EAST CAROLINA UNIVERSITY
2003-2004 FACULTY SENATE
The third regular meeting of the 2003-2004 Faculty Senate will be held on Tuesday, November 11, 2003, at 2:10 in the Mendenhall Student Center Great Room.
I. Call to Order
II. Approval of Minutes
October 7, 2003
A. Roll Call
C. Bill Shelton, Interim Chancellor and Vice Chancellor for University Advancement
E. Mike Lewis, Vice Chancellor for Health Sciences
F. Rick Niswander, Chair of the Faculty
G. Nick Floyd, Interim Director of Athletics
University Athletics Department
Fall Undergraduate Admissions, including home-schooled students
I. Approval of the Fall 2003 Graduation Roster, including honors program graduates.
J. Question Period
IV. Unfinished Business
V. Report of Committees
A. University Curriculum Committee, Tim Hudson
Curriculum matters contained in the minutes of the October 9, 2003, and October 23, 2003, Committee Meetings.
B. Admissions and Retention Policies Committee, Pat Mitchell
Revision to the ECU Faculty Manual, Part V. (attachment 1).
C. Educational Policies and Planning Committee, Mike Brown
For information only:
Request for Authorization to Plan a PhD Program in Integrative Biosciences.
D. Faculty Governance Committee, Mary Glascoff
1. Role of the Interim Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs (attachment 2).
2. Revision to the ECU Faculty Manual, Appendix D. (attachment 3).
3. Revision to the ECU Faculty Manual, Part II. (attachment 4).
4. Revision to the ECU Faculty Manual, Appendix L. (attachment 5).
E. Faculty Information Technology Review Committee, Karl Wuensch
Proposed Student Computer and Technology Fee Innovative Project Proposal (attachment 6).
F. Unit Code Screening Committee, Garris Conner
Revised Academic Library Services‰ Unit Code of Operation.
VI. New Business
ADMISSIONS AND RETENTION POLICIES COMMITTEE REPORT
Proposed Revision to the ECU Faculty Manual, Part V. Section I.R.
Revise the ECU Faculty Manual, Part V. Section I.R. to read as follows:
(additions are noted in bold print and deletions are noted by strikethrough)
,R. Reporting of Grades
Grades are due in the registrar‰s office must be submitted electronically not later than forty-eight hours (including weekends) after each final examination is given. For the convenience of the faculty, a grade deposit box is located on the curb on the southwest side of Whichard Building. It is requested that grades sheets be deposited in the grade drop box or turned in to the registrar‰s office. Grade sheets must not be sent through campus or regular mail. A change in grade, other than ,IŠ, for any reason, must be made within one year from the date the original grade was received. Forms for change of grade are available in school or departmental offices. ,
FACULTY GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE REPORT
Role of the Interim Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs
Whereas, as a result of recent personnel changes the position of Provost is unfilled, and
Whereas, the position of Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs is filled on an interim basis, and
Whereas, the Faculty Senate wishes to clearly indicate the individual responsible to carry out the duties of the Provost and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs as set forth in the ECU Faculty Manual.
Therefore, Be It Resolved, that that term ,ProvostŠ is synonymous and interchangeable with ,Vice Chancellor for Academic AffairsŠ wherever used in the ECU Faculty Manual, and
Be It Further Resolved, that the Faculty Senate recognizes that the Interim Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs is the chief academic officer of the University, and
Be It Further Resolved, that the Interim Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs is the individual responsible to perform the duties established in the ECU Faculty Manual for the Provost or the Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs or both, and
Be It Further Resolved, that this resolution will become null and void at such time that a permanent Provost or permanent Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs is named.
Proposed Revision to the ECU Faculty Manual, Appendix D. Section V.
(additions are noted in bold print and deletions are noted by strikethrough)
V. Procedures for Appeal of Notice of Non-Reappointment or Non-Conferral of Permanent Tenure
A. Deadlines for Appeals
Failure to submit the appeals documents specified in this section within the time periods allotted constitutes a waiver of the right to appeal the decision. However, before the expiration of the deadline the faculty member may request an extension, provided that the request is made in writing and presented to the individual or committee who is next to consider the appeal. Decisions on requests for extension of time shall be made by the individual or committee who is next to consider the appeal.
B. Request for Hearing with the Faculty Hearing Committee
Within 25 working days of receiving written notice from the vice chancellor or chancellor of non-reappointment or non-conferral of permanent tenure, a faculty member (hereinafter, the complainant) may request a hearing before the Faculty Hearing Committee.
