East Carolina University
FACULTY SENATE
FULL MINUTES OF MARCH 30, 2010
The seventh regular meeting of the 2009-2010
Faculty Senate was held on Tuesday, March 30, 2010, in the Mendenhall Student
Center Great Room.
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 February
23, 2010 were approved as presented.
Agenda
Item III. Special Order of the Day
A. Roll
Call
Senators absent were: Professors Stiller
(Biology), Glascoff (Health and Human Performance), Chandler (Hospitality
Management), Willson and Talente (Medicine), Wacker (Music), Parker (Theatre
and Dance) and Tovey (English/Past Chair of the Faculty).
Alternates present were: Professors Kros for
Paul (Business), Schmidt for Jeffs (Education), and Sanders for Pagliari
(Technology and Computer Science).
B. Announcements
The
Chancellor has approved (or accepted) the following resolutions from the
January 26, 2010 and February 23, 2010, Faculty Senate meetings:
10-01 Formal
faculty advice on the proposed administrative Policy
on Gifts Affecting Curriculum.
10-02 Request
to move Media
Production Program (including faculty, curriculum and students)
from the School of
Communication to the School of Art and Design.
10-04 Curriculum
matters contained in the December
10, 2009 University Curriculum
Committee minutes.
10-05 Proposed
“Green
Get To ECU Day” event.
10-10 Information
in the current manual (Part V. Academic Information, Section I. Academic
Procedures and Policies,
Subsection D. Class Roll Verification) be retained with no
revision at this time.
10-12 Request
to change
the title of School of Dentistry to School of Dental Medicine.
10-13 Request
to change
the name of degree offered by the Dental School from Doctor of
Dental Surgery to Doctor of
Dental Medicine.
10-14 Proposed revisions to the ECU Faculty Manual, Part V. Academic Information, Section I.
Academic
Procedures and Policies.
10-16 Proposed revisions to the ECU Faculty Manual, Part VI. General Personnel Policies,
Section III. Institutional
Services Available to Faculty.
Academic Committee Chairs are
reminded that Committee
Annual Reports are due in the Faculty Senate office by May 1, 2010.
The
Library currently subscribes to Historical Abstracts & America: History and
Life. EBSCO has recently unveiled versions of these two databases that include
full text and the Library has trial access to these two full-text versions of the databases. After reviewing trial
databases, don’t forget to complete
an online evaluation using the evaluation links provided on the trial page. To
access these databases as well as other resources with trial access, go to the
Library’s Database Trials page: http://www.ecu.edu.jproxy.lib.ecu.edu/cs-lib/techsrv/trials.cfm
University
Awards Day, scheduled for Tuesday, April 27, 2010, at 10:00 a.m. in
Hendrix Theatre with the recipients of the following awards and honors being
recognized: Board of Governors Award for Excellence in Teaching, Board of
Governors Distinguished Professor for Teaching Award, Robert L. Jones Award for
Outstanding Teaching (Alumni Association), University Alumni Association Award for Outstanding Teaching, Max Ray Joyner
Award for Faculty Service through Continuing Education, ECU Scholar-Teacher
Awards, Centennial Awards for Excellence, Achievement for Excellence in
Research and Creative Activity, Servire Society Induction. A reception will follow in the Mendenhall
Student Center Lobby. All faculty are
invited to attend.
C. Steve
Ballard, Chancellor
Chancellor Ballard stated that although there
is not much new information on the state budget, he would review what is known
at this time. No positive indicators exist at present. The key time will be the
close of the tax period; this is what the legislature has called the April
surprise. The revenue figures generally are much different at the nine month
period than for the first six months of the fiscal year. He stated that these
figures also have a huge impact on the mentality of the General Assembly as it
goes into session for the coming year, which also impacts what the governor
announces in terms of freezes or cutbacks. When the April revenue figures are
announced, ECU will know what to expect. The Governor is saying, at this time,
that she does not foresee any freezes or cutbacks. While short session starts
in late May, the education subcommittee meetings have already begun. ECU has already been active in discussing the
university priorities with members of this committee.
The Chancellor stated that the fundamental
budget risks remain the same. He stated that NC has had about a 25% real gap
over the last two years in terms of revenues collected compared to state
budget. The State of North Carolina started out at about $22 billion and lost
about $5.5- 5.6 billion in revenue collections over that time period. Eighty
percent of the revenue is related to total education, at all levels , plus
Health and Human Services with a large percentage dedicated to heath related
insurance programs and entitlements. ECU’s budget is part of this 80% of the
state budget, which will be examined by General Assembly. About 10% of the
budget is allocated for the prison and corrections system which is strictly
governed by Federal law, and not a lot that the state can do to reduce cost in
these areas. The only good news, that the Chancellor indicated, was that
President Erskine Bowles is optimistic that no more than the projected 2% cuts
will be required. On the other hand, some members of the House of
Representatives are already planning for a 5% cut. ECU has reserved 4.5% so if the cut is less
than ECU will not have to go back to the university system to ask for more
money. The Chancellor stated that if we have to cut more than 4.5%, there is
“no low-hanging fruit, or medium-hanging fruit, we are at the top of the tree,”
so we are hoping that President Bowles is correct.
The Chancellor indicated that he was
confident that President Bowles would remain diligent in negotiating with the
legislature since he views many of the these events as important to his legacy
and will do everything possible to protect the university. The Chancellor
stated that ECU will benefit from his commitment.
There are three legislative priorities for
the university system, and ECU has three primary legislative priorities,
Chancellor Ballard stated Sometimes these can change but what we cannot do is
to ask for money that has not been approved by the UNC Board of Governors. The
University of North Carolina System has three priorities that effect ECU.
First, is to minimize the cuts. The university system took 29% of the 5%
overall budget cut that the Governor mandated, while representing only 13% of
the general fund. The argument can be made that higher education did its part
to meet the gaps in the state budget which is the single biggest priority. The
second priority is to replace the legislative tuition proposal, which is now
law, with a campus-based proposal that will allow the $200 in additional
student fees to stay on campus rather than to contribute to the state general
fund. The outcome may be that the tuition will remain on campus and the
legislature may increase the overall cut from 2% to 3% or 4% to make up for
this. ECU would benefit from a campus-based student fee increase staying on
campus so that programs like the first year experience and counseling efforts,
which improve retention and graduation rates, can be afforded. The University
needs to have these programs in place to do all that we can do for our
students. The third university system priority is need-based financial aid. The
funding, that has been a steady stream of financial aid for the 17 universities
in the system, is now virtually empty. A request has been made to put $45 million
in financial aid. We know that there is
a strong correlation between the availability of financial aid and retention,
so our students will be in jeopardy if the money is not infused in this fund.
