|
East Carolina University
FACULTY SENATE
FULL MINUTES OF OCTOBER 9, 2001
The second regular meeting of the 2001-2002 Faculty Senate was held on Tuesday, October 9, 2001, in
the Mendenhall Student Center, Great Room.
Agenda Item I. Call to Order
Bob Morrison, Chair of the Faculty called the meeting to order at 2:10 p.m.
Agenda Item II. Approval of Minutes
The minutes of September 4, 2001, were approved as amended to include the revised question posed by Professor L’Esperance to the Chair of the Faculty relating to faculty salaries.
Agenda Item III. Special Order of the Day
A. Roll Call
Senators absent were: Professors Wilentz (English), Dobbs and Kovacs (Medicine), and Rosenberg (Faculty Assembly Delegate).
Alternates present were: Professors Tovey for Watson (English), Wennerberg for Engel (Medicine), Gilliland for Meredith (Medicine), and Fletcher for Wooden (Medicine).
B. Announcements
· The Chancellor has approved the following resolution from the September 4, 2001, Faculty Senate meeting: #01-28 Curriculum matters contained in the April 26, 2001, University Curriculum Committee minutes
· Action on the September 27, 2001, University Curriculum Committee minutes will be taken at a later date.
· An editorial revision has been made to the Academic Standards Committee charge and a copy has been placed at each Senator‘s desk. This revision deletes reference to two administrative activities no longer undertaken by an academic committee.
· Faculty interested in periodically receiving past copies of "The Chronicle of Higher Education" are asked to call the Faculty Senate office and place their name on a list for distribution.
· Dates and times of the upcoming open faculty forums to discuss the proposed ECU Institute for Advanced Studies are as follows. Please inform your colleagues of these dates.
· Thursday, October 11, 2001, from 8:30 - 10:30 a.m. in the Bate Building, room 1005
· Wednesday, October 17, 2001, from 1:00 – 3:00 p.m. in the Bate Building, room 2004
· Wednesday, October 24, 2001, from 1:30 – 3:30 p.m. in the Brody Auditorium, Blue & Burgundy Sections
· The next Board of Trustees’ meeting is scheduled for Friday, October 19, 2001. Copies of the meeting agenda will be available in the Faculty Senate office.
· The Committee on Committees is charged with filling two upcoming delegate and alternate vacancies on the UNC Faculty Assembly. Information was distributed to all faculty via the faculty listserv. Nomination forms are due in the Faculty Senate office by Monday, November 5, 2001.
· Dr. Charles Glassick will be on campus November 15-16, 2001, to continue the dialogue on expanding the definition of scholarship. An open faculty forum is scheduled on Thursday, November 15, 2001, at 4:00 p.m. in the Bate Building, room 1032.
C. William Muse, Chancellor
Chancellor Muse started his comments by acknowledging that a lot had happened since the last Senate meeting. The events of September 11th affected all of us in many ways, and he expressed his pride in the way the campus had responded, especially with regard to the needs of students. He expressed gratitude to the ECU Counseling Center, Campus Ministries and all of the ECU community for the special ways in which they helped.
Chancellor Muse then addressed the newly signed budget for the State of North Carolina. He was pleased that the UNC system remained a high priority for legislators, so the news could have been much worse.
Enrollment was lower than projected, requiring a reduction in the ECU budget, but Distance Education enrollments are up, resulting in a net gain in enrollment funding. ECU also was given the final phase of Doctoral funding and funds for new faculty positions and faculty salary adjustments. The tuition increase funds will also be available for faculty salaries as well as need-based financial aid. In sum, the budgets for ECU were cut by almost $3.5 million, and the utility budget shortfall went unfunded. Targeted cuts were heaviest for SPA and non-teaching EPA positions, travel, equipment, contractual services, temporary wages, cell phones, and membership dues. While overall the increases are greater than the reductions, they do not fall evenly across the campus. The General Assembly was wise to leave the instructional mission intact, but administrative and service functions have been hit badly. The Brody School of Medicine did not benefit from the increases but took its share of cuts. Chancellor Muse added that this will be a tight year in some places on campus. He added that ECU had acted early to develop plans for various budget contingencies. Working with the University Budget Committee, the administration was able to develop a fiscal plan to minimize the impact of the cuts. He also acknowledged that more cuts are likely to come as state revenues continue to be under projections.