1. The Hearing Committee
The Hearing Committee shall be composed of five members and five alternates each of whom is a full-time, permanently tenured voting faculty member without administrative appointment. Members shall be elected in accordance with the procedures for election of appellate committees specified in the Bylaws of the East Carolina University Faculty Senate. Members and alternates shall be elected to three-year terms. A quorum for the committee shall be the five members or their alternates.
Upon organization, the members of the Hearing Committee shall elect a chair and a secretary. The chair and the secretary of the committee are to be appropriately trained in accordance with guidelines and procedures jointly established by the faculty officers and chancellor. Should any committee officer be absent at the beginning of a hearing, the committee shall elect an alternate officer for the purposes of the hearing.
When the committee is convened to consider any matter associated with a complainant's request for a hearing, those committee members who hold an appointment in the complainant's academic unit, those who might reasonably expect to be called as witnesses, those who might reasonably expect to be asked to serve as advisors (see Section V.D.2) to any party of the request for a hearing, or those who may have any other conflict of interest should disqualify themselves from participation in the activities of the committee related to this specific request for a hearing. The complainant and those individuals or groups who are alleged to be responsible for the action or actions described by the complainant in the request for the hearing (hereinafter, the respondents) are permitted to challenge committee members for cause. The other members of the committee will decide on any potential disqualifications if a committee member is so challenged but wishes to remain.
When, between elections, membership of the committee falls below the specified five members and five alternates, the chair of the faculty, in consultation with the Committee on Committees, shall appoint members to the committee. Vacancies on the committee will be filled by first moving alternates to members and by making appointments as alternates.
Upon receipt of a request for a hearing, the chair of the committee shall determine the availability of the elected members and alternates, and shall select from those available one or more alternates, as necessary. The ranking of the available alternates for selection shall be determined by their years of service to the University. That available alternate who is most highly ranked shall attend all sessions of the hearing and shall replace a regular member should that member be unable to attend the entire hearing.
The committee may at any time consult with the University Attorney in matters of procedure. (See Part VIII, Responsibilities of Administrative Officers.)
2. Initiation of the Hearing Process
The basis for a request for a hearing must be found in one or more of the following reasons: (a) the decision was based on any ground stated to be impermissible in Section 604B of The Code of The University of North Carolina; (b) the decision was attended by a material procedural irregularity.
"Material procedural irregularity" means a departure from prescribed procedures governing reappointment and conferral of permanent tenure that cast reasonable doubtupon the integrity validity of the original decision not to reappoint or not to confer permanent tenure. Whether a material procedural irregularity occurred shall be determined by reference to those procedures which were in effect when the initial decision not to reappoint or not to confer permanent tenure was made and communicated. The Hearing Committee shall ask the chancellor to certify what procedures were then in effect if that question is a matter of dispute.
The complainant's request for a hearing must specifically identify and enumerate all reasons for the request. The request must include (a) a description that is as complete as possible of the actions or the failures to act which support each specified contention; (b) the identification of the respondents; (c) an enumeration and description of the information or documents which are to be used to support the contention (copies of the described documents are to be made a part of the request for a hearing); (d) the identification of persons who may be willing to provide information in support of the contention; and (e) a brief description of the information those persons identified in (d) may provide. The complainant's request for a hearing shall be made to the chair of the Hearing Committee.
C. Validation of the Request for Hearing.
Validation of the complainant's request for a hearing is the first step in the hearing process. The Hearing Committee shall convene within 15 days after receipt of the complainant's request for a hearing. The committee shall notify the complainant of the meeting date by registered mail, return receipt requested. The committee shall meet in executive session and the meeting will be conducted according to the latest edition of Robert's Rules of Order, Newly Revised. The committee's evaluation of the complainant's request for a hearing shall be limited solely to the documents and information submitted as part of the complainant's request for a hearing.
The complainant may submit additional documentation and information supporting the request for a hearing up to 72 hours prior to the committee meeting. All documentation and information submitted after the original request for a hearing must (a) support contentions set forth in the original request for a hearing and (b) be delivered to the chair in the same manner as the original request for a hearing. Such information or documentation shall be made a part of the original request for a hearing.
Documentation and information that do not meet criteria set forth in the previous paragraph will not be accepted and will be returned to the complainant.
The Hearing Committee's review of the complainant's request for a hearing shall be limited solely to determining whether the facts alleged by the complainant, if established, would support the contention that the decision not to reappoint or not to confer permanent tenure was based upon any of the grounds stated as impermissible in Section 604B of The Code of The University of North Carolina or was attended by a material procedural irregularity. Based on their review and evaluation of the submitted material, the committee shall decide whether the request for a hearing is to be validated.
