East Carolina University

FACULTY SENATE

FULL MINUTES OF APRIL 21, 2009

The eighth regular meeting of the 2008-2009 Faculty Senate was held on Tuesday, April 21, 2009, in the Mendenhall Student Center Great Room.

Agenda Item I. Call to Order

Jan Tovey, Chair of the Faculty called the meeting to order at 2:10 p.m.

Agenda Item II. Approval of Minutes

The minutes of March 31, 2009, were approved as distributed.

Agenda Item III. Special Order of the Day

A. Roll Call

Senators absent were: Professors Greene and Gabbard (Education), Heidal (Nutrition and Dietetics), and Pagliari (Technology and Computer Science).

Alternates present were: Professors Kros for Paul (Business), Atkinson for McFadden (Education), Boklage for Novick (Medicine), Moll for Grymes (Music), and Larson for Eason (Nursing).

B. Announcements

1. The Chancellor has approved the following resolution from the February 24, 2009, meeting:

09-13 Curriculum matters contained in the minutes of the January 22, 2009, and February 12, 2009,
Committee meetings.

The Chancellor has approved the following resolutions from the March 31, 2009, meeting:

09-16 Spring 2009 Graduation Roster, including honors program graduates, subject to the complete of degree requirements.

09-20 Addition to ECU Faculty Manual, Appendix D, Section V. Procedure for Review of Notice of Non-Reappointment or Non-Conferral of Permanent Tenure.

2. The Chancellor has rescinded his approval of the following resolution from the March 31, 2009, meeting:

09-19 Revisions to the ECU Faculty Manual, Appendix C, Personnel Policies and Procedures for the Faculty of ECU.

3. Faculty interested in periodically receiving issues of The Chronicle of Higher Education are asked to call the Faculty Senate office at 328-6537 and place their name on a list for distribution.

4. In an effort to keep faculty members informed of campus activities, Board of Trustees meeting agendas and schedules are distributed electronically to all faculty. Faculty are welcome to attend these open meetings.

5. The following resolution will require general faculty approval at this Fall’s Faculty Convocation, scheduled for Monday, August 24, 2009, in the Wright Auditorium.

Resolution #09-06

Approved by the Faculty Senate: January 27, 2009

Approved by the General Faculty: pending

Approved by the Chancellor: pending

Revisions to the ECU Faculty Manual, Appendix A. Faculty Constitution, Section VII. Method of Election of the Faculty Senate to read as follows: (Additions are noted in bold print)

“Each senator shall serve a two-year term. Senators may be elected to succeed themselves twice. After a lapse of one year following the expiration of this third term, they will again be eligible for election. The seat of an elected senator who fails to attend more than three consecutively held meetings of the Faculty Senate shall be declared vacated by the Chair of the Faculty. If a senator is awarded a research or medical leave and an alternate senator attends in his or her place, the three consecutive meeting rule will not be invoked.”

6. The following faculty members are graduates of the Engagement and Outreach Scholars Academy and were honored at the ceremony on April 20, 2009. More information on their specific projects is available through the Center for Faculty Excellence.
Jane Painter, College of Allied Health Sciences

Sharon D. Rogers, College of Health and Human Performance

Michael Harris, College of Business

David N. Collier, Brody School of Medicine

Jeannie Golden, Thomas Harriot College of Arts and Sciences

Paige Averett, College of Human Ecology

Gene Dixon, College of Technology and Computer Science

Kim L. Larson, College of Nursing

Rebecca Dumlao, College of Fine Arts and Communication

Kylie Dotson-Blake, College of Education

C. Steve Ballard, Chancellor

Chancellor Ballard stated that his remarks would focus on recent events regarding the budget, which seems to change daily, and that Vice Chancellor Horns would have more details related to the Division of Health Sciences. He also noted that Vice Chancellor Horns is now the permanent Vice Chancellor of the Health Sciences Division of the University. The Chancellor stated that he had three conclusions, or things to keep in mind, of what we think we are seeing on April 21^st are:

1) The tremendous uncertainty that we have been seeing since January continues. Estimates on tax revenue as well as how the University system will be treated vary by the office that one walks into in the legislature. It would be a mistake to think that any conclusions can be reached at this time; President Bowles, in a meeting of the Chancellors yesterday, said that no one knows how the University system will fare in the new state budget.

2) We continue to try to respond to a moving target. We expect this uncertainty to extend at least until the month of July. We will be dealing with budget uncertainty at least until the middle of the summer; the estimated range of 7% recurring state budget cut, in the best case, to 10-15% cuts.

3) It is a guessing game since there are different perspectives on funding and revenue projections. The revenue projections are due on May 4^th. President Bowles makes a presentation to the House Appropriations Committee on May 5^th; this is arguably the most important presentation that President Bowles will make in the three and a half years that he as been in this position. As an illustration, we do not expect full enrollment growth funding will be approved by the House at this point and this is a huge variable in figuring out the University budget. Full funding would be $8 million.

There are four or five events to keep in mind:

1) President Bowles address to the legislature on May 5^th

2) The state’s cash flow problem; the recent freeze and the reduction in money coming to the University will necessary to balance the budget but will be a huge hardship until the end of the fiscal year.

