Rev. 9-13-07
FACULTY
SENATE
FULL
MINUTES OF APRIL 17, 2007
The
eighth regular meeting of the 2006-2007 Faculty Senate was held on Tuesday,
April 17, 2007, in
the
Agenda
Item I. Call to Order
Mark
Taggart (Music), Chair of the Faculty, called the meeting to order at 2:10 p.m.
Agenda
Item II. Approval of Minutes
The March
20, 2007, meeting
minutes were approved as presented.
Agenda
Item III. Special Order of the Day
A. Roll Call
Senators
absent were: Professors Zoller (Art and Design), Fraley (Communication), Hodge
(Education), Corbett (Geology), Cope (Faculty Assembly), and Provost Smith.
Alternates
present were: Professors Coonin for Winstead (Academic Library Services),
Perry for Saidel (Anthropology), Ballard for Dosser
(Child Development and Family Relations), Kerbs for Jones (Criminal Justice),
Moll for Grymes (Music), and Omoruyi for Morris
(Political Science).
B. Announcements
1. There was a moment of silence in recognition of those within
our ECU Community who have passed away during this academic year.
2. Faculty
members were reminded that April 1 Chancellor Ballard will call for candidates for
the prestigious 2007/2008 Oliver Max Gardner award. A copy of
the University’s nomination procedures is available at:
http://www.ecu.edu/cs-acad/fsonline/customcf/committee/aa/maxgardneraward.htm
3. A
preliminary call for nominations for the Board
of Governors Award for Excellence in Teaching, Board of Governors Distinguished Professor for Teaching Award, Alumni
Award for Outstanding Teaching, and University Award for Outstanding
Teaching will be distributed in May. Nomination materials will be due
September 1 and portfolios due November 1. Information on the different award
nominating procedures is available online at:
http://www.ecu.edu/cs-acad/fsonline/aa/academicawards.cfm.
4. Faculty
interested in periodically receiving issues of The Chronicle of Higher Education are asked to call the
“F. Notification of Recommendations
The
faculty member shall be informed of all recommendations at every level,
beginning with the appropriate unit
committee’s unit administrator's recommendation and continuing up to
the level where the final decision is made.”
6. Information about the Research Start-up Funds Program was
distributed to Senators and is available
online at:
http://www.research2.ecu.edu/Research%20Start-up%20Funds%20Strategic%20Role1.pdf.
Chair Taggart congratulated the ten recipients of the Scholar-Teacher Awards, who were honored in a celebration hosted by the Division of Academic Affairs on April 5. Some of those recipients are in this very room. Congratulations to Professors Patricia Anderson, Mary Ann Rose, Michael Harris, Hunt McKinnon, Scott Gordon, Mike Brown, John Bishop, Susan McCammon, Robert Carroll and Robert Alpers for your continued contributions to the ECU community.
Congratulations
to everyone who contributed to the events in Research Week, which was hosted by
the Division of Research and Graduate Studies. Congratulations to Dr. James McCubrey, a professor of microbiology and immunology at the
Brody School of Medicine, who received the University Lifetime Achievement
award, as well as Derek Alderman, a professor of geography, and Reide Corbett, a professor of geology, each who received
the Five-Year Achievement awards. As I listened as each researcher presented a
seminar of their work, I was impressed by how their research can serve to
better our lives, with Professor Alderman’s research on the significance behind
historical monuments, Professor Corbett’s study of the effects of hurricanes on
sediment deposits and the environment, and Dr McCubrey’s
research on medical treatments for leukemia and breast cancer. Congratulations to our distinguished
colleagues!
Chair
Taggart noted that a governing body only works when members of that body
participate and represent others. That has
been the case with this year’s Senate, and we need to thank especially those
Senators who are leaving after today’s meeting.
He then asked the body to take a moment to please join him in thanking
these senators for their service.
Taggart then reminded the Senators of the upcoming Commencement
Ceremonies on Saturday, May 5, 2007. He
stated that ECU was moving the graduation ceremony outdoors this year. In honor of the 100th year after
our founding, our graduates will be wearing purple robes. He asked that faculty all do their part to
make this year’s ceremony memorable for our graduates by having a big turnout
from the faculty. Let’s set a record for
faculty participation in this historic event!
There was no unfinished business to
come before the body at this time.
Agenda
Item III. Special Order of the Day
C. Chancellor’s
Report.
