FACULTY SENATE
FULL MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 3, 2009
The third regular
meeting of the 2009-2010
Agenda Item I. Call to Order
Marianna Walker, Chair of the Faculty called the meeting to
order at 2:10 p.m.
Agenda Item II. Approval of Minutes
The minutes of October
6, 2009, were
approved as distributed.
Agenda Item III. Special Order of the Day
A. Roll Call
Senators absent were: Professors Gabbard (Education),
Talente (Medicine), Novick (Medicine), Coleman (Medicine), Coddington
(Technology and Computer Sciences) and Killingsworth
(Business/Parliamentarian).
Alternates present were: Professors Sligar for Jones (Allied
Health Sciences), Lamb for Reyes (Biology), Mahar for Vail-Smith (Health and
Human Performance), Boklage for Abdel-Rahman (Medicine), Kenney for Shinpaugh
(Physics), and Carlson for Parker (Theatre and Dance).
B. Announcements
After
polling the faculty officers and the Agenda Committee, and in an effort to
accept an invitation to meet on west campus, the December
The
Chancellor has approved the following resolutions from the September 2009 and
October 2009,
09-33 Additional
Revisions to the ECU Faculty Manual,
Appendix B. Policy for the Cumulative Review of
Permanently Tenured Faculty of ECU.
09-34 Revisions
to the Procedures for the Lifetime and Five Year
Research Awards.
09-35 Reinstatement of Dance 1000 as a Foundation
Curriculum course for the Arts.
09-36 Recommendation on the Student
Opinion of Instruction Survey (SOIS).
We have openings on the following University
Committees. Brief committee descriptions are available online where noted
below. Volunteers are asked to contact the
http://www.ecu.edu/cs-acad/fsonline/customcf/committee/briefdescriptionsallcmtes.htm
·
Biological
Safety Committee, 1 year term as Chair of the Faculty representative
·
Calendar
Committee, 1 year term as
·
Faculty
Information Technology Review Committee, 1 year term as
·
Family
Weekend Committee, 1 year term as Chair of the Faculty representative
·
Faculty
Welfare Committee, 1 year term as
·
Libraries
Committee, 2 year full committee term
·
Infection
Control Committee, 1 year term as Chair of the Faculty representative
·
Radiation
Safety (Basic Science) Committee, 1 year term as Chair of the Faculty rep.
·
Resident
Status Appeals Committee, 1 year term as Chair of the Faculty representative
·
Student
Scholarships, Fellowships, and Financial Aid Committee, 1 year full committee
term
·
Teaching
Grants Committee, 1 year term as Chair of the Faculty representative
·
University
Curriculum Committee, 1 year term as
There
will be only one monthly Faculty Open Forum in November (11-11) and December
(12-9) due to the upcoming holidays. Both monthly forums will be held in the
Science and
Letters concerning unit elections for 2010-2011
Every year
the University Calendar Committee is charged with developing the academic
calendar for a future term. Although many aspects of the calendar are not
changeable, there is some flexibility possible with regard to the start of the
fall academic term. In order to make decisions related to this in an informed
manner, we would greatly appreciate your feedback regarding the week we begin
the fall term via the survey link noted below:
http://ecu.qualtrics.com/SE/?SID=SV_430NUBHWflVL1qs&SVID=Prod
The
University Academic Awards Committee has issued an official call for
nominations for the Lifetime and
Five-Year Achievement 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 Monday,
December 7, 2009. All relevant procedures are available
online at:
http://www.ecu.edu/cs-acad/fsonline/customcf/committee/aa/researchspecifics.htm.
C. Steve
Ballard, Chancellor
Chancellor Ballard stated that there are five determining
factors in risk management and that most of them related to legal issues that
have changed significantly over the last several years Currently the budget
situation is a concern but Vice Chancellor Seitz and the other Vice Chancellors
and Deans have put the University in good position. No predications can be made
at this time but the legislature has indicated that there may be a $2 billion
structural budget deficit in the second year of the biennium. The definition of
a structural deficit is when one time money is used to pay for recurring costs.
The stimulus money that is being used now will not be available in the next
year so the leadership of the Appropriations Committee believes that the state
treasury will start the short session of the legislature with at least a $2
billion deficit. Added to last year’s
shortfall the budget deficit may total $4 billion for the biennium. The
Chancellor continued by stating that the first quarter revenues are down one
percent and that the budget projections are very uncertain. If the tax
shortfalls continue then ECU will certainly be facing more “one time “cuts and
perhaps permanent budget cuts in the upcoming year. The Chancellor stated that
he is concerned about funding for this biennium and that President Bowles has
expressed his concern about the funding into the beginning of the next biennium
beginning in 2011. The Executive Council is discussing how to prepare for as
much as a 15-20% budget cut to the University.
The Chancellor also stated that this is also the time of
year when campuses make proposals for campus based tuition and fees. These proposals
should be voted on in November by the ECU Board of Trustees and then forwarded
to the Board of Governors for final action.