3) The recent emergency restrictions from the Office of Budget and Management has been distributed on ECU Official. All the Vice Chancellors, Division leaders and Deans have been asked to comply with these restrictions while requesting as few exceptions as possible; we have been told that there will be penalties for making exceptions for expenditures that we took for granted several months ago. For example, travel is restricted unless it is funded from federal or other grant money. Several legislators are saying that if the University can fund something in any other manner than they obviously do not need state support for travel. ECU will be very careful in the response to these budget restrictions. No one likes these new rules, but we must comply and we expect these restrictions to continue until the state budget is signed. Even the purchase of print paper is impacted by this freeze.

4) Another issue is furloughs; most legislators are indicating that the furlough plan will be allowed. How they will be implemented will be totally up to the Governor.

5) The Budget Task Force report is now public; most of the day on April 27^th will be spent reviewing recommendations made by this Task Force. Everyone’s input is welcomed as we figure out what mechanisms can be best utilized for responding to the budget cuts that are required of the University. It is hoped that a implementation plan will be ready on May 8^th for the first phase of the budget cuts for a 7% budget reduction. There will be a continuous campus review of these budget reduction measures and the implementation plan, and all of these plans will be shared with the Faculty Officers.

Professor Martinez (Foreign Languages and Literatures) made a motion to suspend the rules and substitute the current resolution under new business with a new resolution that she then proceeded to read to the group following a prepared statement.

We applaud the Chancellor’s decision to “instruct all academic VC’s to allow no cuts to the instructional budget until at least May 8^th and until they have personally reviewed the Dean’s cuts in those areas mandated by the Board as priority areas to cut” (as expressed in his letter to Nicholas Georgalis, Philosophy). We also applaud the Provost's willingness to share information about ECU’s cost-cutting efforts, as demonstrated in the Administrative Reduction Report that was shared with the Faculty Senate at its March meeting. With the following resolution, we hope to continue such transparency and improve the success of efforts to make non-instructional cuts.

RESOLUTION on the UNIVERSITY BUDGET

Whereas, the mission of ECU is to serve as a national model for public service and regional transformation in this economically depressed part of the state, and

Whereas, the March 20 Values Statement of the UNC Board of Governors unequivocally calls on all constituent institutions to give academic instruction the top priority in the present circumstances, and

Whereas, the March 19 ECU Board of Trustees Policy Framework indicates that Academic Program reductions or eliminations are a last resort, and

Whereas, ECU Faculty Senate acknowledges the commitment of ECU Administration to these values, policies and support of EPA and SPA employees, and

Whereas, program removal requires thorough review, with full faculty participation and oversight, to assess potential impacts on the quality of university’s educational mission,

Whereas, the present faculty and staff have performed commendably in driving an increase both in enrollment and in research productivity in recent years;

Therefore be it resolved that the ECU Faculty Senate respectfully requests that Chancellor Ballard continue to keep us informed about budgetary changes that directly impact employment, including plans for eliminating and filling administrative, EPA non-teaching, faculty, and staff positions.

Be it further resolved that the ECU Faculty Senate respectfully requests that the reduction of faculty members available for classroom instruction be the absolute last resort.

Be it further resolved that the ECU Faculty Senate requests that no areas of the university’s budget be removed from consideration for reduction while reductions in force or compensation for EPA and SPA employees are being contemplated.

Be it further resolved that the ECU Faculty Senate requests meaningful faculty participation in both major and final budgetary decisions via the in-place shared governance procedures and policies outlined in the ECU Faculty Manual, the UNC Code, the UNC Board of Governors, and the ECU Board of Trustees Policy Framework.

Be it further resolved that the ECU Faculty Senate requests that the ECU Administration affirm that financial exigency will be called for only as a last resort and that major curtailment will not take place without the aforementioned faculty participation.

Be it further resolved that the ECU Faculty Senate will aid and support ECU Administration in efforts to maintain current academic instruction, programs, employee compensation and job status.

Professor Niswander (Business) stated point of order and questioned the parliamentary procedure for substituting a motion already a part of the agenda and that this constituted a change in the order of business. Chair Tovey responded that at this time the body needed to vote on whether or not to suspend the rules and that a motion to consider a suspension requires a 2/3 vote.

Professor Sprague (Physics) asked if Professor Martinez was free to bring this resolution up again when considering the other resolution under new business if the motion to suspend the rules failed. Professor Niswander (Business) stated that yes, anytime a motion was on the floor it could be amended, etc. If the body decides that it can not take up the resolution right now, it can be brought up again later in the meeting. Following discussion, the motion to suspend the rules was voted on by the Faculty Senate. The motion to consider the motion at this time did not carry.