There are three ECU priorities within these
UNC system priorities. The first priority is a capital improvements project
funding of the Bioscience Building.
There is no anticipation of capital projects being funded by a bond
issue since there is no debt capacity this year. There is, however, a group working on a
funding package for the STEM disciplines and the Bioscience Building, which is
part of that proposal. ECU hopes for a $15 million allocation for advanced
planning for this building. Seven or eight legislators recently visited the
Howell Science Building and it was clear that this building was in worse shape
that the Family Medicine building. The Chancellor stated that the needs for
that building are visible. Awareness of the conditions of the Family Medicine
building led to the funding for that new building. Funding of the planning
money for the Bioscience Building is not probable for this year, but it may be
possible. This Chancellor summarized by saying that this is the worst budget
year in the six years that he has been at ECU
The other two priorities related to
operational funds. The Chancellor stated that he would hope to stay on track by
obtaining the operational appropriation required to complete the Dental School
since ECU is in the fifth year of that funding request. The $11 million, now being sought after, is
to hire the Dental School faculty and for operating expenses. We are also
asking for funding to support the Medical School. The hope is to get the
funding approved by the UNC Board of Governors soon so that many other
university projects can be addressed.
Regarding enterprise risk management, the
exposures that ECU now is concerned with are related to business practices and
financial vulnerability of any campus the size of ECU. We are identifying the
risks and managing the risks. Examples of these risks include risk a downtown
student venue, policies for readmissions
of students that have gotten into some difficulty, mandates by
the state auditor or by UNC FIT, early warning systems for looking at
contracts and grants, and financial aid. There are also a variety of risks
associated with enrollment. These are the kinds of issues that the risk
management group has spent the most time on recently.
Professor McKinnon (Interior Design and
Merchandising) asked Chancellor Ballard what his forecast was for the changes
in financial aid, that have just occurred in federal legislation last week,
would affect ECU. VC Mageean
responded that there were changes to the Pell grants and the Chancellor
promised to get more information to the Faculty Senate on the overall
legislative impacts.
Professor Walker thanked Chancellor Ballard
for his remarks and for supporting the standing University academic committees
and Faculty Senators with his words, presence, and in having a reception for
all in April 2010.
D. Marilyn
Sheerer, Senior Vice Chancellor for Academic and Student Affairs
The Provost indicated that two years ago she
was nervous about SACS accreditation, but that now “she felt very good about
it”. She credited this to IPAR and the SACS steering committee along with
faculty involvement with all the different working groups. The Provost stated
that it is absolutely mandated that the same level of faculty involvement be
maintained. ECU is now in Phase II of
the planning process, the phase when a compliance certificate will be
completed. In order to complete this certificate an organizational structure
has to be described and presented in September.
A number of working groups and governance councils are being organized
to meet this requirement as the university approaches the 2012 – 2013 onsite
accreditation visits. She stated that many faculty have been attending the
forums on the SACS initiative and have participated on the strategic planning
group. The process has been public and the Provost thanked the faculty for
their participation. The Provost summarized by saying that an effort is being
made to have the SACS accreditation process become a “way of doing business”
rather than a one time effort.
The Provost reported that John Fletcher will
become ECU’s Enrollment Manager beginning
June 1, 2010. Dr. Fletcher has been the
Associate Director for Enrollment at Auburn for many years. She also mentioned
that Jeff Elwell is leaving ECU to accept a position at Auburn’s Montgomery
campus; an Interim Dean will be appointed. The position of the Dean of Honors
College has been approved and the dean search is already underway. There are
also active searches for chairs and department heads. A Director of Housing and
Dining is being sought in the division of Student Affairs as well as an
assessment coordinator. There is also a position for an Associate Vice
Chancellor for Mendenhall that will focus on leadership programs is also being
developed by Virginia Hardy. The search for the Director of Career Services is
ending.
Relative to retention and graduation, there
are study groups and a task force involving many faculty members. Experts will be visiting the campus during
the first of May who will advise on creating a stronger model for the first
year experience. There is also a group working on developing an alternative
degree. This degree will be for students who do not have a declared major or
need an alternative path to a degree completion. This program is currently being called
University Studies. There is also a
group working on a revision of COAD 1000 with a proposed name change to
University 1000.
A memorandum was sent on the closing of the
Wright Place. There has been a good deal of planning to have alternative food
vendors in the vicinity while the dining areas are being renovated. The need to
close the existing dining areas before the end of the semester was due to the
requirement that food service is available by the beginning of the fall
semester.
Honors college business plan which has been
approved by the Chancellor and the Board of Trustees has been distributed. Dr.
Ironsmith will making on a presentation on the plan of this task force in the
faculty senate meeting today. The curriculums
being developed in such a way that the new Dean of the Honor’s College
will have a major part in shaping the new program. The door is open to any
input that the faculty might have once the new Dean arrives. The Honors College
has great potential for bringing in really good students. The new Associate Director of the Honors
College , Kevin Baxter, is now contacting all the students who applied to ECU
and who met the criteria for Honors College. While they are around 800 students
in this category, only 50 have committed to the program. An attempt is being made
to find the money for small scholarships or to find another way to encourage
more students to be in the Honors College.
Professor Rigsby (Geological Sciences)
referenced budget personnel issues and no money for faculty raises this year
and wondered where the money was coming from to hire a new Honors College Dean,
provide raises to department chairs and stipends for assistant chairs. She asked if there was any money left to
address gender, ethnic diversity, and salary inequities of faculty within units.
Provost Sheerer responded that the vast
majority of new positions were awarded on the basis of student credit hour
funding and productivity, but that some positions went to support research and
other priorities such as health disparities coordinator and Honors College
dean. The Provost stated that, regarding
hires for diversity, there is no designated pool for this but deans can use
money within their units for any diversity problem. In terms of raises for
department chairs within arts and sciences, the Provost reported that salaries
were increased when the time required to be on campus went from 9 to 11 or 12
months. She said that we need the chairs
to be at the university in the summer, and, thus, we have moved all salaries
from 9 months to 11 months. She added
that no additional stipends have been added unless we have asked someone to
handle specific designated duties. The
Provost also mentioned that Austin Bunch was given a stipend because he took on
the additional duties of the Enrollment Manager. She noted that this practice saves the
University money because we can work without having to hire new staff.
Professor Walker thanked Provost Sheerer for
her remarks and for her overall support of faculty.
E. Marianna
Walker, Chair of the Faculty
Professor
Walker (Allied Health Sciences) provided the following remarks to the Faculty
Senate.
“Faculty. This one word describes the
faculty members who are responsible for providing the education to students in
order to obtain undergraduate, masters, and doctoral degrees from East Carolina
University. My remarks today will characterize us, as the body of faculty, who
form the foundation of the university.
