East Carolina University
FACULTY SENATE
FULL MINUTES OF OCTOBER 1, 2002
The second regular meeting of the 2002-2003 Faculty Senate was held on Tuesday, October 1, 2002, 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 3, 2002, meeting were approved as presented.
Agenda Item III. Special Order of the Day
A. Roll Call
Alternates present were: Professors Knickerbocker for Martinez (Foreign Languages) and Said for Ries (Math).
B. Announcements
- The Chancellor has approved the following resolution from the September 3, 2002, Faculty Senate meeting:
02-25 Curriculum matters contained in the April 25, 2002, University Curriculum Committee minutes
02-26 Membership on the Enrollment Management Council
02-27 Reaffirming the commitment of ECU to academic freedom
- The next Board of Trustees’ meeting is scheduled for Friday, October 18, 2002. Copies of the meeting
agenda will be available in the Faculty Senate office.
Ø Part VI. Section VIII. Frequently Asked Questions about Faculty Personnel Records that relates to the location of employment records for faculty within the Division of Health Sciences. We have been notified that the Health Sciences Personnel Office has been combined with the Department of Human Resources to form one satellite office in Brody; thereby eliminating the personnel office as noted in the list.
Ø Appendix I. Conflicts of Interest Policy, several editorial revisions made by the Office of the President prior to approval. (A listing of the revisions is available in the Faculty Senate office.)
Ø Appendix C. Section I.E. Initial Appointment, deleting the reference to the “board of governors” to coincide with the new UNC Management Flexibility Plan. The text should read as follows: “Any action conferring permanent tenure with the initial appointment requires approval of the board of trustees and the board of governors.”
- The Committee on Committees is charged with filling two upcoming delegate and one 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 4, 2002.
- Candidate’s portfolio of evaluative materials (teaching philosophy, nominating letter, list of courses taught, student and peer evaluations, and 3 letters of support from former students) for the University Award for Outstanding Teaching and Robert L. Jones Award for Outstanding Teaching should be submitted to the Ad Hoc Teaching Awards Committee via the Faculty Senate office, 140 Rawl Annex by Monday, December 2, 2002.
- Candidate’s portfolio of evaluative materials for the Board of Governors Distinguished Professor for Teaching Awards and the Board of Governors Award for Excellence in Teaching should be submitted to the Faculty Development Center, 122 Ragsdale by Monday, December 2, 2002.
§ Nominee’s materials (departmental and unit review committee nominating letters, complete CV, and 3 letters from outside referees) for the ECU Awards for Excellence in Research or Creative Activity should be submitted to the Academic Awards Committee via the Faculty Senate office, 140 Rawl Annex by Monday, December 2, 2002.
§ An overview of the impact of the legislative actions on the 2002-03 University budget was distributed. A copy of this overview may be obtained from the Faculty Senate office.
C. William Muse, Chancellor
Chancellor Muse announced that the General Assembly has adopted a statewide budget. Overall, our budget situation is more positive than anticipated earlier in the year. The 5% cut originally proposed by the governor was ultimately reduced
to 2.88%. Most of the early proposals that would have negatively impacted us, such as funding salaries at only 98%, were eliminated during the negotiation process. A combination of regular-term and distance education enrollment increase funding adds up to $13.7 million for our budget. Dr. Muse noted that this would result in approximately 31 new regular-term faculty positions and 60 distance education positions. By targeting the 2.8% budget cut to administrative positions and academic/administrative operating expenses we avoid any faculty position reductions. Dr. Muse stated that the school of medicine would not fare as well due to the fact that it’s funding is not enrollment driven, and will suffer a $3.1 million budget reduction. Dr. Muse stated that the Parking and Traffic Committee has been working through suggestions provided by the Consulting Group [Chance Management] last year that will significantly alter the allocation of spaces, especially on the core campus. Steps have been taken to solicit inputs from all portions of the campus in an organized and comprehensive way. The current survey is aimed at gaining information concerning several critical assumptions that formed the basis for a proposed plan that the parking committee has spent more than a year developing. Chancellor Muse stated that preliminary survey results indicate that several of the core assumptions on which the plan was based cannot be substantiated. Some moderation of the proposed parking fee increases may be necessary. The committee will be reworking the proposal to resolve these issues in a more acceptable way, and the revised plan will be presented to the faculty senate, the staff forum, and SGA during their November meetings. Dr. Muse announced several additional factors that will impact the parking situation. New buildings such as the Cotanche Building and the Greenville Center Building have provided the opportunity to relocate administrative support departments from the main campus. This will result in an alleviation of parking demand in some areas. Dr. Muse noted that the acquisition of seven acres of land on Dickerson Avenue, west of Memorial could be developed as a remote parking lot for freshman, thus increasing parking flexibility. Construction and renovation projects will continue to impact parking on campus both permanently and temporarily. Dr. Muse’s final comments concerned teaching awards. Two traditional alumni teaching awards may be in jeopardy unless permanent funding can be obtained. Last year they were funded out of the Chancellor’s discretionary funds, and the senate officers have requested that this be done again this year. Dr. Muse has agreed to fund the awards in the current year from discretionary funds and to also look for a way to fund these awards permanently so that we can keep this tradition alive.