If the request for a hearing is not validated, the complainant shall be notified by registered mail, return receipt requested, within 10 calendar days of the committee meeting. Such a determination confirms the decision not to reappoint or not to confer permanent tenure. (Faculty Senate Resolution #99-4, February 1999)
The complainant may accept the decision of the Hearing Committee not to validate or appeal to the chancellor within 10 calendar days of receipt of the Hearing Committee's decision. The chancellor, within 14 days of the complainant's appeal shall decide to confirm the committee's decision or shall support the complainant's request for a hearing. (Faculty Senate Resolution #99-4, February 1999)
The complainant may accept the chancellor's confirmation of the committee's decision not to validate the request for a hearing, or the complainant may appeal to the Board of Governors Trustees within 10 calendar days following receipt of the Chancellor‰s decision. as provided in Section 501C (4) of the Code of the University of North Carolina and the regulations of the Board of Governors implementing that provision. (Faculty Senate Resolution #99-4, February 1999)
If the committee validates the request for a hearing, or the decision not to validate the request for a hearing is not supported by the chancellor, the committee shall so notify the complainant by registered mail, return receipt requested, and begin the processes necessary to set the time and date for the hearing.
D. Procedures for the Hearing.
1. Time and Date of Hearing
If the request for a hearing is validated, the committee shall provide a complete copy ofthe request for a hearing to the individuals named in the request for a hearing. The committee shall set the time, date, and place for the hearing. The date for the hearing must be within 30 working days of the notification to the complainant that the request for a hearing was validated. The committee shall then notify the complainant, the respondents, the chair of the faculty, and the chancellor, of the time, date, and place of the hearing.
2. Conduct of the Hearing
The chair of the Hearing Committee is responsible for conducting the hearing and for maintaining order during the hearing. Except as provided for herein, the hearing shall be conducted according to the latest edition of Robert's Rules of Order, Newly Revised. Attendance at the hearing is limited to the committee's members and alternates, the complainant, one person who may advise the complainant but who may not take an active part in the proceedings, the respondents, an East Carolina University faculty member (with or without administrative appointment) selected by the chancellor to represent therespondents in the conduct of the hearing, an East Carolina University attorney who shall advise the respondents and their representative but who may not take an active part in the proceedings, the chancellor, and an East Carolina University attorney representing the chancellor. Other persons (witnesses) providing information to the committee shall not be present throughout the hearing, but shall be available at a convenient location to appear before the committee as appropriate. An audio recording or a court reporter's transcript of the proceedings shall be made. For any hearing from which an appeal may be taken, a professional court reporter must be used to record and transcribe the hearing. (Faculty Senate Resolution #03-37, pending final approval) Any such record is a part of the personnel inquiry and must be treated with appropriate confidentiality. Only the immediate parties to the controversy, the responsible administrators and attorneys, and the members of the University governing boards and their respective committees and staff are permitted access to such materials.
The hearing shall begin with an opening statement by the chair of the committee limited to explaining the purpose of the hearing and the procedures to be followed during the hearing. The chair explicitly will note that the committee shall consider only information bearing on the allegations presented in the complainant's request for the hearing.
Following the opening remarks by the committee chair, the complainant shall present his or her contentions and any supporting witnesses and documentary evidence. The respondents, through their representative, may then reply to these contentions and present any supporting witnesses and evidence. During these presentations, the complainant, and the respondents, through their representative, may cross-examine opposing witnesses. Committee members may question witnesses for purposes of clarification.
E. Procedures After the Hearing
After the hearing, the committee shall meet in executive session and begin its deliberations or shall adjourn for no more than two working days, at which time it shall reconvene in executive session to determine whether it sustains or does not sustain the allegations stated in the request for the hearing. In reaching its decisions the committee shall consider only the testimony and other materials entered or presented as evidence during the hearing. The complainant shall have the burden of proof by the greater weight of the evidence to establish that a basis for his or her contentions is found in one of the reasons listed in Section V.B.2.
Within 10 working days of finishing its deliberations the committee shall provide the complainant, respondents, and the chancellor with a copy of the committee's report and a copy of the audio recording or court reporter's transcript of the hearing. (Faculty Senate Resolution #03-37, pending final approval)
If the Hearing Committee determines that the complainant's contention has not been established, it shall, by simple, unelaborated statement, so notify the complainant, the respondents, the chair of the faculty, and the chancellor. Such a determination confirms the decision not to reappoint or not to confer permanent tenure.
