FULL MINUTES OF DECEMBER 2, 2008
regular meeting of the 2008-2009
Agenda Item I. Call to Order
Janice Tovey, Chair of the Faculty called the meeting to order at 2:10 p.m.
Agenda Item II. Approval of Minutes
The minutes of November 4, 2008, were approved as distributed.
Agenda Item III. Special Order of the Day
A. Roll Call
Senators absent were: Professors Romack (Chemistry), Fraley (Communication), Eason (Nursing), Shinpaugh (Physics), and Taggart (Music/Past Chair of the Faculty).
Alternates present were: Professors Given for
A special thanks was extended to Chancellor Steve Ballard for providing the additional food and wine for the December meeting.
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 complete a volunteer form by February 16, 2009. Committee appointments will be finalized at the April 28,
Faculty members have two ways to note their preference for service on the various standing University committees.
1) On OneStop under Employee Section, faculty members click on “Faculty Committee Volunteer Form” and complete the committee volunteer preference form.
A faculty member may complete the volunteer preference form that is
available on the
Professors and Faculty Assembly Delegates Catherine Rigsby (Geology) and Mark Sprague (Physics) volunteered to serve as tellers
during the elections.
concerning unit elections for 2009-2010
accordance with the ECU Faculty Manual, Appendix A, elections are to be held during the month of February. Please call the Faculty
Senate office if you have any questions.
Faculty are encouraged to
participate in the Question Period
questions of administrators
and others present relating to activities of the administration or
We have the following vacancies on standing University Committees and ask anyone interested to please contact Janice Tovey, Chair of the
Faculty, at firstname.lastname@example.org.
Continuing and Career Education Committee,
· Teaching Grants Committee, regular member (2009 term)
C. Steve Ballard, Chancellor
Ballard began his remarks to the
Chancellor also predicted that the second bond package, similar to the 2001
bond package is less likely to get legislative approval than it would have been
two years ago; the Chancellor estimated that there would not be another bond
package until 2011. While the
the operational side, most of the campus based operational priorities are mostly
devoted to health sciences area. ECU has great credibility in the health
sciences area; currently about 70% of systems budget for ECU is committed to
health sciences projects. The chancellor stated that a lot of work needs to be
done in securing operating dollars for Heart Institute, and the
The Chancellor summarized that this was the most challenging legislative climate in his 5 year at the University. ECU administration is currently planning for a $10 million reversion for this year; he estimated that this amount would increase to $15 million or even $20 million before the year is over. He stated that we must be prepared now to meet those budget deficits in March and April. He reported that the University was in pretty good shape for the 4% or $10 million dollar cut, but that everything would get more challenging from this point on. ECU administration is also preparing plans for 3%, 5% and 7% base in the next biennium. Seven percent would be $20 million.
All together the reversions and permanent cuts over the next 30 months, of projected bad budget times, could be as high as $35 million for ECU. Half of this money might be from permanent cuts and the other half would be one time reversions. The Chancellor concluded that the primary objective will be to get to July 2011 while keeping our priorities in place.
Each member of the executive council proposes a systematic plan of saving money. General approach follows the GA requirements. One of these requirements is that enrollment growth money cannot be used, and he reported that added pressure to take vertical cuts and to cut services and discontinue programs.
The Chancellor stated that ECU will protect strategic priorities to the best of our ability. No across the board cuts, but will consider what is best for the long term. Draft plans to be reviewed by next week and reviewed in mid December. Your input on reducing cost is needed.
No questions were posed to Chancellor Ballard at this time.
D. Marilyn Sheerer, Provost and Vice Chancellor for Academic and Student Affairs
Provost Sheerer reported about the process for determining budget cuts. First step is for the Executive Council to look at percentages of cuts that can be made by the Division Academic and Student Affairs. Following that would be what cuts can be made centrally. The effort is to take more administrative cuts than reductions in funding from the units. Then the Provost reported that the Deans were asked to present their proposals for 3%, 5%, and 7% cuts. These scenarios are to be submitted to the central administrative units. The Dean’s leadership teams: department head and associate deans are involved in generating the ideas of how to save the required funds. The administrative team was to seek the advice of the faculty as to what the faculty deem as important to cut when formulating the scenarios that will be presented to the Executive Council.