D. Vice Chancellor’s Report
Bob Thompson, Interim Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs, discussed the funds available for faculty raises. He stated that the raise money came in three “pots”: a $625 across the board raise; a portion of the Doctoral II money to be allocated to units for merit-based raises; and funds from the campus-based tuition increase, which are to be used for market adjustments and gender or market equity issues. A portion of the funds is being earmarked for recruitment purposes. Because Academic Affairs is keeping a smaller portion of the funds, units may actually have more funds this year than last for salary adjustments.
Ciesielski (Industry and Technology) asked when the raises would be available. VCAA Thompson replied that all raises will be retroactive to July 1. SPA employees will get their raises in the October 31st check. EPA raises will be in the November 30th check. He restated that the $625 raise is NOT a lump sum but is added to the salary base.
Ferrell (History) asked what administrative controls exist to see to it that these extra funds designated for merit are used as intended. Thompson replied that he will review raise requests and discuss them with the appropriate dean to be sure the charge is followed.
Rigsby (Geology) asked for clarification about instructions for use of the Doctoral II money. Thompson replied that the money is for merit only.
Thomas Feldbush, Vice Chancellor for Research, spoke on the SACS draft that is on the website. The SACS self-study deals with both compliance and enhancement issues. Under enhancement, the overall theme was how we can increase our research and graduate programs at the same time that undergraduate education is growing. The SACS Research Committee draft report is designed to garner faculty input into the report and recommendations. Three forums have been scheduled to facilitate the discussion. As many of the committee members as possible will attend each forum.
Martinez (Foreign Languages and Literatures) referred to a document that was provided by Killingsworth some time ago about the SACS self-study review. Under the goals of alternative self-study provided by SACS, strategies are to be developed on how scholarly activities are managed and decisions on resources like faculty time. Martinez questioned how the general recommendation became interpreted in such a narrow way as the “Centers of Excellence”. Feldbush replied that the original charge was how to deal with these issues as enrollment increases. The committee’s recommendation was to develop these centers. ECU doesn’t have the resources to develop nationally recognized programs in every area, and we must decide as an institution where to build nationally recognized programs. The report is the committee’s interpretation of how to interpret the initial very broad charges.
Schneider (Business) asked whether these centers for excellence will create an environment in which some who are more research oriented will have lower teaching loads or service expectations Feldbush replied that the draft states that early on in the development of these centers, funds will be available to buy faculty time from teaching (to reimburse departments). Later, these institutes should be funded by external support. So, the situation isn’t really different from the way it is currently done.
Martinez (Foreign Languages and Literatures) asked why the creation of the Institute of Advanced Studies is necessary for accreditation by SACS. Feldbush replied that the compliance component determines accreditation. The enhancement component involves strategic plans to deal with specific issues. These recommendations are part of the enhancement component.
Rigsby (Geology) asked how this report will proceed after the forums. Feldbush responded that more forums may be needed. The committee will try to incorporate faculty input into the next draft which will also be open for feedback from faculty. The final form of the report will be up to the SACS steering committee and Chancellor Muse.
Martinez (Foreign Languages and Literatures) questioned whether an indirect result of the report is that the university will dictate research agendas through allocation of funds. Morrison stated that there will be plenty of opportunity for faculty to attend forums to discuss this type of issue. Feldbush added that that is precisely the purpose of the forums.