This
year, as you are all aware, a myriad of university initiatives are being
explored, developed, and implemented which will ultimately affect students,
faculty, administration, and staff. During this past 8 months, I have
represented faculty in a countless situations and I have enjoyed my role in
these endeavors. Throughout this year, I have acquired much knowledge about
units different than my own (which is College of Allied Health Sciences) and
have found myself learning about academic, administrative policy and process,
strategic planning, overall university policy processes in collaboration with
faculty, administrators, and staff. In
this capacity, I depersonalize my professional needs, and advocate for the
needs and representation of the entire faculty. While my perspective has been
at the macro level, I also work to represent the individual faculty member
whenever needed. When stepping back and
reflecting on this year, I have noticed patterns, trends, and traditions in
these situations, which, I feel, are relevant to share with you at this time in
our university’s history.
Just
who are the faculty? In many situations,
‘faculty’ are referred to as a group – to those individuals hired, either in a
tenured, tenure-track or fixed term capacity, whose employment status depends
on re-appointment, the conferral of tenure, or the renewal of a contract. They
have been appointed as a faculty based on their education and expertise in a
discipline and have earned the right to be employed as a professor at a
university. Over 2000 faculty at ECU
belong to an academic unit, and represent distinct disciplines in both their
knowledge base and research endeavors. While faculty represent many different units and
disciplines, they represent a common category of university agents. They expose and teach students foundational
and discipline specific knowledge and promote application. They develop curriculum to support their
discipline and enrich the educational course of their students. Teaching and
development of the curriculum is the foundation and heart of the university! Faculty
are responsible for and develop educational experiences that employ the
latest technological advances and deliver their courses in various ways
including on-line instruction and in technologically clad classrooms. In addition, faculty have a responsibility to
conduct research, especially for those having tenure or on tenure-track
appointments. Faculty must engage in
productive scholarship, regardless of whether they are part of a graduate
academic program or have obtained graduate faculty status.
Teaching
and research is always a balancing act – often intertwined. I would think that
the majority of faculty actually blend their research/scholarship and teaching
- (i.e. Scholar/Teacher Award) – Don’t
we all do that? Faculty engage in both research and creative
activity, in addition to their weekly teaching schedules. Research
- scholarship – creative activity – engagement - Faculty are the
scholars who engage in ongoing lines of research for their own professional
development but for the university’s recognition as well. Many faculty also mentor and “teach” their
students the process and importance of engaging in a line of research or
creative activity. Faculty are often involved in mentoring research or
scholarship, as in directing a thesis or dissertation. Is this considered ‘research’ or
‘teaching’? It is truly a blend of both,
but regardless, faculty are responsible for these activities. Juried exhibitions, peer-reviewed
publications, and obtaining external funding, are samples of ‘faculty activity.’
Some faculty conduct their research/scholarship/creative activity during the
summer months, while others engage in their research year round. While the
approach to scholarship is different among faculty (even within the
discipline), the activity is a common and required thread for faculty.
While
faculty are responsible for teaching and research activities, they are also
responsible for service, to their units, college/schools, university, as well
as in relevant professional affiliations. Other roles and responsibilities
include advising, service learning, obtaining external funding, clinical
teaching, and patient care.
While
these roles and activities are reported in distinct categories in annual
reports, PADs, and post-tenure review documents, the actual division of these
areas is often difficult. The faculty
member engages in these requirements and activities in a seamless fashion,
blurring lines between teaching, advising, research/creative activity/ and
service. Many faculty teach in undergraduate, graduate, and/or doctoral
programs. Many mentor student research, which is part of the academic
curriculum. Often, student directed research becomes a framework for faculty
scholarship. Again, is this teaching or purely research? The scholarship of
engagement becomes an interaction of research, service, and student
mentoring. Service? - Why do faculty become involved at different
levels? Most likely it is because they
see the ongoing need for faculty to be in the center of the university, as the
needed glue for the multifaceted initiatives that affect our students, at many
different levels.
This
year, I would describe the communication between the administration, the
faculty officers, faculty advisors, and university committee members as
‘depersonalized advocacy.’ The structure of the faculty senate and committees
was developed and continues to work with this perspective. These individuals
have not put their own needs before the faculty as a whole. Faculty are
listening to each other and finding common threads in their communication and
professional university goals. Although they may represent many different
categories of faculty, for the most part, they do not come to meetings speaking
only of their needs as a ‘graduate faculty,’ ‘clinical faculty,’ ‘fixed-term
faculty,’ ‘faculty advisor,’ or a ‘researcher.’
It is difficult to separate our roles. Each of us makes up the faculty
of East Carolina University. I do
encourage you, however, to reach out, across the aisle and find out about one
of your senate colleagues, from a different unit, to enrich your appreciation
for the diversity of faculty interests and disciplines on campus.
So,
what does this mean for the faculty senate?
The senate is the legislative and advisory body that represents the
general faculty of the university. Yes, that’s right – the general faculty
including teaching, research, graduate, doctoral, clinical, medical, and
engaged faculty! Each of our units is
represented on the senate, so that broad representation on any one topic is
fully explored and vetted. Multidisciplinary discourse is necessary. In the
Faculty Senate, faculty categorization is often ambiguous. Why? We do it all!
The faculty senate and its committee organization structure works as we
propose recommendations to the Chancellor relative to the curriculum, tenure
and promotion, curriculum, degree requirements, instructional standards, and
grading. Why does this process work?
Four words describe this shared governance model at East Carolina University –
consistency, structure, communication, and collaboration! Let’s continue to reflect and actively engage
in faculty representation and advocacy as a senate. Each of us is important in that role,
independently and as a group. The senate is the voice for the faculty, but we
must communicate to our faculty, within our units and committees in order to
succeed and truly represent them. We are the faculty and the Faculty Senate is
the voice of the faculty. We need to be a strong and representative voice. We
need to continue to do what we do best. Stay involved in the multifaceted
initiatives that affect our students and the university as a whole. We are one
university!”
No
questions were posed to Professor Walker at this time.
F. Approval of Spring 2010 Graduation
Roster, including honors program graduates, subject to the completion of degree
requirements.
Professor Peery (Nursing) moved approval of the Spring
2010 Graduation Roster, including honors program graduates, subject to the
complete of degree requirements. There
was no objection and the graduation roster was approved as presented. RESOLUTION #10-19
G. Marsha Ironsmith, Chair of Honors College
Planning Task Force
Professor Ironsmith (Psychology)
provided the following remarks to the Faculty Senate on the proposed Honors
College and Business
Plan.
“Last year, the Provost charged the
Honors College Task Force to examine the feasibility of making the transition
from an Honors Program to an Honors College.
