FACULTY SENATE
FULL MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 9, 2008
The first
regular meeting of the 2008-2009
Agenda Item I. Call to Order
Janice Tovey, Chair of the Faculty called the meeting to
order at 2:10 p.m.
Agenda Item II. Approval of Minutes
The minutes of April
22, 2008, and April
29, 2008, were approved as distributed.
Agenda Item III. Special Order of the Day
A. Roll Call
Senators absent were: Professors Stapleton (Education),
Robinson (Mathematics), Talente (Medicine), and McAuliffe and Jesse (Nursing).
Alternates present were: Schwager for Paul (Business),
Ballard for Dosser (Child Development and Family Relations), Gabbard for Greene
(Education), Stevens for Glascoff (Health and Human Performance), Felts for
Vail-Smith (Health and Human Performance), Willson for Schenarts (Medicine),
Boklage for Gilliland (Medicine), and Turner for Grymes (Music).
B. Announcements
1. Terry Holland, Director of Athletics
and David Dosser, Chair of the University Athletics Committee’s Academic
Integrity Subcommittee will provide reports to the
2. We have the following one-year term vacancies
on standing University Committees and ask that anyone interested please contact
Janice Tovey, Chair of the Faculty, at toveyj@ecu.edu.
· Faculty
Welfare Committee, regular member
· Academic
Awards Committee, both Chair of the Faculty and
· Admission
and Retention Policies Committee, Chair of the Faculty representative
· Calendar
Committee,
· Continuing
and Career Education Committee,
· Libraries
Committee, Chair of the Faculty representative
· Faculty
Weekend Committee, Chair of the Faculty representative
3. 2009-2010
Teaching Grants are due Tuesday, October 7, 2008, in the
4. Guidelines for the
2009-2010 Research/Creative Activity Grants will be available soon with a new
grant submission deadline of early January 2009. The evaluation process
will take place during the Spring semester, with the awarding of grants made
for the full fiscal year July 1, 2009 – June 30, 2010, and announced by May 1,
2009. This will allow faculty receiving stipends to select either 2nd
summer session 2009 or 1st summer session 2010 to receive the
stipend. Once ready, grant applications will be available online at: http://www.ecu.edu/cs-acad/fsonline/rg/research.cfm. Faculty are encouraged to contact last year’s
Committee Chair, Paul Gares at garesp@ecu.edu
if you have any questions about the granting process.
5. All
6. The
Chancellor has approved the following resolutions from the April 22, 2008,
08-18 Report from Academic Awards Committee on UNC Tomorrow Report.
08-20 Proposal for faculty access to Student Opinion of Instruction
Survey information on
the
Web.
08-21 Guidelines
for Outcome Assessment of Foundations Courses (accepted as non-binding).
08-23 Report from Continuing and Career Education
Committee on UNC Tomorrow Report.
08-24 Various requests for new concentrations, new programs, revisions to
minors, titles,
and
establishing requests.
08-25 Report from Educational Policies and Planning
Committee on UNC Tomorrow Report.
08-26 Report from Faculty Governance Committee on UNC Tomorrow Report.
08-27 Revisions to ECU Faculty Manual, Part XII.B.2.a. and
Part XII.B.3.a.
08-28 Revised School
of Communication and School
of Medicine Unit Codes of Operation and new Department
of Hospitality Management Unit Code of Operation.
08-29 Revised
Health Sciences Library Unit Code of Operation.
08-30 Revised General
Guidelines for Writing and Revising A Unit Code of Operation.
08-31 Report from University Budget Committee on
UNC Tomorrow Report.
08-33 Curriculum
matters contained in the minutes of the March
27, 2008 and
April
10, 2008, committee meetings.
08-34 Report from the University Curriculum Committee on UNC Tomorrow
Report.
7. Faculty
are eligible for the following university-wide teaching awards: Board of
Governors Award for Excellence in Teaching, Board of Governors Distinguished
Professor for Teaching Award, Alumni Award for Outstanding Teaching, and Max
Ray Joyner Award for Faculty Service Through Continuing Education. A description of each award is available at: http://www.ecu.edu/cs-acad/fsonline/aa/academicawards.cfm.
