EAST CAROLINA UNIVERSITY

FACULTY SENATE

FULL MINUTES OF MARCH 28, 2006

 

A special called meeting of the 2005-2006 Faculty Senate was held on Tuesday, March 28, 2006, in the Mendenhall Student Center Great Room.

 

Agenda Item I.  Call to Order

Catherine Rigsby (Geology), Chair of the Faculty, called the meeting to order at 2:10 p.m. 

 

Agenda Item II. Roll Call

Senators absent were: Professors Kim (Art), Allen (Chemistry), Ross (Criminal Justice), Brown (Education), Deena (English), Dobbs and Schenarts (Medicine), Glascoff (Health and Human Performance), and Chancellor Ballard.

 

Alternates present were: Professors Walker for Culbertson (Allied Health Sciences), Wolfe for Avenarius (Anthropology), Rhodes for Schisler (Business), Felts for Estes (Health and Human Performance), Boklage for Levine (Medicine), Butler for Morris (Political Science), Coddington for Tabrizi (Technology and Computer Science), Parker for Funaro (Theatre and Dance), and Cope for Brown (Psychology).

 

Agenda Item III.  Unfinished Business

Chairperson Rigsby stated the attendance of the faculty senate illustrated how important the work we are doing is and let the work continue.  She then read the amendment, which was being discussed at the previous meeting.

 

Faculty Governance Committee     

Puri Martinez (Foreign Languages and Literatures), Chair of the Committee, began the discussion on the proposed revisions to Appendix D. of the ECU Faculty Manual, with reference to Professor Winstead’ (Academic Library Services) motion to revise Section IV.A.1.c.10 to read: “The personnel committee may elect a search committee as prescribed by the unit’s code to fulfill the responsibilities of soliciting and screening applicants and recommending to the unit’s Personnel Committee candidates for initial appointments. Search committees should consist of a majority of voting faculty.”

 

Robinson (Math) moved to add at the end of Professor Winstead’s new sentence “Only tenure and tenure track faculty shall participate on search committees for tenure and tenure track positions.”    The motion failed due to the lack of a second and discussion continued on original amendment.

 

Boklage (Medicine) stated that he wanted clarification of the amendment, asking do you need more than half of the voting faculty?  Chairperson Rigsby stated that half of the committee needed to be voting faculty.

 

Wilson (Sociology) moved a friendly amendment to change “should” to “must” so that the sentence would read “Search committees must consist of a majority of voting faculty.”  The amendment was accepted.  Sprague (Physics) moved to further amend the motion to read “A majority of the search committee must be voting faculty.”  Wilson stated that this was much clearer.

 

Martinez (Foreign Language) stated that when they were working on this section it was the intention that the candidates would be judged by people who already had the credentials of those being searched.  This was the original reasoning.  However, they realize some situations could be complicated. 

 

Justiniano (Physics), member of the Faculty Governance Committee, stated that staff members on search committees should serve as a research person only and have no vote.

 

Robinson (Math) stated that a search committee must be prepared to judge qualifications very carefully.  They must do right by the unit and by the candidate.  They need to be judged by those with the proper credentials.  This current amendment allows too open a selection on search committees.  Unit administrative assistants are simple not qualified to judge tenured full professors’ positions.  This is codified in tenure and promotion procedures that only those with that rank should vote on that rank.  It is important that we compose search committees with no question as to the qualifications of the members to vote.  He offered a substitute motion to read “Only tenure-track and tenured faculty may serve on search committees for tenure-track and tenure positions.  However, if the unit code permits, other faculty and staff may serve on search committees as ex-officio members without vote.”

 

Boklage (Medicine) stated that he would like to simplify the text and offered a substitute motion to read “Voting members of search committees must be at or above the minimum academic rank of the position being recruited.”  Martinez stated that this is the first step in a personnel action and they should be structured that way.   The substitute motion failed due to the lack of a second.

 

Sprague (Physics) speaking to Professor Robinson’s motion asked for a clarification of what a voting faculty member was.  Martinez (Foreign Language) clarified what the Faculty Governance Committee was proposing and stated that the current motion on the floor was eliminating “voting” faculty as a criteria and replacing it with a majority of voting faculty.  McMillen (Medicine) spoke against the motion stating that there may be a misuse of the way “ex-officio members” are being used and that the Senate should trust units to form search committees correctly.