Last year the legislature prohibited campus based tuition last year when
there was a $200 increase in tuition that went to the general fund and not to
the university system. President Bowles has indicated that he believes that
legislation will be reversed and that ECU will have the normal level of
flexibility again this year. ECU started planning for this degree of
flexibility last April. The Student Government Association approved the student
fee portion of the plan last night recommending an increase of $80. This fee is
composed of $40 for an education technology fee for improving classrooms, $30
for an athletic fee, and $10 for a student transit fee. The Board of Trustees
will then decide the level of tuition increase in addition to these fees; the
Chancellor feels that this total should be capped at the 3.6% which is the
Higher Education Price Index. The division of increased tuition dollars is
mandated by the Board of Governors to be divided in a prescribed way. For each
dollar increase, fifty cents must go to financial aid; the Chancellor indicated
that this is critical because of mandatory health insurance required if a student
is not covered by private insurance coverage. This could be as much as
$600-$700 per year for some students. The Chancellor’s second priority for use
of additional campus based tuition money would be in view of retention. The
second part of the proportioning of tuition dollars is more flexible this year.
In the past 25% of the on campus tuition money has been mandated to go to
faculty salaries, but this year that requirement does not exist. Instead there
is flexibility on how the money can be used: 50% of the funds must go to
financial aid and the other half to the academic core. The Chancellor indicated
that the Board of Trustees is very involved in these decisions which led to a
two week delay last year and an additional increase in fees from the original
administrative proposal. The Chancellor’s position is that additional campus
based tuition and fees should be limited to provide affordability and
accessibility; students should not have to pay a disproportionate share of
increased the cost of education. The
Chancellor summarized by saying that ECU provides a great bargain for what
students receive in terms of what they pay and what they get in education at
this university.
The Board of Governors approved a new policy regarding
centers and institutes which was given to Chair Walker. The Chancellor reported
that he continues to get feedback on areas where ECU is doing well and some
areas where the University is not doing quite so well. UNC General
Administration has reacted positively to the way that ECU dealt with reduction
in administrative costs; 92% of the cuts have been taken from administrative
categories. ECU was evaluated as the third best in the system based on this
policy. General Administration has warned ECU that there must be improvements in
retention and graduation rates. This is a systemic problem so suggestions from
deans and department heads relative to how retention and graduation rates can
be improved. Since college and departmental level efforts can make a big
difference. This year the University is slightly below the 80% retention goal
and will certainly be penalized in the future for not meeting the freshman
retention and graduation goals.
Related problems are space utilization; ECU is still not
maximizing the use of classroom and laboratory facilities in teaching based on
an evaluation of teaching schedules. The other vulnerability is how we assist
students who fall below a 2.0 and a 2.5 GPA; these students can often not get
into a desired major. These are thousands of students who are admitted to the
University and told that they are in good standing but are having a difficult
time getting into a major. ECU needs a creative response to finding options for
these students.
On a more positive note, the Board of Governors has approved
ECU’s mission statement and the
The Chancellor then introduced Provost Sheerer who discussed
the methodology used in the distribution of faculty positions. The Provost
stated that a total of 47.71 faculty positions were received last year. The
Academic Council then met and took 13 of these positions to be used for
restitution and institutional priorities. Restitution means that these positions
were awarded to programs that had been underfunded in the past. The
institutional priorities this year were lead to 2 positions being allocated to
engineering, 1 to research and graduate studies for the Center for Health
Disparities. The remaining 34.71 positions were divided between Academic
Affairs, on the east campus, and Health Affairs, on the west campus; the
division of these positions was based on the relative share of the total
derived faculty growth between 2007-2009. This is a formula established by UNC
General Administration. Academic Affairs accounted for 81.35% the Health
Sciences divisions accounted for 18.65% of this growth; thus, 28.3% FTE of the
positions went to Academic Affairs and 6.42% FTE to Health Science.
These two divisions made allocations across the units that
report to them. Based on a salary level based on the average teaching salary
for the college in a 2008-2009 report provided by IPAR; in addition $8,000 in
enrollment increase operating funds were provided. The result was that the
College of Business received 5.5 positions, the College of Education received
4.5 positions , the College of Fine Arts and Communication received 2.5, the
College of Human Ecology received 2.5, the College of Health and Human
Performance received 4.5, the College of Technology and Computer Science
received 2.5, the College of Arts and Sciences received 9.5, the College of
Allied Health Sciences 2.5 The College of Nursing 4.5, Brody School of Medicine
1.5, Research and Graduate Studies/ Health Disparities 1 position, four
positions were retained in Academic Affairs for priorities and emergencies, and
Health Sciences retained 1.5 positions. That is the total allocated positions
and the method of divisions.
Chancellor Ballard referenced a new policy from General
Administration entitled Planning,
Establishing, and Reviewing Centers and Institutes in the University of North
Carolina.
Professor Van Willigen (Sociology) asked Chancellor Ballard
about stressing the importance of academics in light of classes being canceled
due to a Thursday night football game.
Chancellor Ballard stated total flexibility has been given to instructors
in their courses and how they teach them. ECU administrators have done all they
could do to balance the reality of traffic problems with classroom instruction.
The Chancellor stated that if he were in charge of this there would be no
Tuesday, Thursday, or Sunday football games but that these decisions are
constrained by many variables that are national in scope. The student athletes
are disadvantaged by having to balance academics against these sports
schedules. The Chancellor stated that he is going to approach the Board of
Trustees about game days other than Saturday after the conclusion of this
football season. The Chancellor stated that Provost Sheer could discuss the
process of making the decisions if needed.