Thanks to the hard work and vision of Professor Michael Bassman,
director of the Honors Program and the Honors staff and the commitment of the
faculty to the Honors Program, we found that ECU had met the criteria for a
fully developed Honors Program, according to the standards of the National
Collegiate Honors Council and already had many of the criteria of a fully
developed Honors College. We concluded
that, if properly supported, an Honors College would benefit ECU in many ways,
particularly in the recruitment and retention of very bright and highly
motivated students.
This report was received favorably
across the campus. I made a presentation to you last fall and Open Forums were
held by the Senate and by the Dean of Arts and Sciences. In October, the
Provost charged a design and implementation committee to develop a business
plan for the Honors College. The
committee included me, Michael Bassman, Holly Mathews from Anthropology,
David Powers from Education, all of whom
were on the original task force. Mariana Walker and Mark Sprague very
competently represented the Senate. Richard Hauser from MIS provided the
business expertise and Kevin Baxter joined the committee when he took the
position of Associate Director of Honors in January. We completed our report in
mid-January and presented it to the Provost and the Chancellor. The Provost presented it to the BOT and you
may have read their favorable response as reported in the Daily Reflector
(although they got the numbers backward).
That committee has carried out its
charge and been dissolved. You have been provided a link to our report so I
won’t go over it in minute detail but will comment on the progress that has
been made on our recommendations to date.
We recommended personnel additions,
most crucially the hiring of a Dean of the College. The provost has appointed a search committee
chaired by David White and that position is being advertised and some
applications have been received. The
goal is to have the Dean on campus by August. It may seem premature to search
for a Dean before the College is officially established. However, I believe
that the
most logical sequence of events was to determine first if it was feasible to
have an Honors College (which was done by the initial task force with strong
faculty representation), second, to lay out a proposed framework around key
elements of the Honors College (which was done by the Planning Committee in the
Business Plan). And third, to find a
strong leader as Dean who will work closely in partnership with the faculty to
establish the Honors College policies and curriculum.
We also made recommendations regarding
facilities. Since then, the Space
Allocation Committee has designated the Mamie Jenkins Building for the Honors
College. This space is in need of
renovation but Ricky Hill believes that the repairs may be completed by the end
of the calendar year.
Other recommendations involved the curriculum.
I need to address two important points here:
The curriculum model described in the
report is of course a preliminary plan that will be fleshed out when the new
Dean is in place. We were walking a fine
line between planning for an Honors College without tying the hands of an
incoming administrator. We didn’t want
to bring an interviewee for such a position to campus and say, ‘We want an
Honors College but haven’t given a moment’s thought to what it would look
like,’ nor did we want to say, ‘We want an Honors College that looks like this
and you can’t change anything about it.’
Other recommendations involved
Marketing and Recruiting. The Honors Staff is actively engaged in recruiting as Provost Sheerer
mentioned. This included sending out
invitations to 750 students who have applied to ECU and are eligible for the
Honors Program. Finally, although we did not address Assessment in our report,
the Honors Staff, together with IPAR, is beginning the process of becoming a
campus assessment unit so that progress and quality can be measured
effectively. So, much has been done and much is left to be done in establishing
the Honors College. We look forward to the active involvement of the faculty
and the Senate in this process.”
No questions were posed to Professor Ironsmith at this time.
H . Question Period
Professor Sprague (Physics) discussed the
search for two faculty within his unit and asked Vice Chancellor Mageean what
the start up packages looked like this year.
VC Mageean responded that she had been given a commitment from the other
administrators that they will become a bit more selective overall. She did note that the top administration
supported start up funds and anticipated sustaining the program. She encouraged
units to go out and try to attract the very best faculty out there and then
allow her and her staff to help the units in landing them for ECU.
Professor Given (Foreign Languages and Literatures)
first praised the Student Co-curricular Program and Virginia Hardy’s oversight
from Student Life and thanked Provost Sheerer for her funding of this
program. He then expressed a need for
more in depth information on the outcome from proposed revisions to the current
Serious Illness and Disability Leave for Faculty policy (FSIL). He asked what savings would be available to
the academic units once the proposed changes are enacted. Vice Chancellor Horns
responded that the health sciences report on estimated savings had been
completed and they were waiting on staff in academic affairs before being able
to provide a full report on savings. She
stated that this was a hard task to complete.
Agenda
Item IV. Unfinished Business
There was no unfinished business to come
before the body at this time.
Agenda
Item V. Report of Committees
Professor Paul Schwager (Business), Chair of
the Committee, presented the curriculum matters contained in the minutes of the
February
11, 2010 and February
25, 2010, meetings. There was no
discussion and the curriculum matters were approved as presented. RESOLUTION #10-20
B. Unit Code Screening Committee
Professor Tim
Hackett (English), Chair of the Committee, presented two proposed
revisions to the following Unit Codes of Operation: Department
of Anthropology (full code review) and School
of Medicine (amendments only). There
was no discussion and the two revised unit codes of operation were approved as
presented. RESOLUTION #10-21
C. Committee on Committees
Professor Catherine
Rigsby (Geological Sciences), Chair of the Committee, presented the second reading of proposed revisions to the
Academic Awards Committee Charge. There
was no discussion and the proposed revisions were approved as presented. RESOLUTION #10-22
Professor Rigsby then offered two
nominations for the openings
on Faculty
Grievance Appellate Committee.
Professors Zach Robinson (Mathematics) and Professor Frances Eason
(Nursing) were elected by acclamation to the Committee with 2010 and 2011 terms
respectively.
D. Calendar Committee
Professor Shanan Gibson (Business), Chair of the Committee, first presented the
results of Calendar
Committee Survey and noted that the survey reflects an overwhelming support
to continue the traditional same start date and not start academic calendars
earlier in August. There was no
discussion on the survey results.
Professor Gibson then
presented the proposed Summer 2011 –
Spring 2012 University Calendars.
There was no discussion on the proposed calendars and the 2011-12
University Calendars were approved as presented. RESOLUTION
#10-23
E. Academic
Awards Committee
Professor Kim Larson (Nursing), a member of the Committee, presented the
proposed procedures for a University Scholarship of Engagement Award. There was
no discussion and the proposed procedures for a new University
Scholarship of Engagement Award were approved as presented. RESOLUTION
#10-24
F. Academic
Standards Committee
Professor Linda Wolfe (Anthropology), Chair of the Committee, presented first
the approval of Foundation
Curriculum Course for Basic Social Science, PSYC
2777 Ethnocultural Psychology. There was no discussion and the Foundation
Curriculum Course was approved as presented.
RESOLUTION
#10-25
Professor Wolfe then presented the approval of Foundation
Curriculum Course for Basic Science, GEOL1800
Geology of the National Parks. There
was no discuss and the Foundation Curriculum Course was approved as
presented. RESOLUTION
#10-26
Professor Wolfe then
presented proposed revisions to the ECU
Faculty Manual, Part V. Academic Information Section I. Academic Procedures
and Policies, Subsection Y. Disruptive Academic
Behavior.