Chancellor Ballard reported
on the Continuity of Instruction report submitted by a group led by Elmer Poe
concerning contingency plans for a possible avian flu epidemic. The report constitutes a possible blueprint
to continue instruction if classes are not able to meet physically; in
particular, options for internet-based teaching.
The Chancellor announced a
planned visit by GA’s UNC Tomorrow group which is looking into, among other
issues, how to deal with the expected influx of new students and a switch to a
trimester system. We will have multiple chances for inputs over next year.
Chancellor Ballard also
informed the faculty that a GA consulting group and UNC Vice President Martin
are studying ways to improve student retention and graduation rates. He then
commented on Legislators’ discussion of the possibility of cutting millions of
dollars from the budget due to a perceived excess of middle management at the
University, and efforts to educate them on the need of such personnel to deal
with matters such as compliance with federal regulations.
The Chancellor then
highlighted some of ECU’s recent accomplishments in community based academic
medicine, noting that BSOM’s Physicians Practice Plan
is successfully turning around its financial situation: $15 million dollars in
savings and added revenue has been achieved, with hopes of doubling that
amount. He affirmed that ECU’s status with the Board of Governors is improved
and perhaps the best ever, especially with respect to our delivery of DE
courses. He cited recognition by GA, the Board of Governors, and state
legislators that we respond to state demands, and foresees the approval by our
Board of Trustees of the overview of our Strategic Directions. He also called
attention to achievements in faculty compensation toward our goal of attaining
the 80th percentile in relation to our peer institutions, as well as
continued improvements in infrastructure.
Chancellor Ballard then
addressed priority challenges facing ECU: improving diversity in all areas, and
finding revenue sources other than student tuition and state appropriations to
deal with enrollment growth.
Schenarts (Medicine) asked if planning is underway to deal
with campus safety issues such as a lockdown in case of a Virginia Tech-type
incident, and if formal condolences had been sent to Virginia Tech. The
Chancellor responded that he attended a meeting with representatives from many
institutions concerning campus safety, and plans are under review by ECU and
local officials to answer questions such as under what circumstances a lockdown
would be necessary, how to rapidly communicate in a crisis situation, and how
on-campus housing could deal with such threats. He added that he had sent
condolences and an offer to assist in any way possible on behalf of the ECU
community.
Long (History) asked the
status is of the +/- grade resolution. Chancellor Ballard responded that the
newly elected SGA officers will meet with Prof. Wendy Sharer, Chair of the
Recruitment & Retention Committee, and Vice Chancellor of Students Marilyn
Sheerer on Apr. 23rd, and that he believes a decision on the final
details of the policy will be reached then.
Rigsby (Geology) stated
that, last year, administrative raises were significantly higher than those of
the faculty, and asked how administrative raises had been decided upon. The
Chancellor replied that his approach was to give to Deans and Chairs the same
size pool, which last year was 6.9%, and that that dollar amount was not to be
exceeded. He also stated that he had discussed this issue with Provost Smith,
and intends to do so with the Academic Council as well.
Tovey (English) inquired
what kind of campus based tuition increase students are facing this year.
Chancellor Ballard answered that the legislature assigned campuses a limit, but
that limit depends on legislative support. Most years there is an increase of
about 3.5% to get to 6.5% two-year total average, but that this year it would
more likely be in the 1-2% range, as students given their fair share.
D. Provost and
Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs’ Report
Provost Smith was out of town attending a UNC Chief Academic Officers’ meeting.
Discussion on a proposed draft Faculty Applicant Verification of Continued
Interest and Fitness was postponed until a later date.
E. Vice Chancellor for Research and Graduate
Studies’ Report
Vice
Chancellor Mageean presented the Draft
Division of Research and Graduate Studies Strategic Plant, which contains
five core goals with specific sub-goals and cost estimates. In general, the goal
is to double research productivity, which will need to be assessed employing a
variety of metrics in different disciplines. She addressed the issues of start
up funds, seed money, and awards, noting that there are many areas of need. Other areas of emphasis are administrative
infrastructure, new hires, and a planning efficiency & productivity study.
This study would include the management of grant & grant applications and
faculty recruitment. He noted a rate of research growth of 90% over the last
year, and of 15% the year before. The study will also involve consultation with
many groups, and a survey concerning such topics as teaching loads, tracks,
cluster hiring or hiring teams to achieve critical mass in research,
translation of applied research into economic growth, and creative works toward
the objective of creating a culture of
innovation and entrepreneurship.