Rigsby (Geology) noted that the Academic Standards Committee is beginning to look at general education requirements and asked Dr. Muse’s opinion on that process and how it might interface with the budget. Chancellor Muse stated that General Education requirements needed to be revisited periodically at all institutions to see if there are requirements that need to be added or dropped. He endorses the review process. The potential impact on the budget would be dependant on the type of changes to be made. If requirements were to be added we would have to determine our ability to provide needed funding. However, it would be premature to speculate on any impact prior to seeing the committee report.
D. Vice Chancellor’s Report
Michael Lewis, Vice Chancellor for Health Sciences, indicated that we had already heard much of the bad news concerning the budget; hence, he began by providing some demographics concerning the Medical School and the Health Science Division. The School of Medicine has roughly 300 students, with 50 Ph.D. students in the basic sciences. Our faculty serves as teachers for about 280 residents in specialty training. The nursing program has about 400 undergraduates, 80 Master’s students, and starting this year, two Ph.D. students. Dr. Lewis stated the Nursing program is the largest producer of new graduates in the State. Our Allied Health program is also the largest in the State. Our Health Sciences Library is the only such facility east of I-95, and is a huge service to the region. One of the primary goals of the School of Medicine is to increase the number of primary care physicians. About 50% of our graduates are practicing in this State, and of those, 52% are practicing in Primary Care. Dr Lewis stated that if a student attended the East Carolina School of Medicine, and completed residency or graduate training in Greenville, 75% went on to practice in North Carolina. Increasing the number of under-represented minorities represents a second major goal. Over the last 10 years we have progressively increased these numbers. In the past two years our non-white enrollment has exceeded 30%. Of these students the largest representation is among African Americans and Native Americans. Dr. Lewis indicated that North Carolina was 40th in the nation in terms of the average number of years of potential life lost [against a standard life expectancy of 75 years], and if we looked at only the Eastern region we would be 50th. Based on these numbers, the role of the medical school and its relationship with Pitt County Memorial Hospital (as the primary teaching hospital) is of vital importance. In relation to the budget problems, Dr. Lewis indicated that 20 years ago we were well funded,, yet recently we have participated in every budget cut without participating in increased funding opportunities.
Scott (Academic Library Services) asked about the rate of ECU nursing students who pass the State Boards as compared to other Universities in our State. Dr. Lewis responded that our rate was very high, often the highest in the State, especially in relation to graduates from Chapel Hill.
