East Carolina University
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).
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.
to move Media
Production Program (including faculty, curriculum and students)
from the School of Communication to the School of Art and Design.
matters contained in the December
10, 2009 University Curriculum
10-05 Proposed “Green Get To ECU Day” event.
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.
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
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
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.
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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.
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
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.
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
10-22 Revised Academic Awards Committee Charge.
Disposition: Faculty Senate
10-24 New University Scholarship of Engagement Award.
10-25 Foundation Curriculum Course for Basic
Social Science, PSYC
10-26 Foundation Curriculum Course for Basic
Geology of the National
10-27 Revisions to the ECU Faculty Manual, Part V. Academic Information Section I. Academic
Procedures and Policies, Subsection Y. Disruptive Academic Behavior.
to the ECU Faculty Manual, Part V.
Academic Information, Section I.
Academic Procedures and Policies, Subsection I.W. Student Attendance Regulations.
10-29 Revisions to the University Undergraduate Catalog, Section 5. Academic Regulations,
Class Attendance and Participation Regulations
10-30 Revisions to the University Undergraduate Catalog, Section 5. Academic Regulations,
Special Readmission (Forgiveness) Policy
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.
10-33 Revision to the ECU Faculty Manual, Part VI, Section V. External Professional Activities
of Faculty and Other Professional Staff.
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.
10-35 Revision to the ECU Faculty Manual, Part VIII, Responsibilities of Administrative Officers.
to the ECU Faculty Manual, Appendix
I. Policy on Conflicts of Interest and
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
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.
revisions to the ECU Faculty Manual,
Part VI. Section VI. Equal Employment
Opportunity/Affirmative Action Policy was returned to the Faculty Welfare Committee for
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
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.
10-44 Request for an Undergraduate Certificate in Cultural Resource Management, Department
10-45 Request of Intent to Plan a Master of Science in Network Technology, Department of
Technology Systems, College of Technology and Computer Science.