Chair
Provost Sheerer stated that the first proposal was that ECU
do what UNC Chapel Hill did and simply closed the campus at an established time
on a Thursday game day. Extended conversations resulted in the Executive
Council and then the Faculty Officers were consulted. The Faculty advice was
not to halt classes; so a compromise was reached which addressed safety issue
of visitors to campus and parking problems and faculty were not being required
to cancel classes. A time was set of 3:00PM so that locations like the
Professor Givens (Foreign Languages and Literatures)
referenced a recent student newspaper article that seemed to stress that the
cost of parking on campus was more important than the cost of tuition and
stated that even if these comments were considered sarcastic, ECU should not
allow athletics to take precedence over academics and concluded that he
wondered how this could be prevented from happen again. Chancellor Ballard
stated that he felt that this article did not represent the majority of student
opinion. He reiterated that mid week sporting events will be evaluated at the
end of the season.
Professor Howard (Communication)
stated that more attention needed to be paid to the number of Monday Tuesday
classes. He stated that he was not sure that he is a question but he did have
an observation. ECU was trying to map out our classes, or consider cancelling
classes, in view of parking for a football game and this is a situation that
should not be allowed to unfold like this again. The Chancellor replied that
his was a point well taken and that administrators had been worrying about the
issues since August or September of this semester.
Professor Rigsby (Geology) asked, in reference to the budget
situation, why there seemed to be a lot more justification on how the University
used grant funds. She stated that there
was a new requirement for travel allocation within some units requiring that
travel justification address how the travel meets the University’s mission. She
asked if research did not relate to the University mission. Chancellor Ballard
responded that he was not familiar with any new University-wide travel
justification requirement and could not address what a unit head might require.
Provost Sheerer stated that there were no centralize requirements on such a
justification and that it must be a policy of the
Chair
D. Phyllis
Horns, Vice Chancellor for Health Sciences
Vice Chancellor Horns stated that The Health Sciences
Division (HSD) is comprised of the Brody School of Medicine,
Funding for
the HSD is somewhat different from the remainder of ECU in that funding for the
Colleges of Allied Health Sciences & Nursing, and the MPH program are
funded through the Enrollment Growth Funding Formula (16065 budget code) along with the remainder
of ECU’s East Campus. The BSOM,
Over the
course of the past decade when programs funded through enrollment growth
received new dollars sufficient to offset budget cuts imposed by the State, the
BSOM participated in annual budget cuts but did not participate in the infusion
of new dollars from the enrollment growth.
The cumulative impact has been a loss of over $34M of permanent funds
from the Medical school’s State funding.
Obviously, this magnitude of loss is substantial forcing the School’s
leadership to shift many legitimate and essential academic costs from State
funding to the Practice Plan, contributing in part to the depletion of reserves
and a near desperate financial condition of the Practice which became evident
about 3 years ago. We have been engaged
in a financial turnaround for ECU Physicians since that time. Despite great progress in this effort to date
including a balanced budget for this current year, Dr. Cunningham and his leadership team will
be continuing this work for some time to come.
Of current concern is the potential impact of federal health care reform
proposals. Most contain reductions in
reimbursements from Medicare and Medicaid. Since this group represents nearly
40% of the patient population of ECU Physicians, the financial impact could be
disastrous.
Several
people have had asked Dr. Horns to share with you some information about how we
set salaries in the HSD specifically the Brody School of Medicine (BSOM) and
funding sources for faculty salaries.
The AAMC salary benchmarks for Medical Schools in the
A few
examples of physician faculty salaries in BSOM (anonymous):
Total salary: $450,000—State funded portion $0
$386,150---State
funded portion $16,850
$478,100---State
funded portion $40,700
$190,000---State
funded portion $26,500
It has also
been rumored that we have been awarding large bonuses to Department Chairs in
BSOM. This is another false rumor. ECU Physicians does have a Clinical Faculty
Compensation Plan which allows incentives, i.e., supplemental pay, bonuses, for
highly productive clinical faculty largely based on work RVU’s
as defined by AAMC. No “bonuses” have
been awarded to Department Chairs in recent months even though we have awarded
some incentives to faculty.
The other
units in the HSD also use national salary benchmark data from AACN, AHC, and
other organizations in determining comparables and setting salaries rather than
CUPA data which are used more commonly in non-health sciences areas. Another factor in salary setting in HSD is
that all of Allied Health Sciences, Medicine, and Dentistry faculty and about
50% of the Nursing faculty are on 12 month appointments. This is necessitated by the year round need
for clinical services in addition to year round academic programs to meet
regulatory requirements and remain competitive with similar programs across the
country.
For some
time now, I have heard concerns being expressed about the “East campus” funding
“Medicine”. I have not been able to
discover the exact origin of these questions. Dr. Horns stated that she wanted
to assure this group that nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, there are a number of firewalls
(including Dr. Sheerer and the Deans) which prevent this from occurring. There are seven positions that have been
allocated to the BSOM for teaching courses for non-BSOM students. And of
course, as mentioned earlier positions to support the MPH program and PhD
programs are in BSOM but these are generated from the enrollment growth funding
formula. The folks in Medicine actually
see this picture differently. The
Medical School has over the past decade infused nearly $12M back into ECU
through the auxiliary tax on ECU Physicians that was initiated in 1996 to
reimburse ECU for some essential support services such as payroll, purchasing,
etc. (At that time ECU Physicians had
more than $70M in reserves). This last
year the tax resulted in $1.6M to ECU.
