcoming changes. Training sessions and awareness
training will occur prior to 2/01/07
to provide details on how to use Signup (PID) to reset passphrases. All users
who call into the ITCS Helpdesk will receive assistance on how to register and
use Signup. The ITCS Helpdesk will walk users through how to use Signup if they
have any issues with the process. We also will provide resource at the
Technology Resource center to provide assistance if they need hands-on support.
Plans are to review all centrally managed user accounts
(MVS, Banner, IDX, etc.) and apply measures to confirm the identity of those
users also. These efforts will improve security while providing a more
convenient method of resetting passphrases. You may visit http://author.ecu.edu/cs-itcs/itsecurity/PassphraseReset.cfm
for more details of the upcoming changes.
IT Security is available to provide additional information or
to meet with any department or group to discuss the changes and receive any
feedback or suggestions. Please direct any questions to Margaret Streeter,
Interim Director of IT Security at 328-9187 or streeterm@ecu.edu.
4. Plans are being finalized for the
University’s Centennial Celebration that begins on March 8, 2007. This is the official 100
year anniversary of the legislation that was passed to create ECU. The campus
celebration on that day will include a traditional “dinner on the grounds”
which will follow a special legislative session, hopefully on ECU campus.
Additional events scheduled for that afternoon will include the Chancellor’s
Forum on Service, where a new honor society, The Servire Society, will be
formed to recognize those who do extensive service to the community. All
faculty are encouraged to set aside this important day, to attend the events
themselves, and to consider allowing (or requiring) their students to attend
the events as well. Faculty may consider revising their Spring 2007 course
syllabi and class schedules to accommodate this celebration. The Centennial will begin on this day, and it’s important
that the entire ECU community recognizes the accomplishment of surviving and
thriving for 100 years!
5. Letters concerning unit elections for 2007-2008
6. The Committee on
Committees has been charged to seek volunteers to serve on the various
academic, appellate, administrative, Board of Trustees, and student union
committees. Faculty are strongly
encouraged to participate in this component of shared faculty governance and
return the volunteer form by February 16, 2007. Committee appointments will be finalized at the April 2007, Faculty
Senate meeting.
C. Steve Ballard, Chancellor
Chancellor Ballard addressed two
issues: the Yardley Group report and the status of the budget process. Dr.
Ballard stressed the need for open dialogue in the process. He noted that
previously, planning had not been strategic in nature, nor did it provide for
sufficient accountability, and therefore an external evaluation of graduate
programs was necessary. He emphasized that future planning must be strategic
with regard to resource allocation for and integrated with respect to
infrastructure needs. It must be consistent with ECU’s mission and priorities.
He stated that the Yardley report is only one of dozens of sources of input and
that the university is weeks if not months from formulating policies. Other
sources include the internal or “Taggart” report formulated by the task force
headed by Dr. Paul Gemperline. Reports from all sources will be vetted by
numerous groups, including programs, deans, and the faculty. They will be
submitted to Vice Chancellor Mageean for her evaluation, and she will then make
recommendations to the Executive Council. He noted that Vice Chancellor Smith
has overall responsibility for the process.
The Chancellor stated that the Board
of Governors meeting on 11-11-06 is their most important concerning the budget,
as they will decide what priorities will be passed on to the state legislature.
This will tell us the items for which it is possible to lobby. ECU’s top five
priorities (among a list of twelve) are: 1) need based financial aid 2)
academic salary increases: reaching the 80th percentile among peer
institution ($10-11 million), 4% merit increases in the next two years ($2-3
million), and endowed professorships 3) student success as reflected by
retention and graduation rates 4) research (over $ 30.5 million over the two
years) 5) improvement of public school education.
Dr. Ballard also expressed that he
is working for a capital funding bond issues to secure planning money for the
new Academic Center, and for the School of Dentistry. He noted the the latter
enjoys the unanimous support of the state Graduate Council.
Glascoff (Health and Human
Performance) asked what the proper channels are for faculty to respond to the
Yardley Research Group’s Report. VC
Mageean responded that faculty should send comments through their graduate
program directors, and stated that the Yardley group would return to address
the Graduate Assembly. She also stated that they have used the data provided by
the National Research Council, which is used to evaluate all programs
nationwide.
Sprague (Physics) asserted he found
statements regarding the physics program that were inconsistent or incorrect,
and that their recommendations for his program were illogical, thereby giving cause
to doubt on the validity of the report in its entirety. Dr. Mageean emphasized
that this is the first draft, that she would not extrapolate from the specific
to the general, and that ultimately the faculty are the experts on their
programs. Dr. Ballard encouraged faculty to engage in open dialogue to improve
the quality of data to make sound strategic decisions.