 

At this point Chairperson Rigsby reread the original amendment again and Robinson’s amendment to it.  She stated that we were discussing the Robinson amendment and that is what was being voted on.

 

Following discussion, the substitute motion that read “Only tenure-track and tenured faculty may serve on search committees for tenure-track and tenure positions.  However, if the unit code permits, other faculty and staff may serve on search committees as ex-officio members without vote.” failed.

 

Sprague (Physics) spoke to his earlier substitute motion to revise Section IV.A.1.c.10 to read: “The personnel committee may elect a search committee as prescribed by the unit’s code to fulfill the responsibilities of soliciting and screening applicants and recommending to the unit’s Personnel Committee candidates for initial appointments. A majority of the search committee must be voting faculty.”  Following brief discussion, the substitute motion passed. Chairperson Rigsby reread the original amendment offered by Winstead.

 

Given (Foreign Languages) asked for clarification that search committees are a sub-committee of the personnel committee.

 

Sprague (Physics) stated that “voting faculty” should be clarified once the Fixed Term Faculty Task Force completes its work and spoke against his earlier substitute motion. Martinez (Foreign Language) stated that as written now, the text leaves search committees open to any unit employee involvement and is much broader now than originally proposed. 

 

Long (History) asked what was the expected date of the Fixed Term Faculty Task Force’s report.  Provost Smith noted that a draft report would be presented to the Faculty Senate on April 18 with something more formal being forwarded to the Faculty Governance Committee next fall.

 

Wilson (Sociology) spoke in favor of Sprague’s earlier substitute motion stating that it was best to move forward instead of waiting until the Task Force reports.  Rose (Nursing) stated that there was no consensus among the group and moved to table the discussion on Section IV.A.1.c.10 until we have the report from the Task Force. The motion to table failed.

 

Winstead (Academic Library Services) stated that only the libraries at Appalachian State and ECU employ faculty librarians.  Given (Foreign Language) moved to amend Section IV.A.1.c.10 to include after “The personnel committee may elect a search committee as prescribed by the unit’s code” the following text: “or, including voting faculty from other unit”. The motion failed due to the lack of a second.

 

Sprague (Physics) moved to strike from Section IV.A.3.a the sentence that reads: “The unit administrator, in consultation with the unit Tenure Committee (or properly constituted subcommittee), will write a progress toward tenure letter to each probationary term faculty member as described in Section II.C.4.” due to its redundancy with additional roles noted later in the text.  The motion passed.

 

McMillen (Medicine) moved to make the language consistent with the newly approved Part XII. Personnel Action Dossier by revising to Section IV.A.3.c.4. to read “Prepares a cumulative evaluation in narrative form of the candidate’s teaching, research, service, and any other relevant duties.”  The motion passed.

 

Robinson (Math) moved to revise the last two paragraphs in Section IV.B. to read: “In personnel matters, the unit administrator functions as an administrator rather than a faculty member.  Consequently, the unit administrator does not have a faculty vote in personnel matters. Therefore, unit administrators are excluded from all unit committee deliberations concerning candidates for appointment, reappointment, promotion, or permanent tenure (for procedure for nonconcurring recommendations, see Appendix D. Part IV.H.).  However, at the invitation by a majority vote of the membership of the Personnel Committee, a unit administrator may meet with the committee to discuss initial appointments.  Further, the administrator may meet with the Tenure Committee (or properly constituted subcommittee) in reference to progress toward tenure letters as noted in Section II.C.4.”

 

Long (History) asked what this change would do.  Rigsby stated it would give clarification and make it consistent with “Robert Rules of Order”

 

Sprague (Physics) asked what is the affect of adopting this amendment and why do we have to be consistent with “Robert Rules of Order”.  Robinson (Math) responded that it is up to the Personnel Committee to decide when and where a Unit Administrator can be in on a discussion.  The amendment would make this quite clear.  Martinez noted that the original language is more restrictive and the proposed amendment.  The change would allow for more collaboration between Unit Administrators and the Personnel Committee.  Provost Smith noted that we are at a very important moment here.  Unit Administrators should not be invited but should be required.  How do we require collegiality?  The interchange between the Unit Administrator and the Personnel Committee should be on record.  This would satisfy a lot of Chairs and Deans.  Today, if we look at “Robert Rules of Order”, our codes should not replace “Robert Rules” but should be in consistency with “Robert Rules”.  The Committee should require the invitation.