Dean reported to the Provost that a faculty meeting had been called where the
whole funding picture was delivered to the faculty. The Executive Council is not looking for cuts
across the board but for cuts that are in line with strategic priorities and
funding formulas and funding strategies.
There will be a presentation at the Deans and Director’s meeting to
present the decisions made by the Executive Council to the Deans. The Provost and Joe Gaddis will come back to
Some of the strategies will be to increase class size since adjuncts will be eliminated. Teaching loads without adjuncts will change to a 4 / 4 load and reduced from that for research or other service to the University. If no demonstrated research activity then the increasing teaching load might result. Actual student credit hour production is used as a metric. The Provost concluded by saying that she was definitely in favor of open forums when the funding decisions were made.
That would provide an opportunity for all faculty to ask questions and make suggestions about funding cutbacks.
Professor Sprague (Physics/Faculty Assembly Delegate) asked if Provost Sheerer would support the idea that faculty should continue to keep Sedona updated. Provost Sheerer responded absolutely. She stated that this was very important and that all faculty should be reminded to do so since Sedona will continue to be used by the University.
Professor Novick (Medicine) asked, in relation to ways to save money, would it not be a good idea to freeze hiring and if increasing adjunct faculty positions shouldn’t be considered. Provost Sheerer responded that yes, there was currently a hiring freeze and that all vacant positions were on the list of possible ways to save money. She stated that ECU would not have lapsed salary funds to cover as many adjunct faculty positions as in the past, therefore an increase would not be feasible. She also stated that she had asked all units to review teaching loads and consider increasing some from the usual four courses for undergraduate faculty and three courses for graduate faculty. The University is also looking at low performing programs.
Professor Sharer (English) asked how the Provost would go about raising the class caps. Provost Sheerer responded that she had not yet mandated to the academic units a raising of the class caps and that she would let the units determine what was best for them.
Professor Mathews (Anthropology) asked why not stop enrolling so many students in order to meet the needs of the budget. Provost Sheerer responded that ECU had elected to cap the number of incoming freshman and was limiting the number of transfer students. Chancellor Ballard also added that enrollment growth funding was President Bowles’ 2nd top priority and that this type of funding was the only stable source of University revenue. He also stated that he saw this as the only reasonable source of University revenue for several upcoming years.
Plans for reducing Distance Education course during the summer would reduce enrollment.
But we need to be careful not to reduce our strategic advantages.
E. Janice Tovey, Chair of the Faculty
Professor Tovey stated that this was the final meeting of the Fall semester, and she wanted to thank each of the Faculty Senators for their contributions to the work of the Senate and its committees. She stated that the Board of Trustees held its regular meeting on Friday, November 21 and that much of the discussion that day and on the previous day in the University Affairs Committee focused on the Strategic Enrollment Management Task Force report draft. The Board was enthusiastic about the breadth, depth and quality of the report. And while they weren’t certain about all the recommendations, they were encouraged by the options provided.
Chair Tovey stated that she had reported to them that she had charged two academic committees with beginning the discussion on 8 items focusing on academic standards and admission policies, and would continue to report their progress to the Board. She was particularly interested in hearing several board members say that they had always thought that access was important for ECU, but upon reading the report, were convinced that reasonable access—that is access for students who meet reasonable standards and can succeed academically—was better for the students, the University, and Eastern North Carolina.
Lessie Bass, from the
Sheerer reported to the Board that discussions were taking place to provide an
As part of
Vice Chancellor Mageean’s report, Dr. Steve Culver, Chair of Geological
Sciences, provided an overview of research done by a group of ECU faculty on
the effects of climate change on
“To serve as a national model for public service and regional transformation by
· preparing our students to compete and succeed in the global economy and multicultural society,
· distinguishing ourselves by the ability to train and prepare leaders,
creating a strong, sustainable future for
· saving lives, curing diseases, and positively transforming health and health care, and
· providing cultural enrichment and powerful inspiration as we work to sustain and improve quality of life.”
The statement draws from the Strategic Visions of the ECU Tomorrow report—or what is fondly called the “purple book.” This publication committee was co-chaired by Trustee Carol Mabe.