In addition, the PhD programs in BSOM provided the basis for ECU’s
successful bid to become reclassified as a Doctoral II institution by the UNC
System in 1998 resulting in the receipt of more than $6M in additional
permanent funding to the campus between 1999-2002. None of these dollars were allocated back to
the BSOM. In addition, F & A
receipts for the campus are currently at ~$4.5M about 60% of which comes from
grants in the HSD.
Last year there
were lots of concerns and misunderstandings among the faculty about
administrative stipends. I am here to
report that just under $3M of these stipends are in the HSD and a large
proportion are paid from NON-STATE dollars ($2,063,138M). The majority of
stipends in the HSD are paid to “faculty members” who agree to take on
additional “time limited” responsibilities beyond their regular duties. Many of these stipends are in support of the
academic mission rather than being purely administrative in nature. For
example, one of our current senators is receiving a stipend funded by PCMH for
duties as a Residency Program Director.
Another faculty member receives an ECU Physician’s funded stipend for
serving as the MS III Clerkship Director.
Two ECU faculty members (one East Campus and one West Campus) receive
state funded stipends for chairing IRB’s. All persons receiving a stipend have a
written contract which specifies the purpose and amount of the stipend as well
as a notification that the stipend will be discontinued if the duties are no
longer performed. To be very clear, the
use of stipends is a necessary tool for getting all the work done. We do not have stipends being paid for
unessential work and the work being supported by stipends cannot be eliminated. Thus, the blanket elimination of stipends
would do irreparable damage to our academic core.
The
During some
recent conversations on campus, several folks indicated that they were unaware
of the Pharmacy Services and Rapid Access program available to ALL ECU
Employees and their dependents.
Informational materials about these programs are at your places and we
invite your participation.
Provided is a link to Vice
Chancellor Horns’ full comments. No
questions were posed to Vice Chancellor Horns. Chair
E. Marianna
Walker, Chair of the Faculty
Professor Walker stated that in the past four months, she
had learned more than she had ever imagined about the university and how to
best represent the faculty. She knew that the Chair of the Faculty’s
responsibilities were to represent the faculty in all situations, yet she never
realized in just how many situations and the number of individuals with whom
she would be sharing this information.
As you are
all aware, there has been initiation of some of the most important endeavors
ever at the university during this academic year, including the development of
the University Policy Manual, specifically the Policy on Policies, and the
review and revision of the Faculty Manual. During the development and review of
these two critical endeavors, it has been more imperative than ever for the
Chair of the Faculty and the faculty officers to represent ALL faculty of each
unit, and the
In order to
accurately represent the faculty of
Professor
Walker stated that she must understand and support the structure of the
standing university committees and the faculty serving on those committees. She
must facilitate and encourage open communication between faculty and
administration, but among faculty as well.
In the spirit of shared governance, she must share the voice of the
faculty with administrators in these situations and must “be at the table”
during the development of rules, policies, and procedures. The voices and
perceptions of the faculty must be considered prior to the development and
implementation of such policies and regulations. This voice relates to the
faculty, not to my personal agenda. When she is asked, “what do the faculty
think” or “what are the faculty concerns”, she knows that she cannot answer the
question based on her personal beliefs.
Her stance must be formed based on the feedback and information she has
gathered from the faculty.
Professor
Walker asked what had she done this year to ensure that she was carrying out
her responsibilities as Chair of the Faculty? To answer this question, she
stated that she must change from first person singular to first person plural.
The work of the Chair of the Faculty cannot be accomplished without support
from the faculty, the senators, faculty officers, faculty on university
standing and appellate committees and key administrators. This year, the
faculty leadership has operated on a principle of increased and open
communication in all circumstances. We
have worked to increase the opportunities to collaborate, communicate, and
consider all points of view in matters relating to the faculty. We have held four faculty forums, which have
been broadcast and available for review at a later date. In October, the forums
addressed the definition of Academic Core, which is being explored by the UNC
Faculty Assembly. Catherine Rigsby and Brenda Killingsworth led these
discussions. Thanks to them for their valuable information and for taking our
perspectives into consideration. We also explored the topic of Retention and
Graduation, again an important GA mandate.
Thanks to the faculty who attended, in addition to Provost Sheerer, Vice
Chancellor Horns and Mageean, Vice Provost Bunch, the Deans, and various other
administrators and staff for sharing their views in our forums.
We have encouraged
dialogue through the faculty blog and committee meetings. For the first time in
the history of the ECU
The Faculty
Manual Steering Committee has completed the first round of review of the manual
and has made interesting observations and suggestions for consideration by the
university committees. The faculty and
administrators are engaging in valuable, honest, and often controversial
conversation about the Manual. The Faculty Manual Steering Committee,
consisting of a collaborative group of faculty and administrators, will
continue their work this month to complete the review of the manual, focus on
items that could possibly be removed, and decisions about cross-referencing
sections between the University Policy Manual sections and Faculty Manual.