The nominations are due September
15, 2008, and portfolios of nominated faculty members are due November 1
(November 3, 2008). Evaluation materials submitted by past year’s winners are
available for review in the Center for Faculty Excellence (Old Cafeteria, room
2305, 328-6470).
8. Faculty
members not located on main campus (Allied Health Sciences, Health and Human
Performance, Health Sciences Library, Medicine, and Nursing,) and who serve on
various academic standing committees are reminded of special courtesy parking
permits available from the office of Parking and Transportation Services. Special
Courtesy Permits allow faculty members
attending meetings, etc. to park in "A1/B1” lots on main campus. These permits are issued to unit heads at no
charge and are to be used in conjunction with a paid parking permit. Additional
information is available from Parking and Transportation Services at 328-1961.
9. Earlier an official call
for nominations for the annual Lifetime
and Five-Year University Research/Creative Activity Awards was distributed via
email. The deadline for submission of materials (which includes 7 copies of departmental and unit review
committee nominating letters, complete CV, and 3 letters from outside referees)
is November 1, 2008 (November
3, 2008). Evaluation materials submitted
by past year’s winners are available for review in the Center for Faculty
Excellence (Old Cafeteria, room 2305, 328-6470). All relevant procedures
are available online at: http://www.ecu.edu/cs-acad/fsonline/customcf/committee/aa/researchspecifics.htm.
10. Faculty
interested in periodically receiving past copies of "The Chronicle of Higher Education" are asked to call the
11. The
Senators were given the ECU
Faculty Response to Phase I on the UNC Tomorrow Report drafted by Chair
Mark Taggart in May 2008.
C. Steve
Ballard, Chancellor
Chancellor Ballard welcomed all faculty senators to the new
school year. He then recognized a student, Ira Lawson, who was “shadowing” the
Chancellor for the day as part of an English assignment. The Chancellor indicated that he would
address the budget today. As noted in his convocation address, the budget is
the single biggest challenge that the University will face over the next two
academic years. Dr. Ballard stated that he wanted to inform the senators about
the context of the budget reductions, what happened in the last biennium and
what is happening right now. He stated
that he did not think the current budget will improve in the foreseeable
future; however, it will certainly impact this academic year and probably will
go into the next state biennium. The current budget situation will not improve
in the near future, and it will certainly impact this academic year as well as
the next biennial budget. Provided here are links to two specific documents
relating to the budget: Memo from General Administration on Budget
Reductions, Distribution of Permanent Budget Reductions.
Chancellor Ballard continued his discussion by stating that
the University has experienced a budget cut back for the last seven years. The
N. C. Legislature and the General Administration have taken a certain
percentage of money from every state University to fund the priorities that are
deemed the most important; or from University General Administration system,
which is allocated out to the various universities. Usually about ten percent of the total cut
comes to ECU; this is just become a routine part of the state process. This returned money has become a source of
funds for other legislative initiatives. Some years it has been extremely
small, $500,000 or so in some years, including the last biennium, while in some
years it has been much more significant. This is political strategy; when the
legislature needs $50 million dollars to fund something revenue is returned so
that they can use to fund other priorities. It is an ongoing part of the state
budgeting process.
Also over the last seven years
The past biennium, the last two years before the start of
this academic year, ECU has had cuts from our base budget, or what the state
calls the recurrent budget, of approximately $2.4 million. That is not huge in
the scheme of things, but it is certainly enough to get the attention of the
University administration. ECU has just submitted a week or two ago a plan for
meeting those $2.4 in base budget cuts that were required over the last two
years. At the same time that the $2.4
million in budget cuts were being taken the University is under significant
pressure to increase enrollment growth to meet the so called eighty thousand
problem, which is the anticipation of an increase in eighty thousand college
age students in the University system over the next ten years. Every University
has a target to be reached by the year 2017. The good news is that ECU is well
ahead of our numbers, ECU is two years ahead of the enrollment growth target,
and we can probably slow down at this point. The amount of growth experienced
this year caught everybody by surprise.
ECU is still expected to grow.
The third point that the Chancellor made is PACE reductions;
these are efficiency goals and ECU has done better than the bigger universities
in those efficiency goals. But that also means cut positions, vacancies not
filled, and cuts in administrative staff. The only growth going on, other than
special projects is enrollment growth. And that is the context of the last
seven years. Now, today, there is even a more difficult situation; even though
no cut has been announced yet. While this year no cuts have been announced yet, everyone
who is monitoring the gap between projected growth in enrollment and actual
revenue projections is projecting a huge gap.