Professor Mallinson (Geology) suggested that faculty
interested in obtaining a copy of the report entitled:
VC Mageean clarified that the report mentioned that there is
a sister document to this report about climate concerns related to the
F. Catherine Rigsby, Faculty Representative on SACS Steering Committee
Professor Rigsby provided an update on ECU’s SACS Accreditation Process and stated that she was happy to try to answer any questions the faculty might have about ECU’s accreditation process/progress and to pass on any faculty concerns or inquiries to the SAS Steering Committee and/or the appropriate Councils and Working Groups. She provided the Senators with the following information:
· The SACS website is located at the following ECU web address: http://www.ecu.edu/sacs/. The website contains basic information about the SACS Accreditation process, as well as lists of the major committees/councils and their memberships. The membership lists for some, but not all, of the various SACS working groups and councils are now posted and up-to-date on this website.
· The Global Perspectives Working Group has developed two documents that define global preparedness and provide a profile of the “globally prepared student.” The Working Group members are now in the process of soliciting wider faculty input by inviting other faculty members to join selected meetings of the group. The next such meeting is scheduled for December 4, 2008 (10 am until noon in MSC221). Anyone who is interested is encouraged to contact David Weismiller (the Chair of ECU’s SACS team) and volunteer to serve on the Working Group. Faculty may also contact me and I will forward their name to the Steering Committee.
· The University Outcomes Assessment Council, chaired by George Bailey, has developed a university-wide assessment model that has been forwarded to the Deans and to the various campus academic units. All academic units have been asked to prepare and submit a unit assessment plan. As of Dec 1, approximately 75% of the academic units have submitted assessment plans. The unit assessment plans will be evaluated (using a rubric developed by David Weismiller and others) by various working groups on “General Education (Foundations Curriculum),” Undergraduate Programs,” and “Graduate Studies.” These working groups have already been populated with faculty members and the group memberships are listed on the SACS website. Other faculty interested in participating in the working groups should contact David Weismiller or George Bailey. Assessment of our academic programs is a fundamental academic endeavor, hence must be done in full cooperation with, and with full participation of, university faculty. To be meaningful, a serious conversation about both the methods and the meaning of assessment is necessary -- as is an understanding of how the data generated by assessment will be used and how the assessment process will impact the curriculum. I encourage the faculty on the working groups to evaluate both the individual assessment programs and the assessment model itself.
· The Steering Committee is considering ways to populate the UNC-mandated VSA (Voluntary System of Accountability; http://www.voluntarysystem.org/index.cfm) with data from our assessment efforts. To this end, they are looking at both the NSSE (National Survey of Student Engagement; http://www.ecu.edu/cs-admin/ipre/VSA-Student-Experiences-and-Perceptions.cfm) and the CLA (Collegiate Learning Assessment; http://www.cae.org/content/pro_collegiate.htm) as potential data gathering tools. The CLA has already been piloted on campus (http://www.ecu.edu/cs-admin/ipre/VSA-Student-Learning-Outcomes.cfm) and the Steering Committee has scheduled a CLA workshop for January 7 and 8, 2009. All faculty are invited to participate. Please look for the official announcement, which will be delivered via e-mail.
· The University has chosen a “Performance Management System” that is intended to help keep track of unit/student assessment data. The chosen products are Nuventive TracDat (http://www.nuventive.com/products_tracdat.html) and iWebfolio (http://www.nuventive.com/products_iwebfolio.html). These programs will be used to keep track of assessment data (and to allow students to build personal portfolios of their university experience/education). They will, of course, require faculty and staff training. Some of the adoption issues are still being worked out, but funding ($92,700) has been approved – as has the addition of a IPRE staff member (a new Outcomes Associate) who will help units get their assessment data into electronic format. A dedicated technical support person will likely be hired from within ECU’s technical ranks and a faculty/staff “adoption committee” is being assembled to aid in the implementation of this new system.