Sprague (Physics) asked:
Where does an east campus science department fit in, regarding infrastructure
needs? Vice Chancellor Mageean stated that a building to replace Howell is the
top priority, with another science building hopefully to follow.
Smith (Technology and
Computer Science) inquired if goals for the increase in research are
proportional for present and new faculty. The Vice Chancellor replied that
there is a considerable amount of faculty turnover at present, and that new
hires are made aware of developing research expectations.
Roberts (Philosophy) asked
what the basis was for the goal of doubling the rate of peer-reviewed
publications, since it is overwhelming the faculty and not the administration
that will produce these publications. The Vice Chancellor answered by citing
two year trends from 2005-06 showing an average of 3.9 grant proposals per
recipient, and that for these there had already been a 2 to 1 return on the university’s
investment. She stated that her philosophy is to set goals high to attain
greater achievement.
Riley-Tillman (Psychology)
voiced a concern that the emphasis on recruiting and initial support to hire
more attractive candidates was not matched by an equivalent effort to retain
present faculty, positing that it is cheaper to retain than to attract. He
asked what efforts are underway to improve retention. Professor Mageean stated
that GA in recent times had been very generous in providing funds for retention.
Abdel Raman (Medicine)
inquired about ECU’s system for rewarding faculty, citing the fact that recent
average raises for Deans and Chairs were higher than corresponding increases
for faculty. Chancellor Ballard replied that a straight numerical comparison
doesn’t consider the yearly contract length, and Vice Chancellor Mageean
pointed out that one reason faculty enjoy a nine month contract is to spend the
other three months going after external funds.
F. Chair of the Faculty’s Report
Chair Taggart (Music) stated
that a
simple scan of the items appearing on the agenda will verify that ECU continues
to grow and become more complex. With
this growth, there will be times when the traditional definitions of the
elements of shared governance found in our Faculty Manual might need to be
reexamined. The development of our
Interdisciplinary Institute of Coastal Science and Policy, and its current
search for a director, is an example of our changing times.
Does
the director of an interdisciplinary institute that promotes, develops,
facilitates, coordinates, and supports interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary
coastal research, teaching, and outreach programs fall into the category of
“unit administrator”? Chair Taggart stated that he did not think so, partly
because the mission of this institute is to encompass research and teaching
that would involve several units. If the
director of such an institute defies typical classification, then what about
the faculty engaged in scholarship in the Institute? How is their research to be assessed, as they
apply for promotion or tenure?
In
the search for a director of the IISCP, many such questions arose. We had to make corrections to the search
process when we realized that this should be an Appendix L search, even though
this administrator would not be fulfilling the functions of department chair,
dean or vice chancellor. Another issue
is: who are the voting faculty for the purpose of choosing a search committee
and for voting on the acceptability of the nominees for this position? This is where we are right now with this
search.
Chair
Taggart stated that he believed that, after consultation with the Faculty
Officers, other faculty and administration that have a stake in this institute
that a solution is at hand. I would like
to recommend that, for this search, we be as inclusive as we possibly can. We should follow the definitions found in
Appendix L describing voting faculty whenever we can. But we also must encompass and embrace all tenured and probationary term
faculty who have been and will be involved in the scholarship of the
institute. We may need to take our
recommendations to our Provost in order to provide a Faculty Manual
interpretation for this search. Then, we
need to examine interdisciplinary studies, joint appointments, searches for
institute directors, and so on, as they relate to our Faculty Manual, in hopes
of providing guidance for future growth.
If some of the recommendations found in the draft of the strategic plan
for the development of research and graduate studies come to fruition, we will
need to be prepared for this.
G. Faculty Assembly Delegate’s Report
Ken Wilson (Sociology)
presented a report on the Faculty
Assembly Meeting of March 23, 2007.
He reported that the GA possesses a detailed database down to the unit
level of graduation rates, and is looking into drop policies and academic
standards. He stated that enrollment increases in coming years are projected to
be 60% minority. The need for background checks is also being discussed, and GA
and the Faculty Assembly are lobbying hard for increased state support of graduate
students.
Glascoff (Health and Human
Performance) pointed out that the Board of Governors is pushing textbook
rentals for large introductory courses, furthermore noting that by ordering
texts early, professors can save students money.
Rigsby (Geology) asserted
that data collection on graduation rates is reason for concern—especially in
relation to post tenure review. She affirmed that one administrator asked her
“how do I get rid of faculty who don’t pass enough students in basic courses”?