And that gap continues to get wider. This means every University in the
system should anticipate mid year recessions.
President Bowles thinks that there will be a one time cut of
between two to five percent mid semester reversion. A three per cent cut
equates to $8.1 million in addition. A four percent cut would be over $10
million in addition to the $2.4 million recession that has just been given back
in recurring expenditures. Thus, the total amount of money that will be given
back will be in the range of $10 million to $14 million. There is a big
difference between the one time cuts (non- recurring) and the recurrent give
back because with the one time cuts we basically have to write a check for the
money. However, the University can find the money in almost any way that it
chooses. There are lots of ways to adapt to a one time cut that are certainly
not common place in budgeting for a recurrent cut. The categories are certainly not the same. The projections are that there will be a
parallel cut next spring that will be close to three to four percent. The
University administration is considering options such a travel freeze on a
temporary basis. This could save as much as $2 million a year.
In terms of tax receipts to the state, the
While these states have experienced cuts from twelve to
twenty percent North
The final point made by the Chancellor was that there are
rules that have been made for what sources of University income can be used for
the money that must be returned. They are much different now than they have
been in the past. The two things that are the most significant are that
enrollment growth money which the University has used historically can not be
used. Financial aid is also not a possible source of funding the cuts. The
kinds of things that the President and the Board of Governors are emphasizing
are administrative cuts, middle management cuts, return of vacant positions,
and smart cuts. Smart cuts and efficiencies are things that are not working; it
also may be something the private sector can do more efficiently than is
currently being done by University employees. It may also mean elimination of
programs that are no longer meeting their goals or missions. These vertical
cuts might be for administrative as well as academic programs that might have
started fifteen years ago and might have outlived their usefulness. The
executive council is making administrative cuts and consolidations in view of
the $8.1 million dollars that we anticipate must be returned.
There are two or three other categories; everything that can
be thought of is placed on the “possible list “and then decisions are made as
to which things the University administration definitely does not want to do.
One Vice Chancellor has already implemented an “informal chill”, as he calls it
and not a freeze that no position can be advertised or contract signed can be
made without his written approval. This is an example of a delaying tactic that
is being used to save as much money as possible in view to the recessions that
are expected.
Professor Zoller (Art and Design) stated that her department
has had an incredible amount of enrollment; and a fifty percent growth in
freshmen entering the department and it is becoming more and more difficult for
us to maintain the quality of instruction. She asked about at what point will
the University stop accepting students. The response from the Chancellor was
that while we are not at the point of zero growth there will be a smaller level
of enrollment growth, but what we will not cut is the faculty resources that
are needed that are necessary to teach the courses.
Professor Mallison (Geology) asked about the sustainability
and conservation efforts of the University and if energy conservation might be
considered in finding sources for the money that must be returned. He offered
examples such as the lights at the baseball, tennis, and football facilities
being on at all hours, even when no one is there. The Chancellor responded that
the University had done quite well, relative to the PACE initiates, in
implementing energy conservation measures.
An example mentioned was the serving of food without trays in the dining
halls that saves both electricity and water. Perhaps more emphasis is needed on
the communication of what has been done, and that the category of energy
conservation will be a major category of savings to off set the money that will
have to be returned.
Professor Stiller (Biology) asked the “zero sum game” of
funding and what fraction of potential money being received will be given back
later in the academic year? Chancellor Ballard responded that cuts might occur
for items not essential to ECU Tomorrow and UNC Tomorrow, but that anything
related to engaging the students in the classroom was not a possible cut. Those
things that are most important must be prioritized and protected.
Professor Martinez (Foreign Languages and Literatures) asked
about the distributed General Administration memo about budget reductions and
asked if the cuts were from last year?
Niswander (Business/Academic Deans’ Representatives)
clarified that the budget reductions included in the information distributed
relates to budget cuts since July 1, 2008 and may include potential cuts in
Spring 2009. The Chancellor responded that the actual amount of the budget cut
back would be known after the election of the governor in November. He also said that the cutbacks would not
occur equally from all departments. The cuts would be made deliberately.