Professor Van
Willigen (Sociology) asked about the 3rd
sentence: The course instructor has original purview over his/her class and may
deny a student who is unduly disruptive the right to attend the class. Professor Sharer (English) suggested that “an
individual class session” be added to the sentence to clarify the situation and
moved that revision. Professor Jenks
(History) stated that if the group was talking about an individual class
meeting and a student being disruptive,
the faculty member should always have the right to remove the student from
their class.
Professor
Rigsby (Geological Sciences) stated that the one sentence should not be taken
out of context from the entire section and that the last sentence
in the first part of the document refer to procedures for instructors.
She stated that the faculty and administrators needed to be reminded not to
take things out of context. That causes
confusion.
Professor
Brown (Psychology) offered a friendly amendment to the motion so that the
sentence would read: The course
instructor has original purview over his/her class and may deny a student who
is unduly disruptive the right to attend the class by following the procedure
described in this section. The
motion to amend the text was approved.
Following
discussion, the proposed
revisions to the ECU Faculty Manual,
Part V. Academic Information Section I. Academic Procedures and Policies, Subsection Y. Disruptive Academic Behavior were approved as
revised. RESOLUTION #10-27
G. Academic
Standards and Admission and Retention Policies Committees
Professors Linda Wolfe (Anthropology)
and Joseph Thomas (Academic Library
Services), Chairs of both Committees, presented first the proposed revisions to
the ECU Faculty Manual, Part V.
Academic Information Section I. Academic Procedures and Policies, Subsection
I.W. Student Attendance Regulations.
Professor
Thomas first noted that the text “and the Center for Counseling and Student
Development” be deleted from the text.
He stated that the Counseling Center did not have anything to do with
granting giving University approved absences.
There was no objection to this deletion. Professor Brown (Psychology)
noted that the committee had worked closely with the Center in updating this
information.
Professor
Zeager (Economics) also noted that an additional “will” was not necessary in
the 4th paragraph. There was
no objection to the deletion of this extra word in the text.
There being no further amendments or
discussion, the proposed revisions to the ECU
Faculty Manual, Part V. Academic Information Section I. Academic Procedures
and Policies, Subsection I.W. Student Attendance Regulations were approved as
editorially revised. RESOLUTION #10-28
Professor Wolfe and
Thomas then presented the proposed revisions to the University Undergraduate Catalog, Section
5. Academic Regulations, Class Attendance and Participation Regulations.
Professor Thomas noted that the committee
recommended a Fall 2010 implementation date and asked that the reference to the
Center for Counseling and Student Development in 4th paragraph be
deleted. There was no objection.
Professor Mathews (Anthropology) asked if the
Student Health Service was still providing any type of University excused
absences. Professor Brown (Psychology) responded that a University excused
absence now only covers 5 things listed in the proposed revision to the
catalog.
Professor Vail-Smith (Health and Human
Performance) asked why was the sentence even in the policy? Professor Thomas replied that students need
to be in class.
Professor Sprague (Physics) stated that if
the Committee wanted the Student Health Services to show the faculty member
that a student sought assistance, it should be noted in the policy.
The faculty member can make up his or her
mind based upon the record of the Student Health Service of the student being
seen.
Following discussion, the proposed revisions to the University Undergraduate Catalog, Section 5. Academic Regulations, Class Attendance and
Participation Regulations were approved as editorially revised. RESOLUTION #10-29
H. Admission
and Retention Policies Committee
Professor Joseph Thomas (Academic Library Services)
presented first the proposed revisions to the University Undergraduate Catalog, Section 5. Academic Regulations, Special Readmission
(Forgiveness) Policy.
Professor Sprague (Physics) asked if the surcharge
included the forgiven hours. Professor
Thomas responded, yes it does. Professor
Given (Foreign Languages and Literatures), asked if the reference to the “minimum cumulative
2.5 average has been earned in all transferable courses attempted” was cumulative.
Professor Thomas responded yes, whether the credits were or were not
counted it was set by the General Administration and Legislature.
Professor Sprague (Physics) moved to clarify that
statement in the last paragraph by proposing a revision to read: “Students should also be aware that a substantial tuition
surcharge will be applied if a student has exceeded 110% of the forgiven hours
required to achieve a degree, as established by the North Carolina General
Administration.”
Professor Niswander (Business) offered a friendly
amendment since the oversight for this issue could change, “in accordance with
the rules established by the Board of Governors or other appropriate
legislative body.” There was no
objection to the friendly amendment and the proposed amendment to the last
sentence was accepted.
Professor Zeager (Economics) asked if there had been
an explanation as to why ECU was raising the grade point average. Professor
Thomas responded in order to encourage more students to graduate in a timely
manner.
Following
discussion, the proposed revisions to the University
Undergraduate Catalog, Section 5. Academic
Regulations, Special Readmission (Forgiveness) Policy were approved as
amended. RESOLUTION
#10-30
Professor Thomas then
presented the proposed revisions to the University
Undergraduate Catalog, Section 5. Academic
Regulations, While Enrolled in East Carolina University.
Professor Sprague (Physics) asked where the
retention requirements came from then offered an editorial change to delete the
specific mention of the retention eligibility requirements in this section
since they were listed elsewhere and link them to the appropriate section in
the undergraduate catalog. There was no
objection to this editorial change.
Professor Van Willigen (Sociology) asked about the deletion of “Approval will not be
granted if the student has less than a cumulative GPA of 2.0 at East
Carolina.” Professor Thomas stated that
the committee felt that it was a barrier for the students who wanted to
continue their education, meet the necessary requirements, and return to ECU. Professor Brown (Psychology) spoke against
deleting that sentence and stated that it allowed students who could not meet
senior academic requirement here to meet there somewhere else.
Professor Jones (Allied Health Sciences) noted that
she was a member of the committee too and stated that Jayne Geissler from the
Advising Center had told the committee that many of ECU’s students are the
first ones in their families to obtain degrees and that the advising center
wanted to help these students even though they may not be ready for
college. She noted that, in the past if
students were not meeting 2.0 they were told that they could not go somewhere
else over the summer and take coursework.
She did not think it was right to send students home over the summer and
have them sit out ECU and then still return unprepared to handle the coursework
at ECU.
Professor Van Willigen (Sociology) stated that
students can take other courses over the summer to improve their study skills
and that it just does not transfer back into ECU. Students can take as much as 1 ½ year of
coursework somewhere else and transfer in with credit for those courses.