If the Hearing Committee determines that the complainant's contention has been satisfactorily established, it shall notify the complainant, the respondents, the chair of the faculty, and the chancellor by written notice and shall recommend further substantive review.
Within 30 working days after receiving the recommendation of the Hearing Committee, the chancellor shall notify the complainant, the respondents, the chair of the faculty, and the chair of the Hearing Committee what further substantive review, if any, will be made of the original decision not to reappoint or not to confer permanent tenure.
The complainant may appeal an adverse decision to the Board of Trustees within 10 calendar days as provided in Section 501C (4) of the Code of The University of North Carolina and the Board of Governors regulations implementing that provision. (Faculty Senate Resolution #99-4, February 1999)
If the chancellor is considering taking action inconsistent with the committee‰s recommendations, the chancellor shall request that a joint meeting with the committee occur within 10 working days. At the joint meeting, the chancellor will communicate his or her concerns and the committee will have an opportunity to respond. The joint meeting must occur within the 30 working day period as referenced above. The chancellor must base his or her decision on a thorough review of (1) the record evidence from the hearing and (2) the report of the committee. While the chancellor should give appropriate deference to the advice of the faculty committee, the final campus-based decision is the chancellor‰s.
The chancellor will inform the complainant of his or her decision in writing by a method that produces adequate evidence of delivery. In the event of an adverse decision, the chancellor‰s notice must inform the complainant: (1) that, within 10 calendar days of the complainant's receipt of the decision, the complainant may file a notice of appeal with the president requesting review by the Board of Governors in accordance with the Board of Governors Policy 101.3.1, (2) that a simple written notice of appeal with a brief statement of its basis is all that is required within this ten-day period, and (3) that, thereafter, a detailed schedule for the submission of relevant documents will be established if such notice of appeal is received in a timely matter.
The exercise of the Board of Governors‰ jurisdiction under Section 501C (4) of the Code is refined to insure that primary emphasis remains properly focused on the campus grievance procedures. Requests for appellate review will be screened to determine whether the Board should consider the issues raised in a petitioner‰s request for review. The following basic standards will guide that screening process:
1. The Board will grant requests to review contentions that the grievance procedures followed by the campus in a particular case did not comport with University requirements that affect the credibility, reliability, and fairness of such inquiries, thereby arguably depriving the grievant of a valid opportunity to establish his or her contentions.
2. The Board will grant requests to review University policy issues implicated by a particular grievance, when the question appears to require intervention by the governing board to clarify the definition, interpretation, or application of such policies.
3. The Board will review questions about the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the conclusion reached only if (a) the case involves a substantial interest of the grievant, e.g., tenure or reappointment and/or (b) the history of the case reveals disagreement, with respect to the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the grievant‰s contentions, among the responsible decision makers, i.e., the hearing committee, the chancellor;, or the board of trustees; if the responsible decision makers are in accord, normally no such appeal will be entertained by the Board of Governors.
Under the foregoing prescriptions, it is necessary for prospective petitioners to evaluate their circumstances carefully, to understand the purposes of permissible appellate review, and to formulate clearly and concisely their statement of the one or more grounds on which they believe the Board should exercise its appellate jurisdiction. Thus, the first step in any appeal to the Board of Governors will be an evaluation by the Board, through a designated subcommittee, with staff assistance, of the grievant‰s written statement of grounds for appeal, to determine whether the issues sought to be raised warrant Board attention, as judged by the three basic standards.
Proposed Revision to the ECU Faculty Manual, Part II.
3. Separate Codes for schools and departments within a college (Mixed Model).
Link to all Acceptable Models: http://www.ecu.edu/fsonline/FacultyManual2/Part2/26.htm
Proposed Revision to the ECU Faculty Manual, Appendix L.