Professor Sprague (Physics) asked several questions of Chancellor Ballard, in reference to the last Board of Governors meeting. First, under what circumstances would Chancellor Ballard set ECU on the course for financial exigency? Secondly, what would we do if exigency were declared that we could not do under the other? Why would UNC – Chapel Hill differ from ECU on this issue. Chancellor Ballard stated that there is not much comparable between ECU and UNC-Chapel Hill ; ECU’s budget is only 35% of the UNC- Ch budget so they have more options, and that he does not take guidance from Chancellor Thorpe when it comes to managing the University. Chancellor Ballard stated that he could not rule anything out and that he was supporting the Board of Trustees and that he actually worked for ECU’s Board, Erskine Bowles, and General Administration. He stated that only under certain circumstances, if it were necessary (12% or higher) would the Board of Trustees would want to be involved. All options must be kept open, but the topic of financial exigency had not yet come up by the Board of Trustees. There are no plans or discussions by the Board of Governors that now is the time for such a declaration. Thus the Chancellor has no power to declare exigency. He assured the Faculty Senators that he would involve at least two of the standing University Academic Committees in order to agree upon a plan.

David Brody, incoming Chair of the ECU Board of Trustees, stated that financially exigency is the Armageddon factor nobody wants to declare financial exigency and that nobody in General Administration currently knows the rules on that. The Board and Chancellor are open to communication and the Chancellor has to report to the General Administration and legislature as he should. Incoming Chair Brody also stated that he agreed with “all of the whereas statements and most of the resolved statements in the proposed resolution”. The Chancellor reports to the President of the University System and to the ECU Board of Trustees, and he assured the Senators that exigency would be the last option that would be considered.

Professor Rigsby (Geology) thanked Chancellor Ballard and incoming Chair Brody for the clear statements and expressed support for shared faculty governance. She stated that she thought faculty understood that the final decision rests with the Chancellor and Board and with final approval from General Administration and legislature. There are still things going on within units that are conflicting in what is being said. She stated that some units have been asked to prioritize, with names of fixed term faculty, who will be laid off if the budget gets bad. This has resulted in the joint resolution requesting clear communication and a review of all administrative stipends. If faculty and administrators are being asked to prioritize those to let go, isn’t it fair to leave everything else on the table for discussion. Administrative positions and non EPA teaching positions are currently being advertised. Is the Chancellor willing to stop searches and do everything possible to keep teaching faculty? Chancellor Ballard replied yes and that he will recommend Professor Rigsby for a meritorious service award for her undying efforts to get this issue relating to the budget out for discussion.

Chancellor Ballard stated that classroom sizes would need to be increased since K-12 classrooms are being enlarged. He stated that as for stipends, some should be stopped immediately and others can not be changed without due diligence and discussion. He stated that he is doing everything possible to protect the instructional budget, but that a lot of the State’s budget went to instruction. He confirmed that Deans have been asked to plan for dire needs and be able to provide for 10% and 12% cuts with most options in the resolution to remain on the table. He stated that ECU was a leader in administering administrative cuts. The mandates are to save money and the University Budget Task Force is looking across the board at ways to save money. Every option is on the table right now, with all deans told that they must cut administrative costs first. There are searches that have been stopped and with the freeze this summer, it will mandate the termination of any searches whatsoever. Chancellor Ballard continued that in order to stop placing the University at risks with its involvement in certain business practices an Enterprise Risk Manager was needed so that search will continue and is a strategic priority that the Board has given the Chancellor.

Professor Christian (Business) stated that his Business faculty did not support the distributed proposed resolution and felt that things were transparent within the College of Business. Professor Stiller (Biology) stated that he understood that the budget was a fluid situation, with a May 8 target date, but was it safe to assume that cuts would be based on 7% in phase 1. Chancellor Ballard stated that the budget situation now does not correlate with what was discussed in December.

Professor Schenarts (Medicine) asked if there were mechanisms in place so that we know when things get better? Also he stated that faculty needed to be ready to address whatever matrix and measures are in place to be proactive when the economy improves. Otherwise ECU will be behind other institutions that get the jump. Chancellor Ballard stated that yes, by 2011 or 2012 when the economy turns around, ECU would be ready to go. Incoming Chair David Brody stated that he loved that question and that that was exactly what the Board challenged the administration to start the process of planning ahead and be proactive and be more relevant to the current situation. He stated that the Chancellor was working with the Board of Governor’s guidelines and that was what all should follow.

Professor Robinson (Mathematics) asked if the administration would consider looking at things other than just seniority when cutting personnel? Would the administration first consider recalling those who are laid-off back? Chancellor Ballard replied yes and that his administration would look at both seniority and performance when making personnel cuts.

Professor Glascoff (Health and Human Performance) stated that faculty within the College of Health and Human Performance applauded the Chancellor for his efforts. Professor Jenkins (Allied Health Sciences) stated that faculty within his unit had voted 90% against the distributed resolution and he expressed their faculty support for the Chancellor.

D. Phyllis Horns, Vice Chancellor for Health Sciences

Vice Chancellor Horns stated that the Health Sciences Division was comprised of the Brody School of Medicine, College of Allied Health Sciences, College of Nursing, School of Dentistry, and the Laupus Health Sciences Library. The East Carolina Heart Institute, Metabolic Institute, Center on Aging and Center for Health Services Research and Development along with some other entities also report to the HSD. In conjunction with our primary clinical partner, PCMH, we are classified as an Academic Health Sciences Center, one of about 100 similarly designated institutions nationwide. Additionally, it is important to restate that ECU does NOT own the hospital and even though their corporate umbrella is named “University Health Systems” this does not equate to ownership by the “University”. The hospital is a separate institution with its own governing board. There seems to be continuing misunderstanding about this fact among the general public, but I think it important that the ECU community be aware of this reality. ECU has a long term affiliation agreement with the hospital and BSOM does receive financial support from the hospital through contractual arrangements in which the hospital purchases, at fair market value, medical services provided to the hospital by ECU’s physician faculty. Last year this amount was approximately $30M. Federal laws prohibit the “gifting” of dollars from the hospital to the Medical School.