E. Bob Morrison, Chair of the Faculty
Professor Morrison stated that he met with Charles Franklin, Board of Trustees Chair and discussed faculty salaries. Franklin was very supportive of finding ways to increase faculty salaries and stated that board members will address this with the legislature in the next session. Franklin agreed that better salaries and benefits are necessary for recruitment. Morrison will discuss this at the next Board of Trustees meeting. Morrison reported that he is following the activities of the Academic Committees, especially those that were newly created or reorganized. The committees appear to be doing well, and he believes that we can expect good reports in the future. He noted that the Faculty Welfare Committee has a key job. VCAA Thompson and Morrison have asked them to think about what can be done for faculty in a broader context thanraises alone. With the Senate’s Approval, these recommendations could go to the Chancellor, Board of Trustees, legislature, and General Assembly. Issues include out-of-state tuition for faculty families, day care, sabbatical leaves, merit raises and benefits for fixed-term faculty, salary and retirement issues, a faculty club, faculty dining, and health insurance. Morrison noted that the committee probably won’t get to all of these issues this year. It is a difficult task because over the next 8-10 years we’ll be hiring the next generation of faculty, and benefits will be key to the success of recruitment. The Information Technology Committee has voted in favor of the principle of requiring all incoming freshmen to have a computer. The Educational Policies and Planning Committee is considering changes in Part V. of the Faculty Manual that relate to curriculum development. Finally, Morrison noted that the Calendar Committee was trying to coordinate the ECU calendar with Pitt County Schools and Pitt Community College, which would make it easier for families to plan vacations.
F. SACS Self Study
Brenda Killingsworth, Director, stated that for 1 ½ years, the compliance committees have been hard at work. They have provided a summary report that identifies areas where we’re not in compliance, areas that we need to address, and suggestions for improvement. She expects more suggestions from faculty, administrators, and staff as they review the report and requested feedback. Areas for consideration include: graduate education, distance education, student development, and faculty orientation.
Niswander (Business) noted that the section on athletics is still under development. He asked if this was a timing issue or are there fundamental differences between the committee and athletics. Killingsworth replied that it’s just a timing issue. Morrison added that Jim Smith is on the agenda for the next Senate meeting to discuss the NCAA report.
Wolf (Anthropology) asked for clarification of page 4.2.2 in the report. Is this suggestion that units strengthen assessment of courses they teach or knowledge of their majors when they graduate? Killingsworth responded that degree programs should document assessment of general education requirements. Wolf added that there seems to be confusion here. The forms that were sent for units to evaluate were specific to their disciplines. This implies that you’re evaluating the students you teach general education requirements to, not your majors. Killingsworth replied that it’s appropriate to document both. Wolf asked how to do that if you only have 1 or 2 semesters with a given student at most. How can we do outcome assessments any way other than grades? Killingsworth answered that we need to document what we do know, then work to coordinate how we can measure other outcomes.
Ferreira (Social Work) said that there is confusion about the wording on computers. Should students be computer literate at any level or just with regard to their courses? Killingsworth replied that the computer literacy is degree-based. Ferreira asked how units could determine computer competency other than by requiring students to take a course. Killingsworth replied that grades don’t work, so adding a course is just a process, not an outcome. She added that if students take a course with specified learning outcomes, disciplines could interact with the unit offering the computer course to make it more relevant.
Ferrell (History) stated that for a relatively unregulated faculty, if the issue can’t be grades, then the assessment process, especially with general education sections, is largely anecdotal. There are at least 500 faculty who teach general education courses. What evidence do we have that grades aren’t an adequate measure? Assessment is going to take large amounts of time, yet faculty have to increase the number of students taught and increase research output.
Thompson replied that the issue is that we don’t have a General Education Program, we have a General Education Menu. Thompson added that we have a dedicated faculty but that we have to demonstrate that what we’re doing increases education. We don’t do that. We have a difficult time showing that we teach our students to write better, to think about things better, or any of the other learning objectives. If we don’t act proactively, we will be forced to act, with very little time. This report gives faculty a chance to do it before it is mandated.