Professor Martinez (Foreign Languages and Literatures) also
asked when the Chancellor would respond to
D. Marilyn
Sheerer, Interim Provost and Vice Chancellor for Academic and Student Affairs
Interim Provost Sheerer stated that the University’s
incoming resources are greater than what had been given back thus far this
year. The $9 million in enrollment growth resources has not yet been
distributed because the decision has not been made about how to disperse the
money between units. The half percent that was discussed as being taken across
the board was not taken equally among all programs and units. Some of the
programs and units have more money than other areas and decisions were made
about where the cuts can best be absorbed. Underfunded units might have a less
than half percent cut while over budgeted units might have a cut of one
percent. One of the leading factors in the funding matrix is the student credit
hours; in addition to student credit hours, research efforts are being considered
in the funding matrix.
Interim Provost Sheerer reported that this past year she and
David Weismiller visited almost every department in the University. And in
those meetings two things came up consistently: How are we going to handle
continued enrollment growth and what is the quality of the entering freshmen
students.
The actual enrollment for this Fall is 27,703 students,
which exceeded our fall projected enrollment by 1,052. The incoming freshman
class for the year 2012 was projected to be 4,510 and is currently 4,516
students. The University greatly exceeded their expectations which concerned
many. The number of freshmen who would accept admission to ECU was under
projected and the University’s yield was better than we expected it to be.
It was noted that Judi Bailey, chair of the Strategic
Enrollment Management Task Force, was preparing their final report for
presentation to the next Board of Trustees meeting. That report is expected to
make some changes in the number of students expected to enter next fall and in
the academic standards for admitting students. For example, the suggestion has
been made that no one be admitted with an SAT score of less than 900. A higher GPA is anticipated with the GPA of this
entering freshman class at 3.082 and the SAT average at 1026. This SAT score is
seven points higher than last year. Interim Provost stated that the decision
was made to lower the size of the next freshman class, with a limitation on the
number of students transferring from community colleges. Another option being
discussed is to not accept readmits.
Professor Wang (Geography) asked about the current SAT and
what score was ECU using now as the predicted GPA. Judi Bailey reported that
the SAT and the projected GPA were the means recommended by the University of
North Carolina System and if there was a deciding factor in addition to these
criteria the written part of the SAT could be used as a determinant. Dr. Bailey also said that she expects there
might be some modifications made at the system level when the enrollment
managers from the various universities meet at General Administration this
fall.
Professor Sprague (Physics) asked what the breakdown of the
new 48 faculty positions were, i.e. face-to-face versus distance
education. It was noted that the
positions were just granted as positions and that the division would determined
by priorities, as well as, student credit hour production when distributing
those positions.
Professor Martinez (Foreign Languages and Literatures)
stated that within her unit, faculty were offered positions in April/May but
the faculty did not receive actual contracts until late August. The Interim
Provost concurred with the need to speed up the process of providing contracts
for employment and stated that means for doing this are currently under
consideration.
Professor Novick (Medicine) asked when the 48 faculty
allocations will be made. Dr. Sheerer indicated that she hoped to get the
student credit hour data in next week so we can begin making decisions.
Professor Wilson (Sociology) asked if faculty could receive
the matrix funding model that administration uses to derive their faculty
determination. Dr. Sheerer stated that the matrix funding model was the way the
University received its funding and that the Senators needed to understand how
it all worked. She suggested that Chair Tovey work to have a presentation made
to the group on this very specific mathematical formula.
Professor Rigsby (Geology/Faculty Assembly Delegate) clarified
that the matrix funding model details how General Administration funds
universities and not how the money is distributed to academic units.
E. Janice Tovey,
Chair of the Faculty
Professor
Tovey first thanked Dorothy Muller and her staff at the Center for
Faculty Excellence for providing a meaningful and informative experience for
our new faculty during orientation week. She stated that it was a great
pleasure for her to take part in the activities and to receive positive
feedback from the new faculty.
Chair Tovey stated that the Provost Search committee candidates were
on campus and that the schedule for these presentations were distributed
earlier. She reminded faculty members that this is a crucial hire for the
University and requires the participation of as many faculty members as
possible. She stated that the committee began work at the close of the spring
semester and conducted video interviews in late July. The committee invited
four strong candidates to campus and that faculty members make up about ½ the
committee. Those serving along with
Janice Tovey include David Dosser, Elizabeth Hodge, Brenda Killingsworth, Bob
Morrison, Mark Taggart, and Marianna Walker.