Under consideration are policies relating to Academic Integrity and Student
Honor Code, Academic Policies (faculty and administrative), Advising, and
Faculty Workload.
Professor
Walker stated that the university committees were working diligently to carry
out new charges to review and make recommendations regarding the faculty
manual. She stated that she was so proud
of the faculty committees in their work. She also stated that she has and will
continue to meet with the committees and will do whatever she can to facilitate
the review this year. Following the last meeting of the
ECU is
fortunate for the structure of these university committees; a structure that is
not always present in other UNC university shared governance models. The
structure of these committees, and the standard for accountability and
responsibility underscores the work that they are carrying out in a timely
manner.
Administrative
policies are also being developed and when appropriate, Provost Sheerer was
requested faculty input on such policies as “Consequences for Faculty Who Fail
to Submit Grades”, “Gifts Affecting the Curriculum”, and “Institutional Survey
Administration”. Academic Standards will be reviewing these documents and will
provide feedback on these policies.
Thanks to Provost Sheerer for requesting our input and for using the
university
She then
asked each of the Faculty Senators, to truly represent the faculty in their
units. She challenged them to get out and establish an active voice for their faculty,
so they were able to speak for colleagues within their units, as their elected
representative. There are opportunities
in place that would allow Senators to accomplish this task easily. She
encouraged Senators to invite their faculty to the monthly faculty forums and
be a model for this venue by attending.
These forums are information sessions in an informal setting for
discussion about important university issues that will affect faculty,
students, programs, and the visions for the university. She asked Senators to
ask themselves the question, “If I am not present at these forums, will my unit
truly be represented?” She noted that as
she has found out, if you are not at the table, your issue may be overlooked.
She reminded Senators that if they were unable to attend one of the two forums,
they should send someone in their place. If they have unit faculty meetings,
ask to speak as a Faculty Senator and encourage a discussion about issues
currently being discussed in a forum. She asked Senators to send their ideas,
thoughts, and concerns to the faculty officers to ensure that their voice was
heard. She encouraged Senators to come
to the
Professor
Walker stated that together we can all make a difference. She reminded Senators
that she never used third person in her reference to the charges and
responsibilities that we all have this year.
We shouldn’t think, they will do the work, they will go to the forums,
and they will speak for us. WE are all
in this together and we must make sure that all faculty are represented and
have a voice.
No questions were posed to Professor Walker following her
remarks.
F. Marsha
Ironsmith, Chair of
Professor Ironsmith (Psychology)
provided highlights of the Task
Force Report In review she stated
that the task force was commissioned by Provost in December 2008 and met weekly
and furnished report in June 2008. The mission was to assess the benefits and
our readiness of ECU to move have an Honor’s college. It was envisioned that
the Honor’s College would foster interdisciplinary programs, extend the University’s
commitment to community engagement and fit into the strategic goals outlined in
UNC Tomorrow. There is also the possibility that this would contribute to
better alumni relations.
The college would be led by a Dean
who would report to the Provost and would not be located in an existing unit on
campus or tenure its own faculty. The committee suggested that the graduate
school model be used so there would be honors faculty from different colleges
teaching the honors courses. The suggestion was made to have an
No questions were posed to Professor
Ironsmith or Bassman following her report.
G. Approval of the Fall 2009 Graduation Roster, including
honors program graduates.
Professor Glascoff (Health and Human Performance) moved
approval of the Fall 2009 Graduation
Roster, including honors program graduates. RESOLUTION #09-37
H. Question
Period
Professor Glascoff (Health and
Human Performance) thanked those in administration who made it possible for the
H1N1 vaccine to be available for faculty in the Wright auditorium.
Professor
“We use the AAMC salary benchmarks
for Medical Schools in the
Professor Wilson summarized that the
medical school has a commitment to deliver benefits to the faculty to be as
good as other medical schools around the country. The benefits that we receive
in the rest of the University are nowhere near as close as at other
Universities.
VC Horns stated that she shared
that sentiment and that this had been a problem for many years. It is a compelling problem that is debated
frequently that she do not know the answer.
From the medical schools perspective, they are running a business so the
state of NC has not been able to keep up. She stated that she could use
Professor Wilson’s support in the Faculty Assembly in convincing UNC General
Administration that parity in benefits is essential.
Professor Zeager (Economics) asked
how the Board of Trustees had responded to the idea of an
Agenda Item IV. Unfinished Business
A. Admissions and Retention Policies
Committee
Professors
Joseph Thomas (Academic Library Services) and Wendy Sharer (English), leaders
within the Committee, provided a summary of last month’s discussion on the
proposed revisions to
the ECU Faculty Manual, Part V.
Section I.J. Grade Appeals.
Professor
Sprague (Physics) offered an editorial revision, deleting the sentence “A
four-fifths majority shall prevail in the committee.” from #5 in the proposal.
The revision was accepted.
Professor
Cooper (Health and Human Performance) addressed concerns faculty within his
unit had with information in #6 and how to protect the Dean. He asked if the committee discussed this
particular issue. Professor Sharer
responded that the Dean would only be acting on the recommendation of the committee
and he/she would not have the power, personally to act on his/her own, thereby
eliminating any harm to them.