Clark (Theater and Dance) asked about coordinating with county schools on computer literacy. Would it be useful to see whether students coming in might test out of basic computer competency? Adding a course in computers means that something else has to be cut. Killingsworth responded that we’re doing this by degree program because of the recognition that different programs have different needs. Some already interweave this and wouldn’t need a new course
Chancellor Muse responded to Ferrell’s observation that this is just the “current spasm”. Muse stated that if this is a spasm, it’s been developing over about 15 years. He has worked as a reviewer for SACS and has been president of a reviewed institution. There has been increasing focus on assessment as part of the process. All accreditation agencies are trying to hold institutions accountable for the claims we make. If we say that students should have computer competency, we must demonstrate that they have it. This may involve pretest-posttest, or a common exam, with a certain score that demonstrates competency. We have the responsibility to determine how we define competency. We have to provide documentation for our claims. We need to be more careful in degree programs as well as overall about the claims we make. Given that we have made those claims, we must document them. That’s all SACS is asking. It is to our advantage to use the self-study to show evidence of meeting such goals or at least that we have a process in place that will allow us to meet that requirement.
Ferrell (History) said that the problem at ECU and everywhere, is that we’re doing the same thing we’ve done before. In 1962, we rewrote goals to fit programs. He is bothered by the language of assessment that we don’t use, and can’t translate if grades don’t count. General Education has been worked on for over 30 years. We have a unique perspective – we can go back through 30 years of SACS assessments. We should go back to the older documents to see how they worked. Taking on General Education and degree programs to find out how we’re doing is going in the wrong direction. Killingsworth replied that individual units have received information on prior goals set by the programs. The study group didn’t want to recreate those goals, just report on the status.
Hall (Psychology) stated that assessment is a very broad term. Tests are narrow, evaluation is broader, and assessment is very broad. Our challenge is to look at broad terms yet measure impact in narrow terms. Thompson added that we’re asking to redefine what we think our programs will give students and how we will measure that. It’s extremely difficult. Hall suggested that we think out of the box, thinking in broad terms that are unique to ECU.
Cope (Psychology) asked if there were any figures on how many home-schooled students from NC are going to other schools in the state. Powell responded that he doesn’t have information on that.
McCarthy (Business) asked about average SAT for these students. Powell stated that students must have SAT scores over the ECU average. Since there is no course information on the transcript, the NC system has a process for MAR coursework and requires the ACT in addition to the SAT. ACT has subscores with concordance tables that give a score equivalent for GPA and class rank. ECU then uses the same regression analysis to predict student performance used for other applicants.
Toppen (Industry and Technology) asked if there was information about how many of those transferring from community colleges are home schooled. Powell replied that he doesn’t know.
Niswander (Business) asked about the goals for this year and how this year’s average SAT compares to last year’s. Powell replied that this year’s average SAT is slightly lower because there are fewer out-of-state students, who always have higher GPA’s and SAT’s. The goals for the coming year are currently being discussed. He deferred to Gary Lowe, who added that the freshman class increase is not yet fixed. Current events may influence this. We can increase out-of-state enrollments next year because we were under this year.
Yarbrough (Political Science) asked how the current SAT figure translates to the average before the re-norming. Powell replied that a 1030 is essentially the same as a 930 before
I. University Athletics Committee
Trenton Davis, Faculty Athletics Representative, discussed the committee’s annual report and upcoming activities. Davis began by noting that this is an unusual committee because it is an administrative committee that reports both to the Senate and to the Chancellor. The committee is charged with oversight of academic issues in athletics as well as NCAA compliance issues. He distributed an article from the Greenville Daily Reflector in 1990 that documented the creation of the committee, whose responsibilities include oversight of academic integrity, compliance, overall development of student athletes, and making recommendations to the Chancellor. He wants to make sure all members of the committee, especially faculty, are up to speed on the committee’s charge. They have reviewed NCAA graduation rates, tutoring policies, meetings with coaches and athletes, and constraints. They have been actively involved in the NCAA certification study. They have devoted much time and effort to gender equity and minority opportunity issues. Conference USA has embarked on a study of missed-class time due to participation in sports, and he hopes to have something to report on that in the Spring. He encouraged faculty to recognize official absences and to be sensitive about helping students who must miss class.