Chair Tovey thanked all of
the Senators who had stepped up to volunteer for committees. Lori put out a
call on my behalf for senators and alternates to fill ex officio positions.
Thank you. And thanks to all of you who serve on these committees. There were
still openings for senators or alternates on 3 committees and all were encouraged
to contact the
Chair Tovey stated that many
of you have had questions about enrollment management—especially with the
largest freshman class this year. Marianna Walker, Hunt McKinnon and I, along
with other faculty members, serve as members of the Task Force looking at
options for helping control our rampant growth. Judi Bailey is presenting the
committee’s preliminary report with recommendations to the Board of Trustees at
their next meeting—in a couple of weeks—and will report to the Senate at our
October meeting. The report contains options for discussion and debate. She
stated that she hopes the Senators would consider these seriously and ask
questions of Judi and the task force members.
Finally, this year, Chair
Tovey stated that she has asked the Admission and Retention Policies Committee
to review and recommend revisions as necessary to Part 4 of the ECU Faculty Manual on academic
integrity. The Committee was also
charged to work with David Conde in Academic Affairs and Kemal Atkins in
Student Affairs to review and coordinate policies concerning grade appeals,
honor code, and other integrity issues.
No questions were asked of Chair Tovey at this time.
F. Larry Boyer,
Dean of Academic Library
Director Boyer stated that the Institutional Repository Project is a joint venture
of Academic Library Services and the Health Sciences Library. Last year a task force was formed to research
other Institutional Repositories (I.R.) and suggest the selection software and
hardware necessary to build and host an Institutional Repository.
A brochure that explains IR’s in general and ECU’s The
Scholarship was distributed. An
Institutional Repository is a digital collection capturing and preserving the intellectual
output of an academic community. IR’s are the outgrowth of the Open Access
movement. Open Access literature is digital, online, free of charge & free
of most copyright and licensing restrictions. Librarians and
the scholarly community have been dissatisfied with the traditional print and
electronic journal pricing and marketing strategy. For example ECU pays more
than $4M a year to access online journals, which, for the most part contain,
articles provided to the publishers free of cost. Publishers want to maintain tight control of
information in order to protect and increase their profits. Scholars want free
and easy access to information and librarians want to provide this. Scholars
also want to guard their copyright as well, and librarians, many of whom are
also authors, understand and support that right. The IR will not insert itself into the peer
review process; it simply will be a way to provide a means of reporting self
achievement.
The Institutional Repository movement is
not something new—many colleges and universities across the country ; for
example Harvard University’s College of Arts & Science’s faculty voted to
require deposit in the Harvard IR.
From a recent faculty survey, the Library
has learned that an ECU Institutional Repository is important to only about
thirty percent of our faculty., but he was also willing to bet as time goes by
and as the impact of other IR’s grow, we will see more faculty understanding
and actively supporting this initiative.
Director Boyer admitted that the ECU Scholarship IR has gotten off to a
slower start than envisioned, but we are now prepared to move ahead. He stated that he wanted to thank those
members of the faculty in the
During the fall semester
representatives from Academic Library Services will be coming to departments,
schools, and colleges talking about the IR and seeking more depositors. The library will also provide workshops and
individual help on the deposit process. Dr. Boyer ended his presentation
stating that he and others needed faculty’s help and participation to make this
a successful and useful tool.
Professor Boklage
(Medicine) asked what formats were acceptable for this project. Dr. Boyer
responded that word documents and pdf files would be best.
Professor Stiller
(Biology) asked if the new institutional repository could be interfaced with
Sedona. Dr. Boyer responded that this
was not possible at this time.
Professor Jenks
(History) asked for more information on requiring faculty to use this new
repository. He stated that the greater exposure that was an objective noted on
the distributed brochure could actually have a negative impact on the work
getting published. Dr. Boyer responded that he would be happy to send anyone
links to the question of copywriting, but that he did not want to comment on
this because of the technical nature of copy write laws.
Professor Wang
(Geography) asked who covered the copyright expenses. Dr. Boyer offered to
discuss this further with anyone after the meeting.