Revise Appendix L. Section C.2. to read as follows:(addition noted in bold print and deletion noted by strikethrough)
,2. The faculty of a college or school may democratically decide to organize into self-governing, autonomous units at the departmental, school, or college level in accordance with guidelines established by the Faculty Senate. A school's or college‰s proposal to organize into self-governing, autonomous units will be reviewed by the Faculty Governance Committee. If the Faculty Governance Committee finds the proposal conforms to the guidelines, the proposal will be forwarded to the Faculty Senate for their consideration. If the Faculty Senate acts favorably, the proposal will be forwarded to the Chancellor. With the Chancellor's approval, codes of operation for the individual units shall be democratically developed. Upon approval of the codes, the code of the school or college will become null-and-void. Said school or college may democratically develop a constitution as a governance document. However, this constitution may not conflict with the authorities, responsibilities, and characteristics of the constituent units. If faculty members of schools or colleges do not choose to organize into self-governing, autonomous units, faculty in individual departments may democratically develop rules for the internal organization and operation of their departments.Š
Link to all of Appendix L. Section C: http://www.ecu.edu/fsonline/FacultyManual2/AppendixL/LC.htm
FACULTY INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY REVIEW COMMITTEE REPORT
Proposed Student Computer and Technology Fee Innovative Project Proposal
February 27, 2004 (Deadline)
Submission of the application to the Faculty Information Technology Review Committee. Application must be in the Faculty Senate office no later than noon on February 27, 2004.
By April 30, 2004
Notification of awards and declinations.
Beginning Fall Semester, 2004
ITCS will place order for hardware and software awarded.
Routine requests for new or replacement hardware or software should be made by the unit‰s lab director using the web page at http://www.ecu.edu/itcs/austinlab/requestforms/index.htm. This page is password protected and is for use only by lab directors. It is requiredthat requests be submitted through this route before submitting them as an innovative project proposal. Most requests submitted through this routine route have been granted, in part or in full. Materials that are denied through the routine route can, if desired, be submitted as part of a innovative project proposal.
The Faculty Information Technology Review Committee (FITRC) makes recommendations to the Director of IT Support Services for funding specific innovative project proposals or portions of such proposals from Student Computer and Technology Fee monies. The FITRC recommends funds for proposals whose merit is judged strong with clear student use. In making its recommendations the committee balances a number of considerations. Eighty thousand dollars have been set aside for the first year of this program.
The Student Computer and Technology Fee monies fund proposals for departmental facilities which are for student use in instructional settings. Any faculty use must be incidental, such as in a student laboratory setting. The SCTF monies are not used to fund faculty activity even when the focus is exclusively instructional. There are other monies which fund computer hardware and software for faculty use, including instruction.
Each year the FITRC committee reviews and makes its recommendations based on the proposals before it for the funding period under consideration. There are no ,entitlementsŠ to SCTF funds nor are SCTF monies to substitute for unit expenditures or responsibilities. At most one proposal per unit will be evaluated. Cooperation, whether internally across units, or externally with funding agencies or organizations, is valued. As SCTF funding is limited, the committee considers the extent to which a joint/cooperative proposal serves students‰ instructional needs in a variety of disciplines or programs and the extent to which external funding makes for a more viable project by reducing the amount requested from the SCTF.
If awarded monies, the recipient will receive a detailed account enumerating the items funded. The Student Computer and Technology Fee funds are not transferred to the unit budget, but are kept in a special account administered by the Director of IT Support Services. ITCS understands that model numbers change or later versions of software become available between the time when the proposal is submitted and the awarded monies expended. The Director of IT Support Services oversees purchasing and works with recipients to make these and any other necessary adjustments. Recipients of funds need to understand that because the committee awards funds based on the merit of the proposal, the project or items of a project cannot be substantively changed once the award is made.
A unit assumes certain responsibilities and obligations if full or partial funding of its Student Computer and Technology Fee Innovative Project proposal is awarded. The unit head must acknowledge these responsibilities or the proposal will not be considered.
1. The Student Computer and Technology Fee monies fund proposals which are for departmental facilities for studentuse in instructional settings. Any faculty use must be incidental, such as in a student laboratory setting.
2. The project or items of a project cannot be substantively changed once the award is made.
3. The unit is to provide insurance for the hardware or technological equipment.
4. The unit is responsible for repairs to hardware/technological equipment that are beyond the warranty period.
5. The unit is to provide security and adequate supervision for the hardware or technological equipment and software.
6. The unit is to maintain the hardware or technological equipment and software in the area described by the proposal.
7. No unit is permitted to submit more than one proposal in a given year.
The application form, which is available at http://core.ecu.edu/psyc/wuenschk/SCTF-InnovativeApplication.doc, is designed to be completed and submitted in electronic form. The form has been prepared in Microsoft Word. Information provided by applicants should be entered in the appropriate cells of the tables in the document. Please do not change fonts, font sizes, margins, table dimensions, page breaks, or paragraph formatting.
A. Goal Statement
Describe the goals of the proposed project, with an emphasis on how student learning will be affected.
B. Students and Courses Affected
How many students per year are expected to benefit from this project? Identify the courses for which the student experience should be improved by this project.