· Quality Enhancement is at the heart of the SACS Accreditation process. ECU is required to develop a QEP (Quality Enhancement Plan). A QEP Council (http://www.ecu.edu/cs-acad/sacs/QEPCouncil.cfm) has been formed, but the membership is not yet published on the SACS website. There is no standard approach to developing a QEP, but SACS wants the entire university to be involved in determining the focus of the plan. The QEP must be tied to student learning, should be at least tangentially tied to ECU’s mission, and can have a narrow focus. In January, 2010, there will be a university-wide call for topics. In all likelihood, the QEP will be focused on one of the ECU Tomorrow goals (possibly global readiness), but this is not a SACS requirement. I encourage any interested faculty to propose a topic/focus for ECU’s QEP. Any QEP will be tied to academics, hence faculty involvement is essential for success.
· The Faculty Credentials Council (http://www.ecu.edu/cs-acad/sacs/FacCredentials.cfm) has been charged with developing an electronic form that will be used to report on faculty credentials and ensure compliance with SACS guidelines (http://www.ecu.edu/cs-acad/sacs/upload/FacultyCredentials.pdf). The membership of this Council is now published on the SACS website.
· The following is a list of the all currently known (to me) SACS Committees, Councils, and Working Groups:
· Leadership Team (Steve Ballard, Marilyn Sheerer, David Weismiller, Michael Poteat)
· Executive Committee (David Weismiller, Rita Reaves, Anne Jenkins, Ernie Marshburn, Lynne Davis)
· Steering Committee (Chair - David Weismiller)
o Council on Institutional Effectiveness (Chair - TBA)
o Compliance Certification Council (Chair – David Weismiller)
o University Outcomes Assessment and Program Review Council (Chair – George Bailey)
§ Working Group on Undergraduate Programs (Chair – Mike Brown)
Working Group on General Education (Chair – Linda Wolfe)
§ Working Group on Global Awareness (Chair - TBA)
§ [Working Group on Leadership] pending
§ Working Group on Distance Education (Chair – Elmer Poe)
§ Working Group on Administrative and Support Programs (Chair – Linner Griffin)
§ Working Group on Student Services (Chair – Nancy Mize)
§ Working Group on Graduate Studies (Chair – Paul Gemperline)
o Quality Enhancement Plan Council (Chair - TBA)
o Faculty Credentials Council (Chair – Sandra Warren)
o Compliance Readiness Council (Chair – Terri Lawler)
o Financial and Physical Resources Council (Chair – Ann Jenkins)
o Technology Support Work Group (Chair - TBA)
o 5th Year Interim Report Working Group (Chair – Rita Reaves)
No questions were posed to Professor Rigsby at this time.
G. Question Period
Professor Theurer (Music) stated that the new mission statement lacked certain items such as shared faculty governance. He stated that he was concerned about the tone of this new mission statement in its condensed version and that it was less specific as the former mission statement. He would like to hear more about how this mission statement was designed. VC Mageean responded that the new mission statement was concise and something that could be articulated very clearly and capture the essence of ECU. It was consistent with all other documents forwarded to General Administration.
Agenda Item IV. Unfinished Business
There was no unfinished business to come before the body at this time.
Agenda Item V. Report of Committees
A. Academic Standards Committee
Professor Linda Wolfe (Anthropology), Chair of the Committee, presented first the proposed use of “NR” (not reported). She stated that the Committee recommended the proposed use of “NR” (Not Reported) for those courses for which the instructor/faculty member fails to turn in a grade. As part of the end of term process, sometimes a faculty member does not submit grades by the prescribed deadline, as listed in the Grades memo sent to all faculty each term. As a result, in order to complete the programs and processes associated with grades, the University Registrar must assign a grade to those courses where the faculty member has not completed their responsibilities for the course.
Historically, a grade of incomplete (I) has been used to accomplish this task. This policy addresses the use of a new grade, Not Reported (NR), which will be used instead of (I) to accomplish this task. The grade of “NR” will not be available for faculty to assign to a student, but will be part of the administrative function that occurs once the deadline for submission of all grades has passed (and staff members within the Office of the Registrar have attempted to obtain all grades through additional outreach efforts to faculty, department chairs, and their deans).
Professor Wang (Geography) asked why
was this necessary and how frequently did this occur. Registrar
Professor Sprague (Physics/Faculty Assembly Delegate) stated that a policy was needed in order to provide guidance to the Registrar when dealing with students who graduate with a “NR” still on their transcript.