Professor Wilson responded that the theory is not lower standards, but to bring
students to higher levels of achievement.
H. Question Period
Sprague (Physics) informed Mageean that his unit had been promised
graduate student tuition remissions in support of the PhD in Biomedical
Physics, and had in turn promised these remissions to
all of the students they recruited. Vice Chancellor Mageean stated that
she had inherited many such guarantees from previous administrators, and had
done her best to honor them as circumstances permitted, but that due to the
growing number of PhD programs in the HCAS, and the fact that remissions from
the State had remained flat, it is not always possible, and probably unwise to
continue to make such promises.
She stated she will attempt to create competitive in-house remissions,
university graduate fellowships, and find funds to pay for prospective
students’ campus visits. She affirmed that increasing stipends to a minimum of
$15,000 is a top priority, but that the present system of defining and granting
assistantships is disorganized, and that getting external grants was the only
long-term solution.
Dean Pellicane then added that we need to be creative, and to make
expectations on all parts clear; he also observed that another adversity faced
is that foreign students cannot gain in-state status. He informed the Senate
that remissions from the state have been stagnant at 154 for the last eight
years, but that ECU has recently added 10 new MA and 6 PhD programs, with 166
doctoral students on campus at last count. He noted we have created 60 in-state
internal remissions from the assistantship money pool, and that Deans are free
to decide the proportion of those available.
Brown (Psychology) asked Vice Chancellor Mageean if she could clarify
who makes changes in policy concerning the Research and Creative Activity
Grants. She responded that the monies come from her division, but that the
Senate committee recommends all rules changes to the Senate. The committee
makes its recommendations, but she tries to remain as “hands off” as possible.
With respect to the recent change prohibiting new hires, who can also receive
start-up funds from those monies, from also requesting grants, she stated that
the committee was attempting to stop “double dipping” to keep funds available
for people without other sources. She highlighted the need for such rules to be
communicated to the ECU community, and that they can be revised by the
appropriate Senate committee at any time.
Rose (Nursing) asserted that the nursing program has 400 graduate
students, yet the school has only seen 15 applications by a time by which they
should be sending out acceptances. Dean Pellicane answered that progress has
been made, that the
Long (History) mentioned President Bowles’ goal of changing to
trimesters by Fall of 2008 and inquired, now that it has become a part of the
UNC Tomorrow policy study, could we still expect it to be in place by then.
Chancellor Ballard replied that policy study’s report would not be finished for
at least a year, so it doesn’t seem likely.
Brown (Education) observed that last fall Chancellor Ballard and
President Bowles called for increased effort to recruit new students in high
need professions such as teacher education and nursing, noting in particular
the need to fill the approaching vacancies for 10,000 teaching positions across
the state of
Agenda
Item V. Report of Committees
A. Academic Standards Committee
Linda Wolfe (Anthropology),
Chair of the Academic Standards Committee, first presented the proposed Policy
on Disruptive Academic Behavior. She
noted that the reference to “WP or WF” in the new section should be changed to
“drop”. This was accepted as
editorial.
Rigsby (Geology) noted that
the statement that reads: “The dean or dean’s designee will review the appeal
and the documentation and can affirm, reverse or modify the decision made by
the instructor and department chair” seems
to imply that this can be done
without consulting the instructor. Michael Brown (Psychology) affirmed that
this was not the intention, to which Rigsby replied that the policy should then
state that. She also inquired what would happen if a student had already used
their three drops? Wolfe responded that it would not count against that limit.
Rigsby moved to add “will
discuss the appeal with the faculty member” and Tovey (English) added “after
discussion with student and instructor” so that the entire sentence in the 5th
paragraph reads: “The dean or dean’s designee will review the appeal and the
documentation, will discuss the appeal with the faculty member and, after
discussion with the student and instructor, can affirm, reverse or modify the
decision made by the instructor and department chair.” The amendments were approved.
Niswander (Business) observed that the policy only
provided students three days to make an appeal and the Dean three days to
review appeal, which is very little time, and that faculty needed to be certain
they are comfortable with that.
Long (History) asked what would happen if that does
not take place. Niswander answered that, if there was no response to the appeal
in the specified time frame, the student could conceivably take ECU to court.
Following discussion, the
proposed Policy on Disruptive Academic Behavior was approved as amended. RESOLUTION #07-13 (Once approved, this new policy will be added
to the ECU Faculty Manual, Part V.