C. Current Facilities
Describe the currently available facilities which will be enhanced by this project.
D. Materials Obtained by Routine SCTF Request
It is requiredthat requests be submitted throughthe web page at http://www.ecu.edu/itcs/austinlab/requestforms/index.htm before submitting them as an innovative project proposal. Describe the response received following such a request, including what materials, if any, have already been granted through that avenue.
E. The Equipment and Software Requested
Describe the materials being requested and explain how they will be used in the proposed project. Indicate which materials are absolutely essential for the project to be successful rather than desired but not essential. If funds are limited, we may be able to provide some but not all of your requested materials, so we need to be able to distinguish between the essential and the not essential.
F. Support for the Project
How is your unit going to support the use of the requested materials (staffing the lab, making renovations to the lab, etc.? Describe any support that will be provided by other units or agencies. If the project involves the campus network, will it be compatible with the network and, if not, how will you resolve any incompatibilities?
G. Assessment of the Educational Impact of the Project
Describe how you will gather data to determine whether or not the project has had the desired impact on student learning.
Submit quotes for the materials requested.
Expenditures which are not funded by the SCTF:
Deliver one electronic copy of the application as an attachment to email to: FacultySenate@mail.ecu.edu. In the subject line of the email enter ,Innovative Project Proposal from <name of unit, name of director>.Š
Evaluation of the Proposals
Each proposal will be evaluated by a panel of not fewer than three members of the Faculty Information Technology Review Committee. No proposal will be judged by any person for whom such an activity might represent a conflict of interest (for example, judges will not rate proposals from their own academic unit). Each judge will rate the merit of the proposal on a five point scale, from 0 (of little or no merit) to 4 (the perfect or nearly perfect proposal), and the mean rating for each proposal will be computed. The proposals will then be ranked by mean rating. Each proposal will then be considered by the full committee, starting with the most favorably ranked proposal and proceeding downwards until all available funds have been allocated. At each step in this process it will be decided whether or not to grant the request in full or in part. Those evaluating the proposals will be asked to consider the following characteristics of the submitted proposals:
1. Innovation. Routine materials are available through other channels. Innovative proposals are those that involve using technology that is not available through those other channels.
2. Impact on Student Learning. The meritorious proposal is one which shows great promise of improving student learning.
3. Number of Students Affected. All other things being equal, the more students favorably affected by the proposal, the more meritorious the proposal.
4. Feasibility of the Project. Are the materials requested, along with the materials currently available and the support provided by the unit and others, likely to be sufficient for the project to achieve its desired effect?
5. Future of the Project. Is the proposed assessment procedure adequate to demonstrate the utility of the project (especially if the unit expects to be requesting additional materials for the project in the future)? Is the project one which, across time and given additional support, is expected to remain useful or even expand to serve more students and more classes?
Link to the 2003-2004 Faculty Information Technology Review Committee Roster http://www.ecu.edu/fsonline/AcademicCommittees/fi/fir.htm
Application for Student Computer and Technology FeeInnovative Project Grant1
In Cooperation with (Optional):
(Name of Cooperating Unit)
Name of Project Director:
Total Funding Request:
Please obtain the appropriate authorization to submit this proposal (unit head), which includes acknowledging the conditions specified below. Identify the person authorizing submission of the proposal. That person will be contacted to confirm the authorization.
The unit accepts the following responsibilities and obligations if full or partial funding of its Student Computer and Technology Fee proposal is awarded:
1. The Student Computer and Technology Fee monies fund proposals which are for departmental facilities for student use in instructional settings. Any faculty use must be incidental, such as in a student laboratory setting.
4. The unit is responsible for repairs to hardware or technological equipment that are beyond the warranty period.
7. No unit is permitted to submit more than one proposal in a given year.
Name of Unit Head:
Students and Courses Affected
Materials Obtained by Routine SCTR Request
Equipment and Software Requested
Support for the Project
Assessment of the Educational Impact of the Project
Budget: Submit quotes for the materials requested, using as much space as needed, starting on page 4 of this form.
 Appeals based on material procedural irregularity shall refer only to personnel actions which are initiated after the approval of material procedural irregularity as a basis for a request for a hearing.
The board of trustees will remain responsible for reviewing, on appeal, a grievant‰s contention that the chancellor‰s decision (or affirmance of a faculty committee decision) was clearly erroneous.
1 Please read the information sheet located at http://core.ecu.edu/psyc/wuenschk/SCTF-InnovativeInfoSheet.doc.