E. Bob Morrison, Chair of the Faculty
Professor Morrison announced the appointment of a Commission on Scholarship that will address issues associated with the scholarship of teaching and engagement. The first meeting will be held on October 11, 2002. Commission members
are as follows: Linda Allred (Psychology), Patricia Anderson, (School of Education), Michael Dorsey (School of Art), Steve Estes (School of Health and Human Performance), Phyllis Horns (School of Nursing), John Moskop (School of Medicine), Rick Niswander (School of Business), Heather Ries (Department of Mathematics), Catherine Rigsby (Geology), Marilyn Sheerer (School of Education), William Swart (Provost), and Bob Morrison (Chair of the Faculty). Professor Morrison noted that issues related to non-tenure-track faculty are continuing to be addressed. Gary Lowe (Associate Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs and Director of Enrollment Management) will serve as campus coordinator for the implementation of the UNC Non-Tenure-Track Faculty Committee recommendations. Dr Lowe serves as an ex officio member of the Faculty Welfare Committee and will keep them informed of progress in this area. The Information Resources Coordinating Council (IRCC) is currently undergoing reorganization, and there are a number of slots for faculty members on some of the committees. The Faculty Information Technology Committee (FITC) will also be more involved in the review process for information technology initiatives and policies that are related to academics. Based on recommendations from an IRCC subcommittee, the FITC charge is also under revision by the Committee on Committees. Dr. Morrison noted that we have some problems with our dispute resolution process, and this year we’ll be addressing ways that we might fix it. We have developed an increasingly adversarial relationship in our dispute resolution process. This adversarial relationship goes counter to the Board of Governors intent expressed in the UNC policy manual:
Thus, when framing our system of governance, the Board of Governors invested heavily in the idea that persons of intelligence and good-will ought to be able to work out many of their differences through relatively informal University-sponsored procedures.
We have a multi-step process to handle faculty grievances. The first step is for grievants and respondents to try to work through their differences. If agreement can’t be reached, then a mediator can be assigned to help work out an agreement. When mediation doesn’t work the Faculty Grievance Committee will conduct a hearing to hear both sides of the issues. The Faculty Grievance Committee will then make a recommendation to the appropriate administrator. If the grievance is not satisfactorily resolved, the grievant may appeal to the Chancellor and then to the Office of the President. Dr. Morrison stated, that we have dedicated faculty members serving on grievance committees who carefully evaluate the grievance-related facts in a professional manner. Three of our Faculty Senators serve on the Faculty Grievance Committee. Dr. Morrison noted concern that mediation does not work well in an adversarial atmosphere, and it does not work when attorneys become involved in the process. Although he has great respect for our attorneys to address legal matters for the institution, he believes their presence in the faculty dispute resolution process creates an adversarial atmosphere. Their responsibilities to the institution are not compatible with the dispute resolution process. Dispute resolution should be a process where we’re trying to reach agreement, not one where we’re trying to build our cases against each other. Dr. Morrison has spoken to the Chair of the Faculty Assembly Governance Committee about the continuing need to address grievance issues at UNC institutions. He notes that this is especially important for ECU where our grievance processes are failing. We have faculty members investing their time and efforts in mediating grievances, participating in formal grievance hearings, drafting lengthy reports to administrators detailing problems, and then no deference is given to committee findings. When faculty committee recommendations become irrelevant, the process breaks down and mediation ceases to work. Dr. Morrison plans to ask the Faculty Grievance Committee to include language that specifically excludes attorneys from the process. He indicated that University Attorney Ben Irons says that many of the attorneys at UNC campuses would agree that attorneys should not be involved in the dispute resolution process. A UNC task force report on Faculty Dispute Resolution is available through our Faculty Senate website. They are currently asking for comments on that report. Dr. Morrison stated that anyone having comments should send them to him, and that he would forward them to Leslie Winner, UNC counsel.
Ferrell (History) also expressed concern with the current grievance procedures.
McMillan (Medicine) stated that there are already guidelines built into many procedures that limit the participation of lawyers. For example, in hearing procedures for academic misconduct the chair of the investigative committee is not required to accept the participation of attorneys for either party.
Ralph Scott (Academic Library Services), Faculty Assembly Delegate, gave an overview of the September 20, 2002, UNC Faculty Assembly meeting in Chapel Hill. The full report is available at: http://www.ecu.edu/fsonline/FacultySenate/AGENDAS/septFacultyAssemblyreport.htm.)
Gary Lowe, Associate Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs and Director of Enrollment Management, provided a breakdown of the undergraduate admissions (details are available from the Senate Office). He noted that the 2002 entering freshman class is the largest ever in terms of numbers as well as having the highest SATs and HSGPAs. Dr. Lowe indicated that the total fall enrollment showed a growth of 1212 (6.24%) students, even though we are not a
targeted growth campus. Our projected freshman enrollment was 3470, whereas the actual number was 3557 (an increase of 2.51%). This occurred even after partially restricting enrollments during the spring.