Professor
Jenks (History) stated that the current policy was really a nonpolicy
and that the Senators needed to understand that if the Senate created this form
of policy it would create a lot of work for the Deans within the colleges and
schools. He stated that faculty within
his unit reacted negatively to this proposed policy and thought that the grades
may be overturned outside the faculty member’s purview? He asked if the
department could create their own subcommittee as part of the review process?
Could they handle this within the unit and without getting to step #5. Professor Sharer responded that #3
potentially allows for the chair to gather more information and then the appeal
could then go to step #5 if the student wishes to pursue. The unit chair could also ask someone to
investigate the problem for him or her.
Tremayne
Smith (SGA Treasurer), speaking on behalf of Brad Congleton (SGA President)
stated that he had talked with many students and faculty and was requesting
that the student be represented by a faculty member so that he/she could attest
to the student’s ability. In addition, the
faculty member representing the student would be more in the know of how the
University system worked. He suggested
that the revised policy be considered as a trial for one year and then all get
together again to discuss the outcome.
Professor
Kenney (Physics) spoke against the proposed revisions due to the involvement of
the dean and investigations that the dean is empowered to do. There seemed to be a lot of overhead making
faculty provide two different documents to justify why the grade was given. This policy also did not meet what the AAUP
really endorsed in relation to how grade appeals were to be handled.
Professor
Sprague (Physics) spoke in favor of that and moved to strike “This grade appeal
policy generally follows that recommended by the American Association of
University Professors (AAUP).” There was no objection to the motion and it
passed.
Professor
Brown (Psychology) stated that what was consistent with AAUP was that the final
decision on the grade should rest with the faculty member. The proposed revised
policy would add a faculty committee and not allow for the dean to handle this
on his/her own. He spoke in support of the resolution.
Professor
Rigsby (Geology) stated that the criteria was narrow which was good and asked
why not note the standards found in academic unit’s code of operations. Professor Niswander (Business) spoke against
adding reference to the unit codes because faculty teaching multiple sections
should have the privilege to change the standards. He stated that if the individual instructor
decided to do things differently it would be in compliance with #2 criteria but
not #3.
Professor
Boklage (Medicine) stated that the 2nd criterion was redundant to
the 3rd criterion. Professor Niswander
(Business) responded that if the individual instructor decided to do things
differently it would still be in compliance with #2 criteria but not #3. Professor Sprague (Physics) stated that
standards exist different from those established and what happens if the
student does average work but does not get a “C”.
Professor
Howard (Communication) stated that he concern was that this was a student
generated appeal, so shouldn’t it read that these departmental policies should
bear on the grade appeal and could involve a bunch of interpretations not based
on validity.
Following
discussion, the proposed revisions to the ECU Faculty
Manual, Part V. Section I.J. Grade
Appeals were approved amended. RESOLUTION
#09-38
B. Educational Policies and Planning Committee, Deedee Glascoff
Professor
Glascoff (Health and Human Performance), a member of the committee, presented
three requests as noted below:
1. Request for Undergraduate
Game Development Certificate within the
2. Request for Realignment
of Higher Education Doctoral Concentration within the
3. Request for Film
Studies Interdisciplinary Minor within the Department of English.
There was no discussion and the
three requests were approved as presented.
RESOLUTION
#09-39
C. Faculty Grievance Committee, Jan Mayo
Professor Mayo (Academic Library
Services), Chair of the Committee, provided an overview of the 2008-2009
Committee Activities. There was no
discussion.
D. Unit Code Screening Committee, Christine
Zoller
Professor Zoller (Art and Design), a
member of the Committee, presented the revised unit codes of operation for the Department
of Geography and Department
of Psychology. There was no
discussion and the revised unit codes were approved as presented. RESOLUTION #09-40
Agenda Item V. Report of Committees
A. Academic Standards, Linda Wolfe
Professor Wolfe (Anthropology),
Chair of the Committee requested approval of Geography
1000
for Social Science Foundations Credit.
There was no discussion and the approval of Geography
1000
for Social Science Foundations Credit was approved as presented. RESOLUTION #09-41
B. Admissions and Retention Policies Committee,
Joseph Thomas
Professor Thomas (Academic Library
Services), Chair of the Committee, presented proposed revisions to the University Undergraduate Catalog,
Section 5: Academic Regulations.
Professor Thomas first offered
additional revisions to the first paragraph under After Schedule Change Period so that the sentences read: “For
regular semester-length courses, the drop period is limited to the first thirty
thirty eight days of classes of the semester.
For five-week block courses or regular summer term courses, the drop period is
limited to the first ten thirteen
days of classes for the semester or summer term.” There was no further discussion on the
section, entitled After Schedule Change
Period.
In reference to the
second section, entitled Grade
Replacement Policy, Professor Theurer (Music) stated he did not believe
that the current policy restricts the number of times a student can take a
class for grade replacement. This change would allow additional leniency so the
students have a chance to try again.
Professor Roberts (Philosophy) asked for clarification on
who made these recommendations and/or who encouraged the committee to make
these revisions to the policy. Professor Thomas replied that if you look at the
recommendations together you will find that the overall effort is to raise standards while provide some
cushioning and at the same time academic eligibility requirements would be
increased. In that way the best academic interests of the student would be
taken into account.