Professor Sharer (English) noted that ECU has articulation
agreements with most if not all community colleges in the State. Professor
Kerbs (Criminal Justice) stated that he thought only a certain number of
credits could transfer to ECU
Professor Niswander (Business) stated that we can’t
describe motivation and wondered how it was different for ECU in accepting
transferring credit from incoming students from community colleges versus those
who go off during the summer to take courses from other reputable universities.
Professor MacGilvray (Medicine) noted that paragraph
4 states that students can not just go and take any class; they must first
obtain prior approval. Professor Sprague (Physics) asked if the committee had
looked at what other universities were doing on this matter. Professor Thomas replied no. Professor Rigsby (Geological Sciences)
offered a point of clarification and stated that some courses were already approved due to the
articulation agreements.
Following discussion, the proposed revisions to the University
Undergraduate Catalog, Section 5. Academic
Regulations, While Enrolled in East Carolina University were approved as
editorially amended. RESOLUTION #10-31
I. Faculty
Governance Committee
Professor Walker first noted that Professor
Martinez was the newly elected chair of the North Carolina AAUP organization.
The Senators gave Professor Martinez a round of applause.
Professor Puri
Martinez (Foreign Languages and Literatures), Chair of the Committee, then
provided a list of ongoing items being discussed by the Committee before addressing
the first item of business which was the proposed revisions to the ECU Faculty Manual, Part VI. Section I.
Employment Policies.
Professor
Sprague (Physics) asked when would the changes to Appendix C and D take
place. Professor Martinez responded that
once the Committee revised the appendices, obtained feedback from the
University community and presented to the Faculty Senate, the Chancellor would
act and would go to the Faculty Manual Steering Committee to format for the
future faculty manual.
Following
the brief discussion, the proposed removal of these sections were approved as
presented. RESOLUTION #10-32
Professor Martinez then presented proposed
revision to the ECU Faculty Manual,
Part VI, Section V. External Professional Activities of
Faculty and Other Professional Staff. There was no
discussion and the proposed removal of this section was approved as presented. RESOLUTION #10-33
Professor Martinez then presented proposed
revision to the ECU Faculty Manual,
Part VI, Section VII. Frequently Asked Questions About Faculty Personnel
Records.
Professor
Van Willigen (Sociology) asked if the Senate should wait until Appendix C was
revised and presented to the body before deleting this information from the
manual. Professor Martinez responded
that due to the complexity of Appendix C, the Committee had not yet begun to
revise Appendix C.
Professor
Wilson (Sociology) moved to remove this section from the ECU Faculty Manual when the information has been incorporated into
a revised Appendix C. There was no
objection and the motion to remove the text in the ECU Faculty Manual, Part VI, Section VII. Frequently Asked
Questions About Faculty Personnel Records once Appendix C has been revised to
include this information was approved. RESOLUTION
#10-34
Professor
Martinez (Foreign Languages and Literatures) then presented proposed
revision to the ECU Faculty Manual,
Part VIII, Responsibilities of Administrative
Officers. She noted that this information was not
current and needed to be removed from manual and placed in the University
Policy Manual. There was no objection and the proposed revision to the ECU Faculty Manual, Part VIII,
Responsibilities of Administrative Officers was approved as presented.
RESOLUTION
#10-35
Professor Martinez then presented the
proposed revisions to the ECU Faculty
Manual, Appendix I. Policy on Conflicts of Interest and Commitment.
Professor Martinez thanked John Chinn for agreeing on short notice to be
present at the meeting to support her in case there were questions. There was no discussion and the proposed
revisions to the ECU Faculty Manual,
Appendix I. Policy on Conflicts of Interest and Commitment was approved as
presented.
RESOLUTION
#10-36
Professor Martinez then presented for information
only suggested revisions to the ECU
Faculty Manual, Appendix
C. Personnel Policies and Procedures for the Faculty and Appendix
D. Tenure and Promotion Policies and Procedures.
Professor Estep (Academic Library Services)
asked if the Committee would keep in mind that there were 12 month faculty in
the library. Professor Martinez
responded that yes, the various different kinds of appointments within units
was what the committee needed to know. Professor Niswander clarified that these
two appendices were not being voted on at this time.
J. Faculty Welfare Committee
Professor Katrina
DuBose (Health and Human Performance), Chair of the Committee, presented
proposed revisions to the ECU Faculty
Manual, Part VI. Section I. Employment Policies.
Professor Sprague
(Physics) stated that administrative policies are only being linked and
therefore could be changed by administration without notifying faculty. For example, he thought that it should be
stated that Retired Faculty have parking privileges and asked if there was a
way that the faculty could maintain control over these matters. Professor
Dubose replied that it was the committee’s intent that if links were provided,
then there were privileges for retired faculty being offered by administration.
Professor
Walker clarified that there was a possibility that if faculty policies were
only linked in the manual, the faculty may lose input into the privileges for
faculty and that faculty needed to maintain these privileges. She stated that
if issues pertain only to faculty they need to remain in the faculty manual.
Professor
Rigsby (Geological Sciences) stated that a lot of the information will be
available in the University Policy Manual and that shared governance should not
be lost. She stated that the Senate
needed to pay close attention to new and old faculty policies and make sure
that faculty have a say in policies involving all aspects of academics.
Professor
MacGilvray (Medicine) stated that the Faculty Manual Steering Committee had
discussed this and regardless of where the policies are housed as part of the new
structure for all policies, there will be a listing of all policies with who
all has input into the formation and approval of such policies. This
information should remain in the header of any University Policy and will
remain within the policy no matter where it is stored. This should address some concerns people have
about faculty losing input into University policies, even though the new
policies may be housed outside of a faculty manual.
Professor
Sprague (Physics) moved that Part VI. Section I. Employment Policies be sent
back to the committee for clear verbiage on faculty retirement and new faculty
orientation that can be maintained in the faculty manual. There was no
objection and the proposed revisions to the ECU
Faculty Manual, Part VI. Section I. Employment Policies was returned to the
Faculty Welfare Committee for further discussion. RESOLUTION
#10-37
Professor Dubose then presented the
proposed revisions to the ECU Faculty
Manual, Part VI. Section III. Institutional
Services Available to Faculty, Subsection R. Tuition Privileges for
Faculty. It was noted that information
about tuition privileges for retired faculty should be included with other
privileges discussed earlier and that the Registrar was looking into retired
faculty being allowed to take courses free.
Professor Niswander
(Business) noted that the Faculty Senate did not have the authority to
establish privileges that affected financial areas, etc. Faculty have the ability to say that faculty
can take courses, but are not in the position to mandate it. Professor Walker
responded that yes faculty should continue to voice their support of the
privilege of retired faculty taking courses free.