G. Kimberly Baker-Flowers,
Chief Diversity Officer
Ms. Baker-Flowers stated that a diversity plan has existed
in some form since the late 1990s and that the Chancellor’s Diversity Task
Force took over the implementation of a diversity plan in 2006 and is currently
working on an updated diversity action plan.
She stated that the purpose of this Action Plan for Diversity is to give ECU a template to
begin the action steps for making the campus a more inclusive environment. This document includes challenges that have
been identified by the climate survey as well as several years’ worth of work
and recommendations from consultants and various groups on campus. The goals of the Diversity Action Plan are be
integral to the UNC Tomorrow efforts and to offer a template for increasing
diversity on campus.
The
template could then be used to visit colleges and units within the University
to display what works within various cultures in order to move forward.
Ms. Baker-Flowers
indicated that many academic units know their students, staff, and faculty best
and know how to progress. She said she wanted to move into the action phase of
the diversity plan as quickly as possible. While the process is fluid she would
like to have the colleges and departments work on an action plan and use the
template as a score card. She noted that
there was a speaker’s bureau and a number of authors on the topic of diversity
would be invited as keynote speakers at ECU. However, she stated that nothing
would be mandatory since diversity is a personal goal and participation and
commitment can be encouraged but must be voluntary. Ms. Baker-Flowers asked for
program suggestions from the faculty body that might be helpful in raising the
consciousness of the University.
Professor Turner
(Music) asked how we were going to hold ECU accountable and what dialogues were
taking place within the various academic units. Ms. Baker-Flowers stated that
she would like the Diversity Action Plan to be focused at the college level and
that the
Professor Sharer
(English) asked about the plan to develop programs for non-English/non-native
English speaking residents on campus.
Ms. Baker-Flowers stated that her office is partnering with
International Affairs to develop such programs. She invited anyone with any
creative ideas to share them with her.
Professor Gabbard
(Education) found problems with retaining faculty due to the community climate
outside of the ECU campus. He asked if
the University was going to be more active in engaging the community’s minority
groups in promoting change and encouraging acceptance of diverse groups. Ms. Baker-Flowers stated that she wanted to
have her office be more inclusive and that one outlet would be the Chancellors
Community Advisory Council as well as working within the school system for
K-12 education efforts.
Professor Deena
(English) asked what the University was doing to support international faculty,
i.e. with visas, climate and culture as it pertains to diversity. Ms.
Baker-Flowers stated that the International Affairs Office and her office would
be working on addressing retention specifically since student and faculty
retention was a major concern. Professor Walker (Allied Health Sciences) noted
that ECU’s speech and language academic unit provides services to students with
language problems.
Professor Levine
(Medicine) asked about the earlier stated policy to admit students with a
higher minimum SAT score and how would this be balanced with efforts to promote
a diverse climate within the student populations. Professor Matthews (Anthropology) stated
that more resources were needed to implement ways to recruit more diverse
faculty and asked if there was money in Ms. Baker-Flowers’ office budget to
cover this. Professor Matthews also asked how the University was marketing
international students with no tuition assistance. Ms. Baker-Flowers stated
that her office would work to recruit a more diverse faculty and thought having
speakers like Carolyn Turner to talk about best practices in recruiting and
retaining a diverse faculty was beneficial.
She also raised the consideration of how faculty are approached and that
faculty make decisions to come and to stay at a school based on how they are
treated as well as how they are paid, with there being more than one form of
compensation.
Professor MacGilvray
(Medicine) stated that in contrast to what was said, not all faculty were
tenure track nor would they achieve what was referred to earlier. He raised the
fact that almost two thirds of the faculty with the
Professor Ballard
(Child Development and Family Relations) asked if there was a working
definition of “diverse faculty” that is being used by Ms. Baker-Flowers in her
role as Chief Diversity Officer. For example, in the
H. David
Weismiller, Chair of SACS Self Study
Dr. Weismiller stated that the accrediting standards used by
the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools - Commission on Colleges are
contained in the 2008 Handbook.
SACS accreditation is a faculty effort; he said that the
visit to ECU is just around the corner in the year 2013. There is a SACS
website and in the SACS website is an organizational structure.
And all the archival information over the last twelve months
is archived on this website.