Funding for the HSD is somewhat different from the remainder of ECU in that funding for the Colleges of AHS & Nursing, and the MPH program are funded through the Enrollment Growth Funding Formula (16065 budget code) along with the remainder of ECU’s East Campus. The BSOM, School of Dentistry and Laupus Library are funded through a direct and fixed legislative allocation in a separate budget code--# 16066. The PhD programs in BSOM were recently added to the enrollment growth funding formula but the majority of their funding remains 16066 state dollars. Medicine and dentistry are considered as “Off Formula” funded and thus receive no direct dollars from enrollment growth. Several other disciplines in the UNC system are similar—Law, Vet Med, Pharmacy, etc. Another item for information—the BSOM’s all funds budget is approximately $200M/yr with ~$48M from State appropriations and ~$130M from Revenues generated by ECU Physicians, the multi-specialty physician clinical practice (patient care). This is a business being run by the Medical school and is a requirement for its teaching, research and service missions. In addition, the BSOM has about $30M in grants and contracts.

Over the course of the past decade when programs funded through enrollment growth received new dollars sufficient to offset budget cuts imposed by the state, the BSOM participated in annual budget cuts but did not participate in the infusion of new dollars from the enrollment growth. The cumulative impact has been a loss of over $34M of permanent funds from the medical school’s state funding. Obviously, this magnitude of loss is substantial forcing the School’s leadership to shift many legitimate & essential academic costs from state funding to the Practice Plan, contributing in part to the depletion of reserves and a near desperate financial condition of the Practice which became evident just over 2 years ago. Professor Horns stated that ECU Physicians has been engaged in a financial turnaround since that time. Despite great progress in this effort to date, Dr. Cunningham and his leadership team will be continuing this work for some time to come.

Professor Rigsby asked me several weeks ago to share with you some information about how we set salaries in the HSD specifically the BSOM and funding sources for faculty salaries. We use the AAMC salary benchmarks for Medical Schools in USA to determine salaries. These salary tables provide mean, median and mode data; 25%, 50%, 75% ratings; and are broken down by medical specialty, professorial rank, area of the country and several other variables. Thus, the school can determine a salary comparable for a physician in Endocrinology, General Surgery, Pediatric Hematology, maternal fetal medicine, sports medicine etc. Salaries for physician faculty vary greatly by medical specialty. We also get salary comparative data for life sciences faculty. The school strives to set and maintain salaries at the 50% of AAMC comparables but in reality many of the BSOM faculty fall well below this goal. For example, most of our life scientists are below the 25%, with many receiving compensation for a 12 month appointment BELOW the 9-month salary of their East campus colleagues in the Sciences. Those who have salary support from grants are split funded in a similar way as East Campus. For physician faculty whose role includes “patient care” the salary is generally funded totally or partially from patient care revenues or PCMH contracts through ECU Physicians. Many of our physician faculty receive very few dollars from State sources and some get none at all!!! Salaries for Physician faculty are market driven and must be competitive for retention. Virtually all our physician faculty have multiple outside opportunities for employment in this geographic area and elsewhere. Thus retention on our faculty is a high priority. A few examples of physician faculty salaries in BSOM (anonymous):

Total salary: $450,000—State funded portion $0

$386,150---State funded portion $16,850

$478,100---State funded portion $40,700

$190,000---State Funded portion $26,500

The other units in the HSD also use national benchmark data from AACN, AHC, and other organizations in determining comparables and setting salaries rather than CUPA data which are used more commonly in non-health sciences areas.

For some time now, I have heard concerns being expressed about the “east campus” funding “Medicine”. I have not been able to discover the exact origin of these questions. I want to assure this group that nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, there are a number of firewalls (including Dr. Sheerer and the Deans) which prevent this from occurring. The folks in medicine actually see the reverse as being more accurate. The medical school has over the past decade infused nearly $12M back into ECU through the auxiliary tax on ECU Physicians that was initiated in 1996 to reimburse ECU for some essential support services such as payroll, purchasing, etc. (At that time ECU Physicians had more than $70M in reserves). This last year the tax resulted in $1.6M to ECU. In addition, the PhD programs in BSOM provided the basis for ECU’s successful bid to become reclassified as Doctoral II institution by the UNC System in 1998 resulting in the receipt of more than $6M in additional permanent funding to the campus between 1999-2002. None of these dollars were allocated back to the BSOM.