Professor Rigsby
(Geological Sciences) moved to send the proposed revisions to the ECU Faculty Manual, Part VI. Section
III. Institutional Services Available to
Faculty, Subsection R. Tuition Privileges for Faculty back to the committee to
provide clarity and consolidate with other retired faculty information. RESOLUTION #10-38
Professor Dubose then presented
proposed revisions to the ECU Faculty
Manual, Part VI. Section IV. Employment
of Related Persons. Professor McKinnon (Interior Design and
Merchandising) asked why the link was being provided if being removed from the
manual. Professor Dubose replied that
the link would be in the University Policy Manual.
Professor Rigsby (Geological Sciences)
asked for clarification if problems with spouses working in the same
departments had already been taken care of in other areas of the manual. VC Mageean responded that there were several
UNC policies that address nepotism and conflict of interest and suggested that
the committee gather those policies for reference.
Professor Niswander (Business) stated
that unit administrators had to report on related persons and conflicts of
interest as mandated by General Administration. Professor Rigsby responded that
she just wanted to be sure that we were not hurting relating persons working in
the same academic area.
Professor Walker asked if the policy
was different for administrators, staff, etc?
Professor Niswander responded that the UNC policy was about academic
units, reporting structure, etc. and that someone cannot have related persons
answering to each other in supervisory roles.
Following discussion, the proposed
revisions to the ECU Faculty Manual,
Part VI. Section IV. Employment of Related Persons. RESOLUTION #10-39
Professor Dubose (Health and Human
Performance) then presented proposed revisions to the ECU Faculty Manual, Part VI. Section VI. Equal
Employment Opportunity/Affirmative Action Policy.
Professor Roberts (Philosophy) stated that a period and the word
“diversity” needed to be added in to the title.
Professor Estep (Academic Library
Services) moved to add “class or transgender” in the 3rd line so
that the text would read: East Carolina
University celebrates diversity among its faculty, staff, and students, and
promotes equal opportunities for all, regardless of race, religion, color,
creed, national origin, gender, age, sexual orientation, disability, class, or
transgender. Professor Schmidt
(Education) offered a friendly amendment that “gender identity” be used instead
of ”transgender”. The motion failed to
obtain a 2nd.
Professor
Given (Foreign Languages and Literatures) asked if the committee had discussed
affirmative action. Professor Dubose replied that the Committee had discussed
so many issues this Spring semester that she could not remember if the
committee specifically discussed affirmative action. Professor Niswander
(Business) noted that he thought that the University was held to Federal
standards whether they were listed or not.
Professor
Rigsby (Geological Sciences) asked about the referenced action plan and
wondered if there was a more recent version that could be incorporated in to
the manual. She stated that she would rather see a clearly referenced policy in
the manual instead of just a reference to find the material in the University
Policy Manual.
Professor
Roberts (Philosophy) asked if the Committee felt that all of the information
being deleted from the manual was really handled well in the 5 lines being
left. Professor Van Willigen (Sociology)
stated that she was concerned about the information on affirmative action and
moved that this be returned to the Committee for further consideration on the
serious implications of taking this information out of the faculty manual and
how it could be perceived by colleagues that are protected by the law.
There
was no objection and the report on the proposed revisions to the ECU Faculty Manual, Part VI. Section
VI. Equal
Employment Opportunity/Affirmative Action Policy was returned to the Faculty
Welfare Committee for further discussion. RESOLUTION
#10-40
Professor Dubose then presented the
proposed revisions to the ECU Faculty
Manual, Part VI. Section VII. A. Substance Abuse Policy. Professor Rigsby (Geological Sciences) asked
if faculty would still have input into the policy once it was removed from the
faculty manual and place elsewhere in the University Policy Manual. Professor Jones (Allied Health Sciences)
asked how will we be guaranteed formal faculty involvements.
Professor Sprague (Physics) stated
that the Policy on Policies allowed faculty to have input on all University
policies, although the path for faculty input may be different. Professor Rigsby (Geological Sciences) stated
that this is an issue related to classrooms so that is why the faculty should
remain involved and the information retained in the faculty manual. She suggested that instead of moving it
completely, the information should be briefly noted in the faculty manual with
a link to the current University policy. Professor Dubose responded that this
policy was across for all employees and that it should be in the University
Policy Manual.
Professor Walker replied that the
faculty manual was going to serve as the guide for faculty so we wanted to make
sure that if something is removed from the manual it is still easy to find in
the University Policy Manual.
Professor Rigsby (Geological Sciences)
moved that this report be sent back to the Faculty Welfare Committee to craft a
very brief statement about the substance abuse policy with a link to the
current policy in the University Policy Manual.
There was no objection and the motion to return this report to the
Committee was approved as presented. RESOLUTION #10-41
Professor Dubose then presented the Proposed
revisions to the ECU Faculty Manual,
Part VI. Section VII. C. Serious Illness and Disability Leave for Faculty
Policy and discussed briefly the Committees’
response to the Academic Council (Link
to letter from Committee to Academic Council).
Professor Walker first commended the
faculty who participated in the Faculty Forums and the committee members from both
the Faculty Welfare Committee and EPA Personnel Policies Committee and Academic
Council who all tried their best to reach a compromise. She stated that this is
an administrative policy and that the Faculty Senate can vote on the faculty
feedback being provided by the Committee and that the Academic Council would
then use the feedback when finalizing the policy for the Board of Trustees’
consideration.
Professor Given (Foreign Languages and
Literatures) asked if the Senate was being asked to do two things: approve the
revised policy and vote to take the policy out of the faculty manual. Professor
Walker responded yes, that the faculty have been given an opportunity to
provide feedback but we do not have oversight of this policy.
Professor Bauer (English) asked who
has said that the policy needs to be removed from the manual. Professor Dubose replied she did not know
because her committee had not discussed that aspect of the report. Professor
Sprague (Physics) stated that if we vote not to remove it from the manual then
we are sending a signal that we don’t trust administrators and that we don’t
trust the new system. He supported the
idea of having it removed from the faculty manual and placed in the University
Policy Manual.
Professor Howard (Communication)
stated that after going through several discussions on this particular policy,
there is still a lot of discussion needed.
It is not a no-vote on administration but it behooves the faculty to
protect all faculty as a whole. There
are errors in relation to what is currently being proposed and so a more in
depth review of the newest draft policy is needed before the Senate can
act. He sensed that faculty still wanted
changes to the proposed policy and he stated his agreement with Professor
Sprague but before turning the policy over to administration, clear answers
need to be provided on specific aspects of the policy.
Professor Rigsby (Geological Sciences)
noted that we understand that this will come out of the faculty manual once it
is agreed upon. We already have a policy
in place to provide faculty input on how administrative policies are
handled.
Professor Given (Foreign Languages and
Literatures) reminded the Faculty Senate that VC Horns had stated that she had
additional data forthcoming so he moved to table the discussion and ultimate
action on the proposed Serious Illness and Disability Leave for Faculty Policy
until April 20 to allow time to gather the remaining data from administration
and gain more faculty input.