Dr. Weismiller also reported that the Outcomes Assessment
Program Review Council is hard at work. Their task is to assist in increasing
an understanding and commitment to ongoing planning and evaluation from the program
level throughout the University. A component is the Quality Enhancement Plan
which focuses on student learning. ECU is looking toward developing a culture
of evidence, according to Dr. Weismiller, that will introduce comprehensive
systems for the collection, utilization and dissemination of data on improving
student outcomes. The Faculty Credential
Council is working on a compliance certification document. This document
provides consistent guidelines for peer review, representing the collective judgment
of the adequate faculty credentials and standards appropriate for the assurance
of quality in higher education.
Professor Wilson
(Sociology) asked if Sedona would be kept.
Dr. Weismiller suggested that faculty continue to use this faculty
database. He stated that it may not be ideal but it is the system that we will
be working with for the next two or three years. Any of the systems that we are looking at
have an electronic portfolio attached to them and we are trying to make sure
that all the systems will “speak” with Sedona.
Professor Rigsby
(Geology/Faculty Assembly Delegate) asked how much does the performance
management system cost, what are the priorities, databases, etc. It was stated
that for one system, Live Text, at 9,000 students there is no cost to the
institution. The cost to the student is $45, including one year afterwards. It
banks on the assumption that each student will be required to subscribe and
that will continue to use the system even after graduation. Another system
would cost the University $60,000.
I. Question
Period
Other than questions posed to Professor Weismiller (noted
above), there were no further questions asked of the administrators at this
time.
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. Educational
Policies and Planning Committee
Professor Dale Knickerbocker, Vice
Chair of the Committee, presented for review and acceptance the Request for
Authorization to Establish PhD
Program in Curriculum and Instruction in the
B. Faculty
Welfare Committee
Professor Bruce Southard (English), Past Chair of the
Committee, presented the Committee’s response to the UNC Tomorrow Report. There was no discussion and the Committee’s
response to the UNC Tomorrow Report was approved as presented. RESOLUTION
#08-37
C. Unit Code
Screening Committee
Professor Andrew Morehead (Chemistry), Chair of the
Committee, presented the revised Department
of Psychology
Unit Code of Operation. There as no
discussion and the revised Department
of Psychology
Unit Code of Operation was approved as presented. RESOLUTION
#08-38
Agenda Item VI. New Business
Professor David Long (History), an Alternate to the
WHEREAS, it has long been a
tradition and procedure at ECU to conduct votes relating to the conferral of
tenure, the promotion in rank of tenured and tenure-track faculty, and the contract
renewal of probationary faculty, under a veil of secrecy by voting to enter
into executive session; and,
WHEREAS, the purpose of going into
executive session is in order to allow for an open and honest discussion of the
reasons why a faculty member should or should not be conferred permanent
tenure, a higher rank, or continued employment as a member of the faculty,
while protecting the anonymity of the voting members of the committee
especially with respect to any negative opinions they may have about the person
under consideration; and,
WHEREAS, the inevitable consequence
of such procedure is that committee members are shielded in the expression of
attitudes that are sometimes based upon personal malice or hearsay impressions,
and in some instances those expressions may constitute lies or
misrepresentations of what is true; and,
WHEREAS, the conferral of permanent tenure is a property
right even if it is less than fully developed during the tenure track period;
and,
WHEREAS, the right to receive
promotion and contract renewal as provided for by the ECU Faculty Code, and in
accordance with the conditions set forth in that Code, are property rights
possessed by the faculty members from the time they enter into employment
contracts with the University; and,
WHEREAS, even beyond the fact that
the aforementioned property rights exist, the experience of receiving a
negative tenure vote, or a negative vote on promotion or contract extension,
has a potentially devastating effect on the professional reputation and
prospects of future employment of the affected faculty member.