Cope (Faculty Assembly Delegate)
expressed concern that the report was shared first with the Board of Trustees,
and that it may color their view of the final report. VC Mageean assured that
she had contextualized the report for the Board and described what the process
would be. Chancellor Ballardexpressed his confidence in the Board’s
subcommittee working on this topic.
Riley-Tillman (Psychology) said that
he was informed that he, as a specialist in the field, would be contacted by
the Yardley Group to help in the gathering and analysis of data and asked if
this would occur. She stated that that was part of Yardley’s process of
responding to concerns from individuals sent directly to them, and that he
should hear from them within a few weeks. She assured him that he would have
access to the report at all stages.
Brown (Psychology) stated that the
report was written with an negative tone and tenor, that it ignored the
University’s history and mission, and that the university needed to respond to
assertions such as that Masters programs should be primarily revenue
generating. VC Mageean expressed that some programs have, for historical
reasons, entered into competition with institutions such as Duke, and that we
therefore need to view our programs in such a context, as they would be seen by
the National Research Council.
Warren ( Education) asked what
administrators thought of the report and its inaccuracies. VC Mageean responded
that it was hard-hitting, that people’s reactions tended to depend upon what
the report said about their program, and recognized that it contained
inaccuracies and they would depend upon the faculty to correct them.
Robinson (Math) stated that it is
customary to perform 5 year unit evaluations before external reviews, and that
the review rotation should be re-established. Prof. Mageean pointed out that
the internal “Gemperline-Taggart” report makes that recommendation, that she
agrees, and that it will happen. The external review was occasioned by two
factors: the rapid growth in PhD programs and our future possible participation
in the NRC
Long (History) asked what the status
of the Yardley report—would the recommendations remain as they are at present,
and reiterated his colleagues’ displeasure at inaccuracies. VC Mageean repeated
that it was only a draft.
Riley-Tillman (Psychology) stated
that the Yardley Group looked at groups as if there were a typical individual
within those groups, when most units have a few “star” researchers, and that
this is even more the case at a rapidly evolving institution such as ECU. He
asked if there was a way to take this into account. Prof. Mageean said she
believes Yardley is aware of that, but programs need to develop a “critical
mass” to generate research funds to support assistantships.
Sprague (Physics) made a motion to
have the Chair of the Faculty appoint an ad hoc committee of four to six
faculty members with expertise in graduate issues to review the Yardley
Research Group Report and issue a report on their findings to the Faculty
Senate. Riley-Tillman (Psychology) asked when the ad hoc committee would be
required to report. Sprague (Physics)
stated that he had left the wording vague so the the committee could set its
timetable.
Following a brief discussion, the
motion to have an ad hoc committee appointed by the Chair of the Faculty was
approved. RESOLUTION #06-26
Glascoff (Health and Human
Performance) stated that it was rare to have this much discussion on an issue
and that she hoped the top administrators understood that faculty were upset
that the draft Yardley Research Group’s report went to the Board of Trustees
with so many inaccuracies and that faculty have very strong feelings about this
report and wish to have strong channels of communication established to deal
with all of the issues and inaccuracies addressed in the report. She also
requested that the time and place of Yardley’s meeting with the Graduate Council
be advertised.
D.
Deirdre Mageean, Vice Chancellor for Research and Graduate Studies
Vice Chancellor Mageean urged
faculty to read the “Gemperline-Taggart” Report, and congratulated that
committee on its fine work. She explained that inequities in distribution of
and lack of funding for assistantships prompted the internal report. She cited
the following contextual factors: ECU currently funds $8 million in
assistantships, over $4 million from the Graduate School and the rest from the
colleges (through lapsed salary) and external funding. The Deans’ requests for
additional funding this year totalled $3.75 million, for which there is no
money. In order to fund these, colleges would have to use 56 new positions,
when only 49 enrollment growth positions were allocated to ECU. She pointed out
the need to address issues such as time-to-degree, the balance between the
number of stipends and the amount awarded, out-of-state tuition remissions, and
mentoring.
Zoller (Art and Design) asked to
whom feedback on the Report from the Task Force on Graduate Education should be
directed. Vice Chancellor Mageean
responded that it should go to Paul Gemperline in her office.
E.