Interim Vice Chancellor Horns stated that she was in support of the proposal but was disappointed that, with multiple attempts to get the grade recorded and the faculty member not posting the grade, the University was going to punish the student and not punish the faculty member. She stated that the University should hold the student harmless and hold the faculty member accountable and that, in her opinion, this policy did not go far enough. She suggested that there be sanctions imposed on the faculty member and that students be allowed to appeal when this situation occurs. However, she was not proposing that the committee’s proposal be delayed or returned for additional work because the proposal was a positive step in the right direction.
Professor Sprague (Physics) stated that it was the opinion of the Committee that a student could use the established regular grade appeal process, through the standing Student Academic Appellate Committee, to appeal such situations. As far as how to handle the delinquent faculty member, the Committee hoped that the unit administrator would get involved and handle that aspect of the situation.
Professor Jesse (Nursing) clarified
that if an incomplete was given, a report be generated and that if the student
failed to complete the work or the faculty member did not record a grade, the
incomplete would remain on the record. She then inquired as to what were the
circumstances that would lead a faculty member to not follow through on this.
Professor Roberts (Philosophy) stated that the proposed policy provides a way for the students to handle this situation and that the Committee did not want to hold the students accountable for situations out of their control. Removing incompletes was a student’s responsibility and turning in grades on time for work completed was a faculty member’s responsibility.
Professor Zoller (Art and Design)
stated that legitimate reasons for incompletes exist and wondered why faculty
failed to submit grades on time.
Professor Vail-Smith (Health and Human Performance) noted that sometimes things happen by accident because she once had a graduate student leave for vacation and forget to submit student grades. Interim VC Horns stated that it was time to stop this problem but that a procedures was needed in order to find the habitually offenders. She also stated that students deserve clarity when asking why they have an incomplete on their transcript when they had completed all of the necessary class assignments. Chair Tovey stated that a vote today on this proposal did not preclude revisiting the policy at a later time. Following discussion, the proposed use of “NR” (Not Reported) for those courses for which the instructor/faculty member fails to turn in a grade was approved as presented. RESOLUTION #08-58
Professor Wolfe then presented the following Foundation Curriculum Courses for approval: a. Humanities: RELI 2693, 2694, 3694, 3700, 3800, 1000, 2695, and 2696 and b. Basic Science: GEOG 1300 (Weather and Climate). There was no discussion and the following courses
Humanities: RELI 2693, 2694, 3694, 3700, 3800, 1000, 2695, and 2696 and Basic Science: GEOG 1300 (Weather and Climate) were
approved as Foundation Curriculum Courses. RESOLUTION #08-59
B. Agenda Committee
Christine Zoller (Art and Design), Chair of the Committee,
presented the proposed 2009-10
C. Committee on Committees
Tom Caron (Education), Chair of the Committee, presented first the nominee for the 2009 alternate term on the Appellate Grievance Board. There were no other nominees and Professor Tracy Donohue (Theatre and Dance) was appointed by acclamation.
Professor Caron then presented the nominee for the 2009 regular term on the Appellate Hearing Committee. There were no other nominees and Professor Donna Lillian (English) was appointed by acclamation.
Professor Caron then presented the nominees for the UNC Faculty Assembly Delegation. Professor Winstead nominated Professor Ralph Scott (Academic Library Services) for a Faculty Assembly Delegate position. No one else was nominated from the floor. Following elections, Professors Ken Wilson (Sociology) and Andrew Morehead (Chemistry) were elected for the 2012 Faculty Assembly Delegate and Alternate terms, respectfully. Professor Gregg Givens (Allied Health Sciences) was elected to fill the 2010 open Faculty Assembly Alternate term.