There has been lots of concern and misunderstanding recently among the faculty about administrative stipends. I believe the AAUP resolution to be considered later in this meeting citing $4M per year & recommending that these be eliminated is reflecting this concern. I am here to report that just under $3M of these stipends are in the HSD and a large proportion are paid from NON-STATE dollars ($2,063,138M). The majority of Stipends in the HSD are paid to “Faculty members” who agree to take on additional “time limited” responsibilities beyond their regular duties. Many of these stipends are in support of the academic mission rather than being purely administrative in nature. For example, one of our current senators is receiving a stipend funded by PCMH for duties as a residency program director. Another faculty member receives an ECU physician’s funded stipend for serving as the MS III clerkship director. Two ECU faculty members (one East Campus and one West Campus) receive state funded stipends for chairing IRB’s. All persons receiving a stipend have a written contract which specifies the purpose and amount of the stipend as well as a notification that the stipend will be discontinued if the duties are no longer performed. To be very clear, the use of stipends is a necessary tool for getting all the work done. We do not have stipends being paid for unessential work and the work being supported by stipends cannot be eliminated. Thus, the blanket elimination of stipends would do irreparable damage to our academic core.

In accord with the Chancellors and BOT Policy framework for Resource allocation which sets the priorities for budget allocations—with Administrative Reductions being the first item to be addressed, we have been making administrative reductions in the HSD for the past several months and this continues today. Over the past year, we have achieved over $1.6M in administrative reductions. These reductions have been made possible by voluntary departures with duties reassigned to others and by the willingness of many faculty, staff and administrative employees to take on extra duties during this budget crisis. The reductions include: Elimination of 3 Associate Vice Chancellor positions and the combination of another Associate VC with an Assistant Dean position in the BSOM; Elimination of a Department administrator position; Elimination of an Assistant Director position; and Combining technical support duties into existing positions, among others. Every department and every unit in the HSD has done a line by line review of administrative costs to determine how best to achieve reductions in this area before reducing any other expenditures. Going forward we will continue to combine duties as feasible and ask existing administrative personnel to cover more territory.

During some recent meeting of the Budget Task Force several members indicated that they were unaware of the Pharmacy Services and Rapid Access program available to ALL ECU Employees and their dependents. Informational materials about these programs are at your places and we invite your participation.

Professor Wilson (Sociology) asked where were the rapid access centers. VC Horns responded that there was one in General Medicine (located at Moye Medical) and Family Medicine (located behind the Heart Institute) and that the center will depend on when appointments are available.

Professor Rigsby (Geology) thanked VC Horns for the information and wanted to make sure that everyone knew that many questions she offered to administration from time to time came from various faculty members across campus and were not always her own. She then asked VC Mageean if the emergency budgetary restrictions with state appropriated dollars and elimination of travel included activities and travel involving grant money. VC Mageean responded that no, it did not restrict external funds that covered activities and travel.

E. Jan Tovey, Chair of the Faculty

Professor Tovey stated that it was difficult to believe that it is the final meeting of the Senate for this academic year. It has been challenging and gratifying. First she thanked Lori Lee for always keeping her on target—or trying to. She stated that Lori’s knowledge of the Faculty Senate and the standing University committees saved her a great deal of effort. She also thanked the Faculty Officers (Professors Marianna Walker, Hunt McKinnon, and Ken Wilson) for their hard work all year. She stated that there have been some lively discussions of the group and she stated her appreciation for all the work they had done and the time they had given to the Faculty Senate. Professor Tovey thanked the senators and alternates who attended and participated in the monthly meetings and did committee work, and to all faculty who serve on committees and hold offices on those committees. It can be time consuming and intense, and the entire faculty benefits from your efforts. In particular, I want to say thanks to those Senators who will not return next year. I hope you’ll continue to serve the faculty in other ways. Thank you also to Chancellor Ballard, Provost Sheerer, and Vice Chancellors Horns and Mageean—they have been open with me and with the officers and their willingness to hear us out has been significant. I don’t always like what they do, and I tell them so, but again collaboration, especially with our budget news has been the key.

The Board of Trustees met last week, and in spite of the Senate’s parking resolution passed in February 2009, the Board did approve a minimal parking fee increase. Professor Tovey thanked Vice Chancellor Seitz and Associate VC Koch for working to keep the increase from being much larger. She stated that she had a copy of the proposal that outlined the increases and that in a nutshell, B permits increase by $1 per month, and A permits by $2 per month. Unfortunately, I expect next year, however, for the board to insist on further increases.

Professor Tovey stated that since last month, the committee charged with the initial proposal for a University Policy Manual met to plan its next steps. In the Fall, there will be informational meetings for the entire campus for comment and discussion. This strategy will include a forum for faculty, perhaps in the senate—Professor Martinez is on the subcommittee to decide how to communicate the information and to help set up these meetings. We will let you know as soon as we have the information.

We have had discussions in this body about SOIS—and 3 issues seem to be in play: the online response rate, the reliance on this survey in evaluation as a testament to effective teaching, and the validity of the instrument itself. A small committee chaired by Dorothy Muller that includes faculty has been named to do some work this summer to research and review processes for student input. This instrument is of continuing concern and it’s time for a review. After this small group completes its charge, a larger committee will be formed to make recommendations to Academic Standards Committee, who will then determine what, if anything, should be changed and bring their proposal to the Senate.

In response to the recent suspension of research leaves that have been supported by departments and colleges, I am putting together a team of faculty, with appropriate administrative support, to review and research the policies at other UNC system schools. We need to have a policy and guidelines for not only unit supported leaves but university supported leaves as well. We have no sabbaticals in this state—and we’re the only school without a university leave policy that provides a semester for faculty to concentrate on their research. Although, with the budget as it is, any leave would not happen for a couple of years, I’d like to have the policy and procedures in place when the money does become available.