Mark Taggart, Chair of the Faculty
Professor Taggart stated that he
wanted to thank the faculty members who had come to him to share their
impressions and concerns regarding the recommendations made in the Yardley
Research Group’s Assessment in Support of Graduate Education and
Research.” He thanked Senators for taking part in this serious discussion and
for their commitment to ECU. He noted
that it was important that both faculty and administrators have these
discussions, as we all want to see ECU grow in the right way.
Professor Taggart
also thanked Chancellor Ballard and Vice Chancellor Mageean for their remarks
concerning the recommendations in the first draft of the Yardley Report and the
Report from the Task Force on Graduate Education. He thanked them for their
commitment to shared governance; noting that the most effective way for ECU to
grow is to grow together; with eyes and lines of communication wide open.
He stated
that he felt that both the Chancellor and Vice Chancellor for Research and
Graduate Studies were committed to have this discussion on graduate programs in
an open, inclusive and transparent manner. He noted that they stated that they
regarded each of these documents as parts of the process that, along with the
University’s mission statement and strategic plan, would allow the University
to grow in a manner that is consistent with our mission.
G.
Approval of Fall 2006 Graduation Roster, including honors program
graduates
Professor
Beth Winstead (Academic Library Services) moved the approval of the Fall 2006
Graduation Roster, including honors program graduates, subject to completion of
degree requirements. The roster was
accepted by acclamation. RESOLUTION #06-27
H. Faculty Assembly
Report,
Ken Wilson
(Sociology), Faculty Assembly Delegate, provided an overview
of the November 3, 2006, Faculty Assembly meeting. He noted that the full minutes of the meeting
would be available online at
http://uncfacultyassembly.northcarolina.edu/html/meetings/2006/November/index.htm.
H. Brief Moment in
History, Henry Ferrell
Professor Ferrell (History) discussed various historical
aspects of the founding and evolution of Allied Health Sciences and the Brody
School of Medicine. Chair Taggart noted that this would be Professor Ferrell’s
last “moment in history” and the Faculty Senate gave him a round of applause in
gratitude.
I. Question Period
There were
no questions posed to members present during this part of the meeting.
Agenda Item IV. Unfinished Business
There was
no unfinished business to come before the
Agenda Item V. Report of Committees
A. Academic
Standards Committee
Linda Wolfe (Anthropology), Chair of the Committee,
presented a recommendation about the Student Opinion of Instruction Survey,
then yielded the floor to Michael Poteat, Director of Institutional
Effectiveness, to answer questions.
Zoller (Education) expressed concern about the use of the
SOIS for merit in teaching, since the online format does not offer a “captive
audience” as does the present format, and asked what assurances could be
offered that faculty would not be negatively affected. Dr. Poteat responded
that only one question on the survey was Senate-approved for use in
evaluations, and that the return rate in the trials was 61-65% for the online
survey as compared to 70% for the classroom-administered survey. He also said
students would be reminded and incentives provided, and that the time allowed
for response would be less than in DE courses
Stevens (Health and Human Performance) verified that students
would not be compelled to complete the survey. Prof. Poteat responded that they
would not.
Levine (Medicine) asked what safeguards were in place to
make sure that students in class are the actual ones completing the survey. Dr.
Poteat responded that the survey would be filled out by logging on through One
Stop, and noted that the DE survey would automatically exclude students who
dropped from participating.
Wilson (Sociology) asked if Professor Poteat could honestly
state that the online SOIS would produce data that would provide a honest
evaluation of the faculty for use with merit.
He also asked if the Committee felt that this survey was the most
effective way to evaluate courses and to be used as an evaluation instrument.
Dr. Poteat affirmed that tests results indicated it would. He reviewed the
development of the SOIS instrument based on research, pointed out that it is
mostly meant to provide feedback to instructors and is one of several means for
evaluation purposes, that it evaluates two factors: satisfaction and
difficulty, and finally that on T-tests administered on the same instructor
showed very slight variations in results.
Long (History) objected to changing the SOIS to online
because students who come to class become more familiar with the faculty member
and his or her way of teaching and are more likely to be present to evaluate
the faculty member. Students who do not attend class will have the same
opportunity to evaluate a faculty member without substantive experience and
knowledge of the faculty member’s teaching abilities. Dr. Poteat acknowledged
that it is a concern, but that the research has indicated no appreciable
difference.
Christian (Business) stated that he had evaluated this issue
at length when he was a member of the Career and Continuing Education Committee
and that his sample study reflected very little difference in the SOIS scores
of online and in-person evaluations.