D. Educational Policies and Planning Committee
Professor Janice Tovey (English/Chair of the Faculty), a member of the Committee, presented first a proposed change in name of the graduate degree program in the Department of Recreation and Leisure Studies. There was no discussion and the proposed name change was approved as presented. RESOLUTION #08-61
Professor Tovey then presented a request for authorization
to establish a MS
in Biomedical Sciences in the
Professor Tovey then presented the request for authorization to establish a BS in Atmospheric Sciences and Meteorology in the Department of Geography. There was no discussion and the request was approved as presented. RESOLUTION #08-63
Professor Tovey then presented the request for authorization to establish a BS in Geographic Information Science and Technology in the Department of Geography. There was no discussion and the request was approved as presented. RESOLUTION #08-64
Professor Tovey then presented a
Master’s Certificate in Nursing Leadership in the
E. Faculty Governance Committee
Professor Edson Justiniano (Physics), Vice Chair of the Committee, presented proposed revisions to the ECU Faculty Manual, Appendix L. Section E. Five Year Unit Program Evaluation.
Professor Robinson (Mathematics) stated that the current document stated that the unit program evaluation would be used with the unit planning document. There was a feedback mechanism built into the newly approved guidelines approved by the Faculty Senate last month. He stated that he felt it would be helpful to mandate through Appendix L that the unit evaluation should be considered in the unit program development plan. Therefore, he moved to not delete the current “4. The unit program evaluation shall be used in the development of the unit operational plan.” and have it instead added to the proposed revision as a new “3”.
Provost Sheerer stated that she was not familiar with a unit operational plan. Professor Robinson (Mathematics) stated that the name may have changed and wondered if there was still a plan entitled “unit operational plan”. He stated that the feedback gained from past unit operational plans were directed more toward developing the program itself. Yet since the unit had to plan for hiring, budgeting, etc. there should be a statement in Appendix L that clarified the use of such work as a part of the unit planning. During a self-study, it may come up that the unit code needs to be changed or revised to target hiring in a certain way that may not be consistent with the unit planning document. The self-study would then not be a part of the loop that all other things follow.
Professor Rigsby (Geology) proposed a friendly amendment to change the proposed text to read “unit strategic plan” and not “unit operational plan”. Interim VC Horns stated that there was a plan entitled “unit operational plan” back in the 1990s. The friendly amendment was accepted as presented. Professor Robinson (Mathematics) then stated that maybe the text should read “operational and strategic planning”. Professor Rigsby (Geology) spoke in favor of the motion as amended and stated that she, as a member of the Faculty Governance Committee was happy with the unit academic program review (approved at the November Senate meeting) but that the text in Appendix L was important because it addressed how to incorporate data into the unit planning documents. Following discussion, the proposed revisions to the ECU Faculty Manual, Appendix L. Section E. Five Year Unit Program Evaluation were approved as amended. RESOLUTION #08-66
F. University Curriculum Committee
Professor Jane Manner (Education), a member of the Committee, presented the curriculum matters contained in the minutes of the October 23, 2008 and November 13, 2008 meeting minutes. There was no discussion and the curriculum matters were approved as presented. RESOLUTION #08-67
Agenda Item VI. New Business
There was no new business to come before the
Hunt McKinnon Lori Lee
Secretary of the Faculty
Department of Interior Design and Merchandising
FACULTY SENATE RESOLUTIONS APPROVED AT THE DECEMBER 2, 2008, MEETING
08-58 Policy for the use of “NR” (Not Reported) for those courses for
which the instructor/faculty
member fails to turn in a grade, as follows:
Procedures used with Undergraduate and Graduate Student Courses:
· Once the deadline for the submission of grades has passed, and all attempts at obtaining the grade without a substantial delay to beginning the processing and calculation of GPA and Academic Standing for all students have been exhausted, staff within the Office of the Registrar will assign a grade of “NR” to those students whose grades have not been submitted by the faculty member assigned to the course.
· The faculty, department chair, dean, Senior Executive Director of Enrollment Management, and Provost will be sent a list of the courses and the students who have been assigned the “NR” grade, along with a request to have the grade submitted via the Change of Grade/Removal of Incomplete form, as soon as possible.
· If a “NR” grade is not resolved by the start of the next academic term, a reminder will be sent at both the beginning and the end of drop/add to the faculty member, department chair, dean, Senior Executive Director of Enrollment Management, and Provost.
· If a “NR” grade is not resolved by the end of the next academic term, another reminder will be sent to the faculty member, department chair, dean, Senior Executive Director of Enrollment Management, and Provost.