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the
ECU
Professor Roberts (Philosophy) moved to forward the
resolution on transparency to the Faculty Governance Committee for their
discussion and consideration. The motion
was approved. RESOLUTION #08-39
There was no additional business to come before the
Respectfully submitted,
Hunt McKinnon Lori
Lee
Secretary of the Faculty
Department of Interior Design and Merchandising
FACULTY SENATE
RESOLUTIONS APPROVED AT THE SEPTEMBER 9, 2008, MEETING
08-36 Request for Request for
Authorization to Establish PhD
Program in Curriculum and Instruction in the
Disposition: Chancellor
08-37 Faculty Welfare
Committee’s response to the UNC Tomorrow Report, as follows:
Impact of Enrollment Growth on Faculty Welfare
The UNC
Tomorrow report mandates enrollment growth across the constituent campuses of
the UNC System. In response to this
report,
Faculty welfare
is intrinsic to the quality of the University. The issues that affect faculty
welfare are broad ranging and are inextricably interwoven with issues that
affect our students and the quality of education. There is a serious concern among the faculty
at ECU that our long history of underfunding, particularly in terms of funds
allocated per student enrolled, will be further exacerbated by increased
enrollment. This single factor could
have a chilling effect on faculty welfare through depletion of already scarce
resources and could significantly undermine the future development of our
University. The continued scarcity of
financial support commensurate with University size and growth will be
detrimental to the construction of offices, classrooms, laboratories and other
physical facilities that are used by faculty and students. It will have adverse consequences for the
recruitment, retention and professional development of faculty and it will
limit the opportunity to develop programs that expand the connections between
the University and the citizens and region we serve.
While a
diminished financial base will impact all areas of University development,
enrollment growth will affect other aspects of University life that are viewed
as central to faculty welfare. Physical
space is at a premium at ECU. The
immediate manifestation of this lack of space is a general shortage of offices,
classrooms and laboratories. The
existing level of crowding at ECU is already a matter of concern and without
significant investment in ‘bricks and mortar’ will certainly be exacerbated by
projected enrollment increases. Crowding
generates inevitable deterioration of indoor and outdoor environments,
contributes to stress and can have adverse health consequences, all of which
are issues related to faculty welfare. Consider the perennial nightmare of
parking, which is a surrogate for all the problems associated with crowding.
Unfortunately, ECU’s past successes in garnering resources for the construction
of buildings and acquisition of green space is poor, as exemplified by the
serious existing level of crowding.
We are also
concerned that increased enrollment will impact the student to faculty ratio in
a negative way. A decline in the number
of faculty per student puts added strain on faculty members who are intent on
maintaining a tradition of close interaction with students. ECU has historically prided itself in its
‘small University’ feel, much of which derives from the commitment of faculty
to a high level of interaction with students.
An increasing student to faculty ratio seriously threatens our
commitment to our students and will very likely create a less congenial
atmosphere, one with an impersonal feel in which student-faculty relations
become more distant and strained.
Thus, one of the core issues for today and tomorrow is a careful assessment of
the best means to deliver high quality education, whether faculty and students
are located at a distance or on campus. The question is, during a time of
burgeoning technology and increasing student enrollment, how do we grow and
maintain a vibrant, engaged faculty and student population who contribute to
the University’s goals? The issue involves effective connection with
ECU’s learning community as well as the quality and sustainability of that
learning.
In
particular, Distance Education (DE) faculty and students cannot be merely
‘add-ons’. They must be intelligently incorporated into the mainstream of
campus learning and campus life. Current full-time faculty need to be
engaged and involved in developing a learning model that works for all
students. Yet evidence of erosion in our ‘small University’
feel is already manifesting, particularly among faculty who participate in
distance education programs. ECU has
already stepped beyond its physical campus boundaries and is recognized as a
major provider of online education. While 88% of the students taking only DE
courses reside outside
Enrollment
increases without attendant financial resources also place a burden on
administrators who will be faced with decisions concerning whether to allocate
limited resources to faculty salaries or benefits. We already suffer from marginal health care
and retirement benefits and we have witnessed a system-wide decline in support
for these programs. A further decrease
in these benefits threatens to create an atmosphere of discord that is contrary
to a high-quality working environment and presents risks in retention of
faculty as well as increased difficulty in recruitment of new faculty. As ECU looks toward a brighter future, we can
ill afford a policy of rapid enrollment growth uncoupled from a commensurate
level of financial support.
Disposition: Chancellor
08-38 Revised Department of Psychology
Unit Code of Operation.
Disposition: Chancellor
08-39 Resolution on transparency was referred to
the Faculty Governance Committee for their discussion and consideration.
Disposition: Faculty Governance Committee