J. Hand-Held Wireless Computers
Darryl Davis, Associate Vice Chancellor for Distributed Education and Academic Information Technology, distributed maps that show where the hand-held wireless computer deployment is in place. It is a work in process. Some remote locations now have wireless connectivity, which is easier to do for some than a fiber optic connection would be. The Medical School is also looking at other options for expansion. The committee is now looking at the next level of growth. It will be slower because of budget constraints. He said that they want opinions from faculty about where this would be useful. High speed connections for home wireless environments shouldn’t be done on campus. They are also looking at security issues, training, and other technologies. Some proposed areas for expansion include Joyner East and West Wings first floor, Bate Building first and second floors. This is in the process of being finalized. Some can access email from handhelds, quicker than regular computers. They also provide good links back to the desktop.
Glascoff (Health and Human Performance) asked why Minges isn’t included. Davis replied that they just haven’t been able to get to everywhere yet and the budget will slow it down.
K. Question Period
Sugar (Education) asked about the possibility of having a post on the parking listserv when reserve spaces become available. Morrison said he would ask about it.
Martinez (Foreign Languages and Literatures) asked the Chair of the Budget Committee about the outlook for the next fiscal year. Niswander replied that we’ve dodged a huge bullet so far this year. The year isn‘t over yet and we need to be prepared. The state budget is predicated on a revenue increase of 4%, but that hasn’t materialized and we need to be prepared for pullbacks later on. The UNC system gets about 7% of the state budget, so our share of the budget decrease could be even greater. All of us need to be thinking about how we can make the impact on academics as small as possible. He added that at this point, it’s all just opinion and conjecture.
VC Thompson added that Niswander’s assessment is accurate. The cuts so far were made centrally, but we’re still anticipating another unbudgeted $1.5 M for utilities. We need to hope for a warm winter and low gas prices. If we do get additional cuts, there is little room left for flexibility and departmental budgets may be affected.
Scott (Academic Library Services) asked VCAA Thompson if there are plans to increase campus security. Thompson responded that there is an increased presence of campus security, with heightened awareness all across board. The biggest impact for us is thefts.
Agenda Item IV. Unfinished Business
There was no unfinished business to come before the Faculty Senate at this time.
Agenda Item V. Report of Committees
A. Faculty Grievance Committee
Gene Hughes (Business), Chair of the Committee, presented the annual report of the Grievance Committee. There were no questions and the report was accepted as presented. The annual grievance report of the Chair of the Faculty was also presented. (Full report is available at: http://www.ecu.edu/fsonline/AppellateCommittees/FV-AnnualFSReport.htm.)
C. University Curriculum Committee
Dale Knickerbocker (Foreign Languages and Literatures), Chair of the Committee, presented the curriculum matters contained in the committee minutes of September 13, 2001. There was no discussion and the minutes were approved as presented. RESOLUTION #01-30 It was noted that the University Curriculum Committee has a new course submission email address to be used for submitting curriculum changes to the Committee. cucsubmissions@mail.ecu.edu Faculty were encouraged to tell their colleagues of this change.
Agenda Item VI. New Business
David Pravica (Mathematics) offered new business relating to the Mathematics Department and requested the Senate’s support. (A copy of the proposed resolution is available in the Faculty Senate office.) Following a lengthy discussion, Ferrell (History) moved the postponement on action of the proposed resolution supporting Mathematics Education at ECU until the Educational Policies and Planning Committee has voted according to Appendix L. of the ECU Faculty Manual. The motion was passed. RESOLUTION #01-31
The meeting adjourned at 4:56 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Linda Allred Lori Lee
Secretary of the Faculty Faculty Senate office
Department of Psychology
| 