Academic Information, Section I.Y.)
The Faculty Senate also
approved the addition of the proposed Policy on Disruptive Academic Behavior
into the official undergraduate catalog, Section 5. Academic Regulations,
immediately after the “Class Attendance and Participation Regulations”
subsection. RESOLUTION #07-14
Professor
Wolfe then presented a Review of Procedures and Instruments for Peer Review of
Teaching.
She observed that a review
of the policy every three years is mandated. She said that Professor Dot
Clayton gathered the data, which was placed on a website, and that the
committee reviewed the information and did not see major problems. The
committee did recommend that new chairs be informed of policy, and that new
faculty be informed in their orientation. The report was accepted as presented.
Following that report,
Professor Wolfe presented for information only the courses approved by the
Committee for Foundation Credit. Those
included: (a) The following courses were passed to receive Social Science Foundation
credit: POLS 3042, SOCI 3219, SOCI 3025, SOCI 4300, SOCI 4400;
(b) The following courses were passed to receive Math Foundation credit: MATH
2151, MATH 2152, MATH 2153; (c) The following courses were passed to receive
Humanities credit: MRST 2400, MRST 2500, CLAS 2600, CLAS 3600, ENGL 3660, ENGL
3670, ENGL 4370, GRK 4001, GRK 4002.
There was no discussion on this report.
B. Faculty Welfare Committee
David Lawrence (Geology),
Chair of the Committee, presented a proposed
revision to the ECU Faculty Manual,
Part VI.I.I.2.a.(8) Reference Parking for Retired Faculty. Instead of the
current text that reads: “8) Free campus parking decal, valid in
all staff and University registered locations, with the exception of private
parking lots.” The text should read:
“8) Fully
retired faculty may request a free B parking permit and may also park in spaces
designated "Retired Faculty."
Faculty in phased retirement and retired faculty who are re-employed by the
university may request a free B parking permit and may
upgrade the B permit to an A permit (by paying the price difference between an
A and a B permit) while bypassing the wait-list, but may not park in spaces
designated "Retired Faculty.”
Professor Lawrence stated
that there had been concern expressed by faculty that some might be bumped from
A parking spaces if this policy was enacted and that therefore, after
consultation with all concerned parties, it is recommended that retired faculty
would receive free B parking stickers, and that Parking Services will monitor
usage patterns to see if there were any negative effects caused by the new
policy.
Tovey (English) asked him to
confirm that they would also receive free shuttle service to and from the B
spaces. Professor Lawrence responded that that will be the case.
Following discussion, the revision to the ECU Faculty Manual, Part VI.I.I.2.a.(8) in reference to
parking privileges for retired faculty was
approved as presented. RESOLUTION
07-15
C. Libraries Committee
Marianna Walker (Allied Health
Sciences), Chair of the Committee, presented a review of both the Joyner
Library and Laupus Library Operating Budgets. There was no discussion. Professor Walker then presented for
information data on the Institutional Repository and Rising Costs of Electronic
Journals/Databases.
D. Unit Code Screening Committee
The discussion and approval
of two new department unit codes of operation were withdrawn.
E. University Athletics Committee
Steve Estes (Health and Human Performance), Chair of the Committee,
presented a report on ECU and Intercollegiate Athletics. Professor Estes
reported on the reconfiguration of the committee following best practices,
increasing Faculty Senate oversight and consistency with practices at other
institutions. He affirmed the committee’s belief that, as best they can tell,
ECU athletics operates with integrity with respect to the institution’s
educational mission. He also recognized that systemic problems and pressures
exist in intercollegiate athletics that we must continue to face. He stated
that the biggest problem is that university athletics are viewed as
entertainment, but declared that that is not the case at ECU, and commended the
athletics department for it consistent cooperation.
F. University Curriculum Committee
David
Long (History), member of the Committee presented the curriculum matters
contained in the minutes of the April
12, 2007, Committee meeting. There
was no discussion and the minutes were approved as presented. RESOLUTION #07-16
G. University Environment
Committee
Charles Hodson (Medicine), Chair of the Committee, presented first the
revised report on the area near the softball field and Frisbee golf and second
on the revised report on Campus Green Space.
Rigsby (Geology) asked about the plan to develop
Kim (Art)
noted that the sign for the library entrance facing the street is not very
visible when driving in. Chair Hodson said he would pass this concern on to
Facilities Services, who were in charge of grounds keeping and signage.