· A grade of “NR” can remain on the student’s record until the student is ready to graduate. At that time, if the “NR” has still not been resolved, and the student does not need the course to meet graduation requirements, then the student may submit a request to have the course dropped from their transcript without penalty.
· If the student needs the course to complete their graduation requirements, and the faculty member has not submitted the paperwork to remove the “NR” grade, then the student must obtain credit for the course.
· In order to calculate GPA and Academic Standing for students who receive a “NR” grade, the “NR” will be included in the computation of GPA using the same logic as a grade of “I”. “I” grades do not harm or help a student’s GPA; however further implications are listed below.
· A student may not receive academic honors for the semester – Chancellor’s List, Dean’s List, and Honor Roll – with a grade of “NR” on his/her record. Once the grade is submitted, the student, if eligible, will have the honors notation added to their record, and will be notified of the change in academic honor standing. This is the same process as is used with the grade of “I”.
· If a student enrolls in a course in which he or she has a grade of “NR”, the “NR” will be dropped without penalty to the student before the grading period begins for the term in which the student re-enrolls in the course.
Benefits of using the “NR” grade:
· It is an accurate reflection of the work and grade at the time of grading. Since the student may have completed all requirements of the course, it is not an accurate depiction to assign a grade of “I” (Incomplete).
· Tracking of outstanding grades is simplified – using an “I” grade does not provide a way to distinguish between grades not reported and a true use of the “I” grade.
· “NR” will not change to a grade of “F”, if the faculty member does not submit the grade before the deadline as prescribed within the University Calendar.
Timeline for the submission for final grades:
· With the implementation of the Banner system, effective Fall 2007, faculty no longer have a 48-hour deadline (after the exam is given) to submit grades. The Office of the Registrar provides the deadline in the memo sent to ECU Official, and available on their website, www.ecu.edu/registrar, for the deadline that all grades must be submitted.
· Ideally, staff within the Office of the Registrar would begin the multiple programs and processes that must be run at the time of the deadline. However, in an effort to avoid penalizing students when a faculty member has not submitted grades, the deadline is such that there are two to three hours where faculty can be contacted - one last effort to receive the remaining grades before an administrative grade must be assigned to begin running grades and calculating GPA and Academic Standing.
· Once all grades processes have run, and Academic Standing is complete, Athletics, Financial Aid, Advising, and various other areas on campus can begin their next step in the process (determining whether or not students are eligible to compete [Athletics], if a student is making Satisfactory Academic Progress and can still receive aid [Financial Aid], if the student needs to grade replace or re-take a course the following term [Advising]). Delays in the processing of final grades can result in these offices not in compliance with the rules that govern them.
08-59 Approval of the following Foundation Curriculum Courses: Humanities: RELI 2693, 2694, 3694, 3700, 3800, 1000, 2695, and 2696 and Basic Science: GEOG 1300 (Weather and Climate).
Agenda Committee will meet:
September 1, 2009
September 15, 2009
September 29, 2009
October 6, 2009
October 20, 2009
November 3, 2009
November 17, 2009
December 1, 2009
January 12, 2010
January 26, 2010
February 9, 2010
February 23, 2010
March 16, 2010
March 30, 2010
April 6, 2010
April 20, 2010
April 27, 2010
08-61 Change in name of the graduate degree program in the Department of Recreation and Leisure Studies.
for authorization to establish a MS
in Biomedical Sciences in the
08-63 Request for authorization to establish a BS in Atmospheric Sciences and Meteorology in the Department of Geography.
08-64 Request for authorization to establish a BS in Geographic Information Science and Technology in the Department of Geography.
Master’s Certificate in Nursing Leadership in the
08-66 Revisions to the ECU Faculty Manual, Appendix L. Section E. Five Year Unit Program
Evaluation, as follows (deleting all other text in section E.):
“E. Unit Academic Program Review
Academic Program Review will be conducted according to the
Guidelines for Unit
Academic Program Review (
Changes to these guidelines need to be approved by the
Educational Policies and Planning Committee and the
3. The unit Academic Program Review shall be used in the development of the unit’s operational and strategic planning.”
Disposition: Chancellor, Board of Trustees