Riley-Tillman (Psychology) asked how much did the SOIS paper
version cost the University? Prof. Poteat responded that it costs
$60,000-70,000 for the paper version vs. $20,000 to 30,000 to do it online. Present personnel
expenditures of $200,000 would also be decreased. He also observed that it is
not known whether or not Institutional Effectiveness could continue to expect
the necessary support in copying and scanning given the condition of hardware
used and changes in software. There have also been physical security problems
such as bundles being lost
Sprague (Physics) called the question and Wilson (Sociology)
objected. Wilson then made a motion to
ask the Chair of the Faculty to appoint a task force to consider revisions to
the SOIS to be implemented when it is moved to the web. The task force would be asked to report to
the Faculty Senate in January 2007.
Christian (Business) spoke against the motion stating that
there was no correlation between the two. Glascoff (Health and Human
Performance) spoke against the motion stating that the SOIS was used for tenure
and promotion too and that the Faculty Senate should be protective of tenure
track faculty. Zoller (Education) spoke against the motion stating that this
was two different issues and that the evaluation process should be protected.
Following discussion, the motion to appoint a task force to
consider revisions to the SOIS failed.
McKinnon (Interior Design and Merchandising) stated that the
SOIS was a flawed survey and expressed concern about what would happens if the
end result of going online decreases the actual responses in small classes to
the extent that the data loses statistical credibility.
Following a
lengthy discussion, the Academic Standards Committee’s recommendation that the Student Opinion of
Instruction Survey (SOIS) for all courses be changed to an Internet-based
survey delivered in a manner similar to the surveys currently administered to
students in Distance Education courses was approved as presented. RESOLUTION #06-28
B. Committee on Committees
Henry
Ferrell (History), Chair of the Committee, presented first the second reading
of a proposed revision to the Academic Research/Creative Activity Grants
Committee charge. There was no discussion and the revised
Committee charge was accepted as presented.
RESOLUTION #06-29
Professor
Ferrell then presented the nominees for the following standing Appellate
Committees. All were accepted by acclamation and their terms will begin
immediately.
Due Process
Committee – John Cope (Psychology) as a regular member
Grievance
Board – Jonathan Dembo (Academic Library Services) as a regular member
Hearing
Committee – Linda Mooney (Sociology) and Libby Knott (Education) as alternate
members
C. Educational Policies and Planning Committee
Dale Knickerbocker (Foreign Languages and Literatures),
Chair of the Committee, presented for information only the Committee’s approval
of a request for a new concentration in Quality Systems, Master’s of Science in
Technology Systems, and a request for a new certificate program in Lean Six
Sigma, Master’s of Science in Technology Systems (both in College of Technology
and Computer Science). It was also
reported (yet not included on the distributed agenda) approval of the change of
name of the Manufacturing concentration to Manufacturing Systems (College of
Technology and Computer Science). There
was no discussion on this report.
D. University Curriculum Committee
David Long (History), a member of the Committee, presented
the curriculum matters contained in
the minutes of the October
12, 2006, and October
26, 2006, Committee meetings. There was no discussion and the
curriculum matters were approved as presented.
RESOLUTION #06-30
Agenda Item VI. New Business
There being
no further new business to come before the Faculty Senate at this time, the
meeting adjourned at 4:15 p.m.
Respectfully
submitted,
Dale
Knickerbocker Lori
Lee
Secretary
of the Faculty Administrative
Officer
Department
of Foreign Languages and Literatures Faculty
Senate
FACULTY SENATE
RESOLUTIONS APPROVED AT THE NOVEMBER 7, 2006, MEETING
06-26
The
Chair of the Faculty will appoint an ad hoc committee of four to six faculty
members with
expertise
in graduate issues to review the Yardley Research Group Report and issue a
report
on their findings to the Faculty
Senate.
(Those appointed were Professors Edson Justiniano (Physics), Martha Alligood
(Nursing), Dan Schisler (Business), Charles Coddington (Computer Science and
Technology), Nancy Zeller (Education) and Tom Huener (Music).)
Disposition: Chair of the Faculty
06-27 Approval of the Fall 2006 Graduation Roster, including honors
program graduates, subject to completion of degree requirements.
Disposition: Chancellor
06-28 The Student Opinion of Instruction Survey (SOIS) for all courses
will be changed to an Internet-based survey delivered in a manner similar to
the surveys currently administered to students in Distance Education courses.
Disposition: Chancellor
06-29 Revised Academic
Research/Creative Activity Grants Committee charge.
Disposition: Faculty Senate
06-30 Curriculum matters
contained in the minutes of the October
12, 2006, and October
26, 2006, Committee meetings.
Disposition: Chancellor