VC Horns noted that she would
certainly advocate the faculty working on this a little later until the next
senate meeting and that she appreciated the feedback thus far and had learned a
lot through the faculty forums, etc.
However, she believes that the issues are not new and most if not all of
the issues have been heard in some form and that sooner or later we have to
come to a decision. Professor Walker
stated that this issue can be a part of the discussion at the two upcoming
Faculty Open Forums scheduled for April 14 and April 28.
Professor Bauer (English) thanked all
for agreeing to wait until the April 20 Faculty Senate meeting to act on this
revised policy because it was important that this body give formal faculty
advice on this important policy.
Following
discussion, the motion to table action on the Proposed
revisions to the ECU Faculty Manual,
Part VI. Section VII. C. Serious Illness and Disability Leave for Faculty
Policy until the April 20, 2010, Faculty Senate meeting was approved as
presented. RESOLUTION #10-42
K. Educational Policies and Planning
Committee
Professor Edson Justiniano (Physics), Chair of the Committee, presented first
the request of Intent to Plan a Master
of Arts in Education in Gifted Education, Department of Curriculum and
Instruction, College of Education. There
was no discussion and the request was approved as presented. RESOLUTION #10-43
Professor Justiniano then presented the request for an
Undergraduate Certificate
in Cultural Resource Management, Department of Anthropology. There was no discussion and the request was approved as
presented. RESOLUTION
#10-44
Agenda Item VI. New Business
Professor
Justiniano asked to introduce new business.
There was no dissent from the body so he presented the request of Intent
to Plan a Master of Science in Network Technology, within the Department
of Technology Systems, College of Technology and Computer Science.
There was no discussion and the request
was approved as presented. RESOLUTION #10-45
There was no new business to come before the
body at this time and the meeting adjourned at 4:45 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Hunt McKinnon Lori
Lee
Secretary of the Faculty Faculty
Senate
Department of Interior Design and
Merchandising
FACULTY
SENATE RESOLUTIONS APPROVED AT THE MARCH 30, 2010, MEETING
10-19 Approval of Spring 2010 Graduation Roster,
including honors program graduates,
subject to the completion of degree
requirements.
Disposition: Chancellor, Board of Trustees
10-20 Curriculum
matters contained in the minutes of the February
11, 2010 and February
25,
2010, meetings.
Disposition: Chancellor
10-21 Revised
Department
of Anthropology Unit Code of Operations (full code review) and
School
of Medicine Unit Code of Operations (amendments only).
Disposition: Chancellor
10-22 Revised
Academic
Awards Committee Charge.
Disposition: Faculty Senate
10-23 Summer 2011 –
Spring 2012 University Calendars.
Disposition: Chancellor
10-24 New
University
Scholarship of Engagement Award.
Disposition: Chancellor
10-25 Foundation Curriculum Course for Basic
Social Science, PSYC
2777 Ethnocultural
Psychology.
Disposition: Chancellor
10-26 Foundation Curriculum Course for Basic
Science, GEOL1800
Geology of the National
Parks.
Disposition: Chancellor
10-27 Revisions
to the ECU Faculty Manual, Part V.
Academic Information Section I. Academic
Procedures
and Policies, Subsection Y. Disruptive Academic
Behavior.
Disposition: Chancellor
10-28 Revisions
to the ECU Faculty Manual, Part V.
Academic Information, Section I.
Academic Procedures and
Policies,
Subsection I.W. Student Attendance Regulations.
Disposition: Chancellor
10-29 Revisions
to the University Undergraduate Catalog,
Section 5. Academic Regulations,
Class Attendance and Participation
Regulations
Disposition: Chancellor
10-30 Revisions to the University
Undergraduate Catalog, Section 5. Academic
Regulations,
Special Readmission (Forgiveness)
Policy
Disposition: Chancellor
10-31 Revisions
to the University Undergraduate Catalog,
Section 5. Academic Regulations,
While Enrolled in East
Carolina University.
Disposition: Admission and
Retention Policies Committee, Chancellor
10-32 Revisions to the ECU Faculty Manual, Part VI. Section I. Employment Policies.
Disposition: Chancellor
10-33 Revision to the ECU Faculty Manual, Part VI, Section V. External Professional Activities
of
Faculty and Other Professional Staff.
Disposition: Chancellor
10-34 Remove
the text in the ECU Faculty Manual,
Part VI, Section VII. Frequently Asked
Questions About Faculty
Personnel Records once Appendix C has been revised to
include this information.
Disposition: Chancellor
10-35 Revision
to the ECU Faculty Manual, Part VIII,
Responsibilities of Administrative Officers.
Disposition: Chancellor
10-36 Revisions
to the ECU Faculty Manual, Appendix
I. Policy on Conflicts of Interest and
Commitment.
Disposition: Chancellor
10-37 Proposed
revisions to the ECU Faculty Manual,
Part VI. Section I. Employment Policies
was
returned to the Faculty Welfare Committee for further discussion.
Disposition: Faculty Welfare
Committee
10-38 Proposed
revisions to the ECU Faculty Manual,
Part VI. Section III. Institutional Services
Available to Faculty,
Subsection R. Tuition Privileges for Faculty was returned to the
Faculty Welfare Committee for
further discussion.
Disposition: Faculty Welfare
Committee
10-39 Revisions to the ECU Faculty Manual, Part VI. Section IV. Employment of Related
Persons.
Disposition: Chancellor
10-40 Proposed
revisions to the ECU Faculty Manual,
Part VI. Section VI. Equal Employment
Opportunity/Affirmative Action
Policy was returned to the Faculty Welfare Committee for
further discussion.
Disposition: Faculty Welfare
Committee
10-41 Proposed
revisions to the ECU Faculty Manual,
Part VI. Section VII. A. Substance Abuse
Policy
was returned to the Faculty Welfare
Committee for further discussion.
Disposition: Faculty Welfare
Committee
10-42 Tabled action on the Proposed
revisions to the ECU Faculty Manual,
Part VI. Section VII.
C.
Serious Illness and Disability Leave for Faculty Policy until the April 20,
2010, Faculty
Senate
meeting
Disposition: Faculty Senate
10-43 Request
of Intent to Plan a Master
of Arts in Education in Gifted Education, Department
of Curriculum and Instruction,
College of Education.
Disposition: Chancellor
10-44 Request for an Undergraduate Certificate
in Cultural Resource Management, Department
of
Anthropology
Disposition: Chancellor
10-45 Request of Intent
to Plan a Master of Science in Network Technology, Department of
Technology
Systems, College of Technology and Computer Science.
Disposition: Chancellor