 

Long (History) spoke against the motion stating that it is the committee’s responsibility to protect the rights of faculty when they come up for vote on important personnel issues and that by having the unit administrator involved was wrong.  If the unit administrator was present when the vote was taken, some faculty members may be influenced and that it was wrong.  Tovey (English) spoke in favor of the amendment.  Martinez stated that we must preserve independence of deliberations and the vote of faculty actions.

 

Niswander (Business) spoke in favor of the motion stating that this amendment increases the communication among administrators and faculty and prevents little conversations among parties. He stated that there was a risk that a faculty member may be influenced by a unit code administrator but that could happen anywhere, not just in a formal meeting.  Robinson (Math) stated that when the Unit Administrator must meet is covered in Appendix C.  This amendment would provide a way for the Unit Administrator to inform the tenure and promotion committee.  He feels that some of Provost Smith’s concerns are already covered by the Faculty Manual.  Faculty Administration and Boards are required to have very different roles and responsibilities, and these are covered by SACS.  These roles must be delineated.  The amendment will handle both of these issues. 

 

Wilson (Sociology) spoke in favor of the motion and stated that it allows more flexibility in organizing how things are done.  He reminded Senators that this amendment does not require unit administrators to be present. Warren (Education) spoke in favor of the motion as the tenure and promotion committee never really has the opportunity to speak with the unit administrator when there is a problem in the discussions.  Sprague (Physics) also spoke in favor of the motion. Taggart (Music) stated that he supported the motion because we all need to be continuously reminded of the dual track system.  This language gives the feel of collaboration. 

 

Holloway (Business) spoke against the motion seeking clarification on the committee discussion with the unit administrator.  He stated that the meeting with the unit administrator should not be outcome oriented and questioned if there would be minutes of the discussions. Long (History) again reiterated his opposition to the motion stating that it can be a single vote that can decide whether someone gets promotion or tenure and this person could be influenced by the unit administrator.  He sees no reason why a unit administrator should be part of the discussion.  Why would the committee need to know how the unit administrator would act on the next level?  This knowledge could truly affect the outcome.  He asks that the faculty take this into consideration when voting on this issue.

 

Sprague (Physics) responded to Long’s concern on how a unit administrator could give information, which may influence the outcome.

 

Boklage (Medicine spoke in favor of the amendment.

 

Gilliland (Medicine) spoke for the amendment stating that is answers a concern that we are becoming adversarial.  Others have had good experiences with unit administrators and they can give valuable information to the committee.

Justiniano stated that decisions of promotion and tenure are made on the PAD.  Therefore, information from the unit administrator could be hearsay.  He asked that this be kept in mind when making this decision. Yalcin (Philosophy) stated that we are trying to make a decision here.  Some communication can be good and some can be propaganda.  How will this be decided?

 

Given (Foreign Language) spoke in favor of the motion stating that communication is two-way.  Wolfe (Anthropology) asked does this amendment speak to tenure decisions as well as initial appointments.

 

Christian (Business) spoke against the motion as he feels the unit administrator gets to have their say.  Martinez warned that the next Chair of the Faculty’s interpretation of this is going to be key.  The amendment does not say that a meeting has to happen.  It only says that the unit administrator can not be part of the deliberations.   Chairperson Rigsby stated that we must be clear.  The amendment does say that the unit administrators are excluded from the committee deliberations but allows for other discussions.

 

Taggart (Music) spoke in favor of the motion stating that it reinforces the concept of shared governance and that the personnel action dossier is what should be used to evaluate faculty, not what the unit administrator states in a meeting.  Lamson (Child Development and Family Relations) spoke in favor of the motion due to its transparency.

 

Horst (Music) spoke against the motion and wants to stay with the original wording.  Holloway (Business) stated that this motion does not control the outcome and that he will not surrender his rights as a faculty member. Wolfe (Anthropology) stated that he was still confused by the meaning.  Is this for initial appointments? 