We have a number of committee reports on the agenda today. And in addition the report of the University Budget Committee to the Chancellor has been shared with you.

Finally, I need to say a few words about the resolution on the Senate agenda today. The officers made a mistake in supporting this resolution and making it public without following the traditional procedures of the Senate. That is, we should have brought it to the Senate for discussion and approval before it went out to the university community. And as long as we 4 represent you, that mistake will not be made again. We respect the Senate procedures and the views of the Senators and faculty. On the other hand, however, the resolution did engender MUCH conversation and dialogue and for that I applaud the entire faculty. It’s crucial for us to know your views.

But I was also disappointed that we never discussed the real purpose of that meeting on April 6. We did not talk about the fixed term faculty, and furloughs and we do not know have the criteria to guide us through the summer as, I suspect, we will be consulted as to budget issues as they affect faculty directly. We all would like to have our fixed term faculty members have contract renewals, but that probably will not happen in all units. The officers and I, who will be meeting through the summer, will continue to work with administration to keep the loss of faculty members to a minimum.

Professor Sprague (Physics) asked who, from the Academic Standards Committee was appointed to the SOIS subcommittee being formed? Chair Tovey stated Michael Brown from Psychology. Professor Glascoff (Health and Human Performance) stated with all of the lack of trust for the SOIS instrument, where did Chair Tovey find the need to organize another subcommittee to look at the issue? Chair Tovey did not respond.

Professor Glascoff (Health and Human Performance) then moved to stop the use of the SOIS instrument until something was provided for faculty that actually worked. Professor Niswander (Business) called a point of order stating that it took a vote of 2/3rds of the body to accept the motion on new business. Therefore, a voice vote was taken and the motion to consider this as new business failed.

Professor Bailey (Philosophy, member of the Academic Standards Committee) stated that the charge to Chair Tovey’s proposed subcommittee should be to find out how other Universities were doing things and they could find ways to obtain student involvement from research that was out there. He stated that the issue still remained how to increase the number of students taking the SOIS, whatever instrument is used.

Professor McCammon (Health and Human Performance) asked Chair Tovey what she was going to do to address the problems brought forth by the resolution and how it was handled? He stated that he had been a fixed term faculty member for many years and that fixed term faculty had earned and enjoyed the respect they had with administration. He stated that he appreciated Chair Tovey’s apology but what could be done now to repair the image now that it was out within the community and one must be very careful about what is said. Chair Tovey replied that the previous resolution was only released to the university community. Chair Tovey indicated that she appreciated Professor McCammon’s comments.

Professor Martinez (Foreign Languages and Literatures) asked if it were true that ECU was the only institution within the UNC system that did not have research leaves (official University-wide) leave. Chair Tovey replied yes that is right. Professor Rigsby (Geology) suggested that whatever subcommittee Chair Tovey put together over the summer should include members from the standing University Academic Faculty Welfare Committee since they have worked a few years back on collecting the best practices on this very important topic. Chair Tovey responded yes.

F. David Weismiller, Associate Provost for Institutional Planning, Assessment, and Research

Professor Weismiller (Medicine) presented a Written report on the SACS-COC Fifth Year Interim Report, VSA - The College Portrait, and Assessment of ECU Strategic Direction – “Education for the 21^st Century” (ECU’s Global Perspective). There were no questions posed to Professor Weismiller.

G. Question Period

Professor Jenks (History) asked when the research/creative activity grants would be announced. VC Mageean stated research funding was very complex and that she had canceled the research development awards for next year and would use those funds for startup funds for next year’s new hires. F&A funds would be exempt from the budget situation but she must be cautious about using non state funds to cover things with state funds, in order to avoid someone saying that, well they do not need state funds for that then. She stated that funds for faculty release time and money liberated by grants were frozen.

Professor Boklage (Medicine) stated that he had chaired the Academic Awards committee before and oversaw the annual Lifetime and Five Year Research Awards. He did not think that the budget crisis should stop the recognition of outstanding research and asked that VC Mageean not cancel those awards nor the recognition bestowed on the recipients, even if she had to hold off on the monetary stipends because faculty deserved the recognition in times of budget crisis.

Professor Sprague (Physics) asked about “buy outs” and if a person had a NIH grant and received buy out funds, could the department use those funds to cover faculty. VC Mageean stated that that money could be frozen or returned and that if you buy out your time, a good administrator should use those funds to fund a course thereby keeping a part-time faculty member working.

Professor Abdel Rahman (Medicine) asked if the F& A funds were coming back to the department or to the dean and research division. He stated that accumulated rainy day funds were used as recruitment tools within his unit. VC Mageean stated that she has put into place other funds and that it is not NIH’s goal to provide buy- out funds to be used by units for accumulated rainy day funds.

Professor Wilson (Sociology) asked if VC Mageean would address how the freeze would affect graduate assistants and teaching assistants in the Fall. VC Mageean stated that she has had to tighten up on the GA’s and TA’s and will require more stringent policies for the use of the funding. In support of big service teaching loads, she stated that the funding should be supportive of the faculty with increased teaching loads.