There was one item of new
business to come before the body and it required a 2/3rd vote to be
presented. Once a vote was taken, Dale Knickerbocker (Foreign Languages and
Literatures), Chair of the Educational Policies and Planning Committee, offered
for information only, the following items of business: (1) School of Allied
Health Sciences: Discontinue Masters in Physical Therapy; (2) School of
Nursing: Adult Nurse Practitioner Post Master’s Certificate; (3) College of
Technology and Computer Science: transfer the M.S. in Software Engineering from
the Department of Technology Systems to the Department of Computer Science; (4)
College of Business: Certificate in Supply Chain Management and Certificate in
Professional Investment Management and Operations.
Respectfully
submitted,
Dale
Knickerbocker Lori
Lee
Secretary
of the Faculty Administrative
Officer
Department
of Foreign Languages and Literatures Faculty
Senate office
FACULTY SENATE RESOLUTIONS APPROVED AT THE
APRIL 17, 2007, MEETING
07-13 Policy on Disruptive Academic Behavior as follows:
Disruptive
academic behavior is any behavior likely to substantially or repeatedly
interfere with the normal conduct of instructional activities, including
meetings with instructors outside of class. Examples of such behavior include,
but are not limited to, making loud or distracting noises; using cell phones
and other electronic devices without prior approval; repeatedly speaking
without being recognized; frequently arriving late to class; and making threats
or personal insults. A verbal expression of a disagreement with the instructor
or other students on an academic subject matter discussed within the course,
during times when the instructor permits discussion, is not in itself disruptive
academic behavior.
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. A student who
does not follow reasonable standards of academic decorum should receive a
private verbal warning from the faculty member. The instructor should describe
the behavior of concern to the student, explain that it is inappropriate, and
ask the student to stop the behavior. If the behavior continues, the instructor
should give the student a written warning indicating that the student will be
removed from the course if the behavior does not cease. If the behavior
persists, the instructor should discuss the situation with his/her department
chair. If it is decided to remove the student from the course then the
instructor should schedule a meeting with his/her department chair and the
student to inform the student that s/he is being removed from the course. This
decision must be communicated in writing to the student with a copy promptly
forwarded to the Office of Student Rights and Responsibilities. The department
chair must promptly communicate the decision in writing to the Office of the
Registrar so that the student’s schedule will be adjusted accordingly.
If
the behavior is threatening in nature or is likely to result in immediate harm,
the faculty member should contact the East Carolina University Police
Department for assistance.
The
student may appeal the decision of the instructor and department chair to the
academic dean of the college in which the course is located. The appeal must be
received by the dean, in writing, within three working days of the date of the
decision to remove the student from the course. The dean or dean’s designee
will review the appeal and the documentation, will discuss the appeal with the
faculty member and, after discussion with the student and instructor, can
affirm, reverse or modify the decision made by the instructor and department
chair. The student, instructor and department chair will be notified of the
appeal decision no later than three working days after receiving the appeal.
The dean will provide written notification of the appeal decision to the Office
of Student Rights and Responsibilities, and also, if the original decision is
overturned, to the Registrar’s Office. If the decision is made that the student
is to return to the course then the student will be allowed to immediately
return to the classroom without academic penalty and the chair will work with
the student and instructor to facilitate the completion of any missed work. The
dean’s decision is final.
This
policy does not restrict the instructor’s prerogative to ask a disruptive
student to leave an individual class session where appropriate or to refer the
student to the Office of Student Rights and Responsibilities for violation of
the Student Code of Conduct.
(Once
approved, this new policy will be added to the ECU Faculty Manual, Part V. Academic Information, Section I.Y.)
Disposition: Chancellor
07-14 Addition of Policy on Disruptive Academic Behavior to
the official undergraduate catalog, Section 5. Academic Regulations,
immediately after the “Class Attendance and Participation Regulations”
subsection.) to read as follows:
“Policy on Disruptive Academic Behavior
Disposition: Chancellor
“8) Fully retired
faculty may request a free B parking permit and may also park in spaces
designated "Retired Faculty."
Faculty in phased retirement and retired faculty who are re-employed by the
university may request a free B parking permit and may
upgrade the B permit to an A permit (by paying the price difference between an
A and a B permit) while bypassing the wait-list, but may not park in spaces
designated "Retired Faculty.”
Disposition: Chancellor
07-16 Curriculum matters contained in the minutes of
the April
12, 2007, University Curriculum Committee meeting (available online).
Disposition: Chancellor