 

Warren (Education) spoke in favor of the motion stating that it increased communication and openness.  He stated that he had confidence in his colleagues that they would vote independently even if the unit administrator had spoken to the committee.  He wants the discussion on the record.  Wang (Geography) stated that he did not understand the intent of the motion.  Martinez agreed with Wolfe that she was puzzled.  It does not say that there is a meeting before the tenure and promotion committee meeting so what are we discussing.   Chairperson Rigsby clarified what the amendment was saying that unit administrators are excluded from all the deliberations but the committee may allow administrators to meet with them.  It does not say you have to invite them.  “Robert Rules of Order” strongly recommends that they be invited but they do not have to.  Wilson (Sociology) clarified what the terms “discussion” and “deliberation” meant.

 

McMillen (Medicine) called the question.  The motion to revise the last two paragraphs in Section IV.B. to read: “In personnel matters, the unit administrator functions as an administrator rather than a faculty member.  Consequently, the unit administrator does not have a faculty vote in personnel matters. Therefore, unit administrators are excluded from all unit committee deliberations concerning candidates for appointment, reappointment, promotion, or permanent tenure (for procedure for nonconcurring recommendations, see Appendix D. Part IV.H.).  However, at the invitation by a majority vote of the membership of the Personnel Committee, a unit administrator may meet with the committee to discuss initial appointments.  Further, the administrator may meet with the Tenure Committee (or properly constituted subcommittee) in reference to progress toward tenure letters as noted in Section II.C.4.” was approved as presented.

 

Given (Foreign Language) moved to revise the paragraph above the one earlier discussed in Section IV.B. to include “in narrative form” so that the sentence reads: ”The unit administrator prepares a cumulative evaluation in narrative form of the candidate’s teaching, research, service, and any other relevant duties.” 

 

Wang (Geography) offered a friendly amendment to change “evaluation” to “summary”.   Martinez stated that it was very important that this be a narrative.  Justiniano spoke against the amendment as it will not be consistent with part 12.  Wolfe (Anthropology) stated that summary does not mean that it would have to be a pointed summary.    Stapleton (Education) spoke against the friendly amendment, stating that it should be an evaluation, not just a summary.  Sprague (Physics) called the question.  The friendly amendment to change “evaluation” to “summary” failed. 

 

Following discussion on the proposed amendment to Section IV.B. to read”The unit administrator prepares a cumulative evaluation in narrative form of the candidate’s teaching, research, service, and any other relevant duties.”  the motion passed.

 

Wilson (Sociology) moved to amend Section IV.E.1. (2nd paragraph) to read: “A quorum is defined as three quarters of the membership for a committee that has twenty or fewer members; and a quorum is defined as two third of the membership for a committee that has more than twenty members.  A list of all committee members who were absent during a vote on a personnel action will be forwarded with the recommendation. The committee may develop policies to designate certain absences as excused absences.  Absences should be considered in annual evaluations.”

 

McMillen (Medicine) stated that changing the quorum may make it hard for various large departments to do its work. Martinez (Foreign Language) stated that a 50 plus 1 majority was based on information given by the School of Medicine.  This was the best that could be hoped for.  This was the reason for the change.

 

Gilliland (Medicine) stated that an absence should be considered an excused absence if the faculty member was in clinic. 

 

Chair Rigsby announced that the body had lost its quorum and that discussion will continue on this motion at the next scheduled Faculty Senate meeting. 

 

The meeting adjourned at 4:30 p.m.

 

Respectfully submitted,

 

 

Christine Zoller                                                                                  Lori Lee

Secretary of the Faculty                                                                    Administrative Officer          

School of Art and Design                                                                 Faculty Senate


 

Please note: 

Discussion on proposed revisions to Appendix D on Tuesday, April 18, 2006, will begin with the proposed amendment (proposed by Professor Wilson) as follows:

“Amend Section IV.E.1. (2nd paragraph) to read: “A quorum is defined as three quarters of the membership for a committee that has twenty or fewer members; and a quorum is defined as two third of the membership for a committee that has more than twenty members.  A list of all committee members who were absent during a vote on a personnel action will be forwarded with the recommendation. The committee may develop policies to designate certain absences as excused absences.  Absences should be considered in annual evaluations.”