Professor Rigsby (Geology) stated that on East campus, any NSF money that funds salaries are used as overhead money to travel, to start new things, or to buy equipment. When faculty put in the request to use these funds, could VC Mageean provide advice on how to word requests so that they were not red-flagged and denied automatically because there were no funds within the units. Professor Rigsby stated that she was in no way suggesting that the funds were being misused. VC Mageean stated that she had requested further clarification from the Office of State Budget about the use of those funds and that at present they are still at the discretion of the Vice Chancellors.

Agenda Item IV. Unfinished Business

There was no unfinished business to come before the body at this time.

Agenda Item V. Report of Committees

A. Academic Standards Committee

Professor Linda Wolfe (Anthropology), Chair of the Committee, presented ENGL 3290 Asian American Literatures as a Foundation Curriculum Course for Humanities. There was no discussion and the proposed request for approval of ENGL 3290 Asian American Literatures as a Foundation Curriculum Course for Humanities was approved as presented. RESOLUTION #09-23

B. Continuing and Career Education Committee

Professor Elaine Seeman (Business), Chair of the Committee, presented proposed revisions to the ECU Faculty Manual, Part V.I.K. Office Hours, to read as follows: (Deletions are noted in ~~strikethrough~~ and additions are noted in bold print)

“K. Office Hours

In addition to teaching, each member of the faculty must maintain office hours five hours during a work week to be available to advisees and to campus and distance education students who wish to consult with him or her. It is strongly recommended that the adviser be available daily either on campus or online ~~in the office~~ at least one hour each day. The office hour availability schedule is to be posted on the faculty member's office door and/or online course website, and included in the syllabus so that students may make arrangements for individual consultations ~~conferences~~. Each unit administrator is to have a complete schedule of the office hours of all faculty of the school or department. Except during assigned instructional hours, faculty members must be available to students during registration, early registration (except when assigned to registration duties elsewhere) and drop-add periods.”

Professor Brown (Psychology) asked about faculty who teach on campus and online and stated that he did not think the revised text addressed the problem. Chair Tovey asked if Professor Brown had a motion to address his concern and he replied no, not at this time. Professor Seeman replied that the committee had tried to address the various ways faculty teach and meet with students during an academic semester.

Following a brief discussion, the proposed revisions to the ECU Faculty Manual, Part V.I.K. Office Hours were approved as presented. RESOLUTION #09-24

E. Educational Policies and Planning Committee

Professor Sandra Warren (Education), Chair of the Committee, presented first proposals involving the discontinuation of the following degree programs: EdS in Counselor and Adult Education, College of Education; CAS in Library Science, College of Education; BSBE in Marketing Education, College of Education; Master of Music Therapy, School of Music. Professor Martinez (Foreign Languages and Literatures) asked if all faculty had been consulted and agreed upon the requests to discontinue their degree programs. Professor Warren replied, yes, all had gone through the discussion process. Following the brief discussion, the proposed discontinuation of the four degree programs was approved as presented. RESOLUTION #09-25

Professor Warren then presented the proposal to Eliminate BS in Accounting, College of Business.

Professor Glascoff (Health and Human Performance) asked what the difference was in elimination and discontinuation of programs. Professor Warren stated that the discontinuation of the degree programs were due to low productivity and that the elimination of the BS in Accounting was due to other issues.

Professor Niswander (Business) stated that currently the College of Business has 3 degrees (BS in Accounting MS in Accounting and BSBA in Management). In the 1980’s this made sense, but now within the licensure rules, it is best to have just two groups and so the College wants to streamline the degree programs they have and make it easier for students to understand the available programs. Professor Christian (Business) also stated that the MS in Accounting was still offered, but being done over 5 years for a second degree. Following discussion, the proposed elimination of the BS in Accounting was approved as presented. RESOLUTION #09-26

Professor Warren then presented the renaming of the following programs: Bachelor of Fine Arts in Dance to Bachelor of Fine Arts in Dance Performance, School of Theatre and Dance; Certificate in Distance Instruction to Certificate in Distance Learning and Administration, College of Education; BSBA in Management Accounting to BSBA in Accounting, College of Business. There was no discussion and the proposed renaming of the programs were approved as presented. RESOLUTION #09-27

Professor Warren then presented a proposed Mechanical Engineering Concentration, College of Technology

and Computer Science. Professor Jenkins (Allied Health Sciences) asked if this would create more jobs with the budget situation as it is. Professor Warren responded that the proposal more accurately reflected the demands right now. Professor Romack (Chemistry) asked if the classes were already in place now to support the new concentration. Professor Warren responded yes. Following discussion, the proposed Mechanical Engineering Concentration, College of Technology and Computer Science was approved as presented.

RESOLUTION #09-28

Professor Warren then presented a proposed Certificate in Computer-based Instruction, College of Education. There were no questions posed and the proposed certificate was approved as presented. RESOLUTION #09-29

Professor Warren then presented the proposed revisions to the ECU Faculty Manual, Part V. Academic Information, Section III. Curriculum Development. Professor Sprague (Physics) stated that in several parts of the recently approved document, curriculum matters have to go through both undergraduate and graduate committees and that the proposed revisions are to strike out “and” and replace it with “or”. He stated that the body voted earlier in the Spring that the request for new programs, etc. go through both undergraduate and graduate committees.

