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).
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 email@example.com.
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
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
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
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.
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
(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.
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.
06-29 Revised Academic Research/Creative Activity Grants Committee charge.
Disposition: Faculty Senate