Professor Thomas stated that in March 2009, the Academic Standards Committee and
Admissions and Retention Policies Committee presented a joint response to the
Strategic Enrollment Management Task Force recommendations on Academic Policy
Changes (section 2.8 of the SEMTF report). That was provided to the Senators at that time for
information only and that now the Committees was ready to present the proposed
changes to the University Undergraduate
Catalog, Section 5. Academic Regulations.
Professor Roberts
(Philosophy) stated that a tenth of a grade point average did little for the
student. Professor Sprague (Physics) stated that the proposed revisions were
not new since they were developed by the Strategic Enrollment Task Force and
then were vetted by the Academic Standards Committee and Admissions and
Retention Policy Committee. Those two committees presented their
recommendations to this body in March
2009. ECU needs to increase student retention and this is an opportunity to
see if we can change our policies to encourage our students not to leave ECU.
Professor Rigsby
(Geology) spoke against the grading system, stating that the Task Force
recommended limiting the number of times that a student could take a
course. It would not benefit the student
to take a course in their major four times and that this new policy would not
increase retention but would affect graduation rates. She suggested that maybe the student should
be advised to change their particular academic path.
Professor McKinnon
(Interior Design and Merchandising) stated that through being on the Strategic
Enrollment Task Force he had learned, from Jayne Geissler, that UNC Wilmington
also allowed four course drops and that this had been an advantage in eventual
graduation rates. He stated that forcing a student to go to a community college
should not be the only option; however, while supporting this change
philosophically he had one technical question. If the University extends the
time that a student can drop a class without penalty, would that affect their
financial aid?
Professor Tovey
(English) stated that there would not be a problem with financial aid and that
with the 10 day extension that had been provided for. She also noted that there are many times that
there was not a grade until 40% of the class had met.
Professor Sharer
(English) stated that one issue that came up in the discussion referred to
limiting the number of grade replacements. A consideration is the number of
times that a student could take a foundation course since they must be passed
before graduating. English 1100/1200 was
a good example.
Professor Boklage
(Medicine) stated that the first sentence was vague and that there were 4
occasions when a student could replace a grade for any course. The response was
4 total grade replacements during a student’s college career.
Professor Glascoff
stated clarification is needed for the foundations curriculum. College algebra
is a big stumbling block for example and that this has been resolved. She asked
if she were in error? Professor Sharer
responded that English 1100/1200 was the only case where there was not an alternative.
Professor Tovey
(English) stated Jayne Geissler, Director of Academic Advising, had asked her
to inquire if it had been considered that if a student is failing one course
they are often failing several and that for that reason she does not feel that
repeat course grade replacement would be a problem.
Professor Theurer
(Music) moved to limit the number of grade replacements for courses unless it
was a foundation course and offered a motion that read: “Only foundations
curriculum courses may be repeated up to 4 times for grade replacement.” He is proposing this amendment since this
takes up valuable seat space that could be taken by another student. Professor
Stiller (Biology) stated that he did not understand, as a faculty body, the
reason to micromanage the number of student’s drops.
Professor Sprague (Physics) stated that he had concerns with
the proposed amendment because the proposed language did not preclude a student
from repeating a course other than a foundation course outside of their major.
He asked if this
language of the amendment preclude students from excluding 1000 and 2000 level
course. He stated his opposition to eliminating all 1000 and 2000 level courses
from grade replacement unless they are foundation courses.
Professor Brown
(Psychology) stated that he also was opposed to micromanaging the way a student
might use the four drops that are made available to them. Professor Niswander
(Business) spoke against the motion stated that there were core courses within
the
Following discussion, the motion to limit the number of
grade replacements for courses unless it was a foundation course failed.
Professor Rigsby
(Geology) stated, for clarification, that this policy does not say that a
student can take a class and not replace the grade. After the 4th time would the grade
be calculated into the grade point average?
Professor Cooper (Health
and Human Performance) stated that the Chancellor had mentioned minimum GPA is
problem in selecting majors. He asked how this might impact the consideration
of majors
Professor Brown
(Psychology) stated that, although it looked like only a small percentage of
changes, the University’s grade replacement policy was more restrictive than
all others within the UNC system. He
stated that allowing for one additional grade replacement would not hurt the
University and it did aid the student, if by chance they had had a terrible
freshman year adjusting to college.
There was no further discussion on the
section, entitled Grade Replacement Policy.