Professor Rigsby (Geology) stated that yes, the Faculty Senate did discuss this earlier in the semester and that faculty can provide examples where a graduate program has direct impact on undergraduate degrees and that it was appropriate that there be oversight at all levels of the program development process. Professor Gemperline (Associate Vice Chancellor for Research) stated that there was no equivalent mechanism for the Graduate School Administrative Board to act on undergraduate programs. Graduate faculty credentials are needed in order to approve graduate programs.

Professor Boklage (Medicine) stated that he did not see a problem with both committees being involved in the program development process. VC Mageean stated that SACS required appropriate faculty status in order to handle graduate programs. Professor Robinson (Mathematics) spoke against the proposed newest revisions stating that SACS accreditation required curriculum decisions to go through a faculty body with clear, central oversight. VC Mageean stated that both sister institutions she had checked with kept undergraduate and graduate curriculum issues separate.

Professor Schwager (Business, member of the University Curriculum Committee) stated that the committee had seen graduate proposals over the years and that he felt his committee had tried hard to work with other committees and that there had been a great deal of communication across campus. Following discussion, the

motion to remove the proposed “or” graduate and undergraduate curriculum committees and keep “and” failed.

Following that, the proposed revisions to the ECU Faculty Manual, Part V. Academic Information, Section III. Curriculum Development were approved as presented. RESOLUTION #09-30

F. Faculty Governance Committee

Puri Martinez (Foreign Languages), Chair of the Committee, stated the Implementation Guidelines for Administrative Reviews in Accordance with Board of Trustees Policy being provided were for information only and were not for approval. She stated that these guidelines had already been approved by the Chancellor. The Faculty Governance Committee and the Faculty Officers expect that they will be in effect the next academic year. We present them to you because you represent the faculty. You should take them back to your units and inform your faculties about how the review of administrative officers will be carried out in the future. These guidelines should be read as a complement to the Board of Trustees’ Policy on Appointment and Review of Administrative Officers at ECU (Appointment and Review of Administrative Officers at ECU). They are not a complement to the current Appendix L.B (Appointment of Administrative Officials) and Appendix L.F. (Quadrennial Unit Administrator Evaluation). You should keep in mind that the Board of Trustees’ policy supersedes and annuls those sections of Appendix L. That means that there are no votes on the effectiveness of the administrators as defined in Appendix L.F.

Professor Martinez stated that these guidelines were prepared based on the many drafts that the Faculty Governance Committee wrote in the past three years regarding faculty input in the evaluation of administrators, and also taking into consideration the concerns that the Chancellor expressed regarding those drafts. They have been discussed by the Faculty Governance Committee, but since they are an administrative document and not a faculty policy, the Faculty Governance Committee did not vote on them. There is no unanimity on the Faculty Governance Committee about whether these guidelines offer appropriate level of faculty involvement in the evaluation of administrators. But we agree on one thing: we hope that now and in the future you and your colleagues will send us comments and suggestions regarding them. The committee understands that in two years the Chancellor will review them, and we will need your input, so we can properly report to the Chancellor at that time.

Professor Roberts (Philosophy) moved to proceed to item F on the agenda. There was no discussion on the motion to proceed and the motion was approved. Chair Tovey reminded faculty to forward comments on the guidelines to members of the Faculty Governance Committee at fgc@ecu.edu.

E. Unit Code Screening Committee

It was noted that the revised unit codes of operation for the Departments of Biology and Anthropology were withdrawn pending additional revisions. It was noted that both unit codes would be presented to the Faculty Senate in the Fall 2009.

F. University Curriculum Committee

Jane Manner (Education), a member of the Committee, presented the curriculum matters contained in the minutes of the March 26, 2009 and April 9, 2009, committee meetings. RESOLUTION #09-31

Agenda Item VI. New Business

Professor Roberts (Philosophy) moved for adjournment. The motion failed. Professor Rigsby (Geology) stated that whoever wanted to make a motion for the new business on the stated joint resolution needed to do so now. No one made a motion and the new business died for a lack of a second. Professor Christian (Business) then moved for adjournment. The motion passed. and the meeting adjourned at 4:50 p.m.

There being no further business to come before the body at this time, the meeting adjourned at 4:50 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Hunt McKinnon Lori Lee

Secretary of the Faculty Faculty Senate

Department of Interior Design and Merchandising

FACULTY SENATE RESOLUTIONS APPROVED AT THE APRIL 21, 2009, MEETING

09-23 ENGL 3290 Asian American Literatures as a Foundation Curriculum Course for Humanities.

Disposition: Chancellor

09-24 Revisions to the ECU Faculty Manual, Part V.I.K. Office Hours, to read as follows: (Deletions are noted in ~~strikethrough~~ and additions are noted in bold print)

“K. Office Hours

Disposition: Chancellor

09-25 Discontinuation of EdS in Counselor and Adult Education, College of Education; CAS in Library Science, College of Education; BSBE in Marketing Education, College of Education; Master of Music Therapy, School of Music.