In
reference to the third section, entitled Academic
Eligibility Standards, there was no discussion nor amendments offered to
the text. Following
this, the proposed revised sections to the University
Undergraduate Catalog, Section 5: Academic
Regulations were approved as amended. RESOLUTION #09-42
C. Educational Policies and Planning
Committee, Deedee Glascoff
Professor Glascoff (Health and
Human Performance) first stated that she had been asked to postpone requesting
approval of the proposed Sport and Exercise Psychology Concentration
in the Master of Science degree in Exercise and Sport Science within the
There
was no discussion and the request for authorization to establish a Master
of Science in Security Studies, within the Department of Political Science
and a proposed Graduate
Certificate in Physical Education Clinical Supervision, within the
D. University Curriculum Committee, Paul
Schwager
Professor Schwager
(Business), Chair of the Committee, presented the curriculum matters contained
in the September
10, 2009, September
24, 2009 (includes revised course proposal form and signature form for
curricular changes), and October
8, 2009 meeting minutes. There was
no discussion and the curriculum matters contained in the University Curriculum
Committee meeting minutes were approved as presented. RESOLUTION
#09-44
E. Unit Code Screening Committee, Christine
Zoller
Professor Zoller (Art and Design),
a member of the committee, first noted that the
VI. New Business
Resolution
in Support of the
Professor Sprague (Physics) first thanked Professor John
Stiller (Biology) who helped him craft the motion before the senators. He
stated that the essence of the motion was because the current Howell Science
Complex building is in need of repair due to structural problems and basically
that the 1970’s heating and air conditioning system had given out. He stated
that, in order to fix it, the building would have to be closed down for repair
and do a full renovation. There had been
band aids placed on the problem for years due to limited funds, but it is only
a matter of time until the building has to be renovated or replaced. However, there are research projects that
would need to come to a halt and moved elsewhere when the building was closed
for repairs and then halted again and moved back once the building was
reopened. He also stated that the
Chancellor had asked him and other faculty members to assist him in getting
this to the forefront by providing a resolution that would be supported by the
Professor Jenks (History) asked if passed, what were the
Senators asking the administration to do?
He stated that he understood there to be a list of prioritized projects
and he wanted to know where this project was on the list. Was the Chancellor asking for a resolution on
this building so that he could say that the faculty support this new building?
Professor Sprague stated that the
Chancellor has asked for a motion of support from the faculty for design of
this building to lend credibility in seeking funding from the legislature.
Professor Glascoff (Health and Human Performance) stated
that STEM (science technology engineering and management) should be clarified
for the sake of the historical record. This was accepted as a friendly
amendment.
Dean Niswander (Business) spoke against the resolution
stating that the
Professor Pravica (Mathematics) stated that the
VC Mageean stated that there was a recognized system of
priorities and she understood that there were many buildings that needed
work. She stated that if the Chancellor
felt that having the faculty express their support would strengthen his hand in
dealing with the legislature.
Professor Gilliland (Medicine) stated that having faculty
spread out over several buildings was a nuisance, but they could still
communicate. It was unfair to ignore the
Chancellor when he had an important issue that he has asked faculty input and
that adding more items to address was unfair too. She supported the resolution
and the Senate providing the Chancellor with what he needed to get the job done
and she characterized this resolution as a baby step.
Professor Zoller (Art and Design) stated that in the past
she had asked the Chancellor about the Visual and Performing Arts Center and
that he had said that there were still problems with that proposal and
gathering enough support. She stated
that she agreed that faculty should support the Chancellor in what he was
trying to accomplish.
Professor Willson (Medicine) stated his support of the
resolution; however, he asked if this now set a precedent that all future
building requests would come through the
Professor Romack (Chemistry) spoke in favor of the
resolution and stated that if we are going to ask for something and that it is
tied to economic development then the
Professor Boklage (Medicine) reminded the Senators that all
the proposed resolution did was reassert the #1 priority that had already been
assigned to this building. Following discussion, the proposed resolution in Support
of the Biosciences Building was approved as presented. RESOLUTION
#09-46
Prior to Professor Roberts (Philosophy) moving adjournment,
Professor Estep (Academic Library Services) provided a brief announcement on an
upcoming event within Joyner Library.
Following this, the meeting adjourned at 4:55 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Hunt McKinnon Lori
Lee
Secretary of the Faculty
Department of Interior Design and Merchandising
FACULTY SENATE
RESOLUTIONS APPROVED AT THE NOVEMBER 3, 2009, MEETING
09-37 Fall
2009 Graduation Roster, including honors program graduates.
Disposition: Chancellor
09-38 Revisions to the ECU Faculty Manual, Part V. Section I.J. Grade
Appeals.
Disposition: Chancellor
09-39 Request for Undergraduate Game Development Certificate
within the College of
Technology
and Computer Science, Request for Realignment
of Higher Education
Doctoral Concentration
within the College of Education, and Request for
Film
Studies Interdisciplinary Minor within the Department of English.
Disposition: Chancellor
09-40 Revised Department
of Geography and Department
of Psychology unit codes of Operation.
Disposition: Chancellor
09-41 Approval of
Geography
1000 for Social Science Foundations Credit.
Disposition: Chancellor
09-42 Revisions to the University
Undergraduate Catalog, Section 5 Academic
Regulations.
Disposition:
Chancellor
09-43 Request for
authorization to establish a Master
of Science in Security Studies, within the Department of Political Science
and a proposed
Graduate
Certificate in Physical Education Clinical Supervision, within the
Disposition: Chancellor
09-44 Curriculum
matters contained in the September
10, 2009, September
24, 2009 (includes revised course proposal form and signature form for
curricular changes), and October
8, 2009 meeting minutes.
Disposition: Chancellor
09-45 Revised Department
of Biology and Department
of English unit codes of Operation.
Disposition: Chancellor
09-46 Resolution in Support
of the Biosciences Building.
Disposition: Chancellor