Taggart (Music) asked about the term “targeted growth campus” and inquired as to why we were not considered to be one. Dr. Morrison responded that some campuses having less than 6 thousand students have been designated to grow by 40% or more by the Office of the President.
Eribo (Communications) asked Dr. Lowe if he had data on foreign students’ admissions? Dr. Lowe responded that he could not give the exact figures, but that we had about 180 foreign students last year and over 200 this year.
Said (Mathematics) asked, with respect to a previously stated goal of 27,000 students in the next several years, if yearly forecasts or time tables were being maintained in order to meet this expectation. Dr. Lowe responded that some of the numbers that have been in existence in the recent past are under serious scrutiny. We also need to be careful with the composition of those numbers with respect to traditional entering freshman, versus DE students, versus graduate students. For example, next years incoming freshman class is projected to be 3200 students, a reduction of 270 students from this year’s forecast of 3470. However, we are projecting growth for next year, which will come from increased retention, graduate students, and distance education.
Gemperline (Chemistry) asked what was the criterion by which an individual is declared a DE student? Dr. Lowe indicated that at present this is somewhat complicated. Some of these students are partially on campus and some are never on campus. Dr. Niswander (Vice Chair of the Faculty) stated that generally this distinction has to do with what are called 101 classes and 107 classes. The 101 classes are those that are purely on campus. The 107 classes are classified as DE. There are students totally taking 101 classes on campus and they are considered on campus students. There are those that are taking a mixture, some on campus and some DE. Historically these students have been considered by the 101 designation. The pure DE folks are placed in the 107 category. Students with this classification are typically counted as being DE.
Gemperline (Chemistry) asked if we could identify the number of high performing students with scholarships among those entering each year? His point was that it does not take many of these top students to influence a class profile. Dr. Lowe stated the importance of building up our scholarship programs by increasing the numbers of these students and increasing our attractiveness to these students.
Tabrizi (Computer Science) expressed concern that many problems with DE students continue to crop up, He noted that when graduate students (who are international students) take DE courses they can lose their tuition waivers. Dr. Lowe explained that many problems still surface based on rules from earlier (pre DE) times. Some of the consequences are unanticipated and we are trying to fix problems as they are identified.
Ferrell (History) asked if Course Registration Schedules would continue to be distributed in hard copy? Dr. Lowe responded that it would only be provided on-line. Professor Ferrell indicated that the History Department wished to register its concern with this decision. It is their believe that the system [computer] is not capable of handling this load, that it will fail as it has in the past, and that computer access is not universal. Dr. Lowe was not aware of prior system failures, and indicated that simply providing a copy of the schedule placed no great demands on the system. Hard copies of the course schedules are “out of date” at the time they are published, whereas computer versions can be tweaked and changed as needed.
Ciesielski (Industrial Technology) felt like this decision emanated from those who don’t actually use the system. Dr. Lowe responded that this decision was based on careful collaboration with many people at many levels throughout the system.
Wall (Philosophy) was also concerned about system overload and asked if ITCS had been consulted. Dr Lowe indicated that the system used to actually perform the registration function was separate from that used to provide access to the class scheduling documents. Again, no great load is placed on the system.
H. Question Period
Ulfers (Music) asked about the time frame for filling the vacant Deans position in the School of Music. Dr Swart responded that he was still visiting various programs and learning the system. He indicated that he was reluctant to hire senior officials prior to making any decisions about reorganization sometime in January.
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. University Curriculum Committee
Dale Knickerbocker (Foreign Languages and Literatures), Chair of the Committee, presented the curriculum matters contained in the committee minutes of September 12, 2002. There was no discussion and the minutes were approved as presented. RESOLUTION #02-28
B. Academic Standards Committee
John Tilley (History), Chair of the Committee, presented a revised policy for Distance Education Class Evaluations.
Following discussion, the revised University policy for Distance Education Class Evaluations was approved as presented.
RESOLUTION #02-29
Jan Tovey (English), Chair of the Committee, presented a proposed revision to the ECU Undergraduate Catalog relating to the University Grade Replacement policy. In Section 5: Academic Regulations, subsection Grade Replacement Policy, the Committee recommended changing the “must” to “should” as follows: “To replace a grade, the student must should request a grade replacement on the online registration form, the schedule change form, or the grade replacement form .. .. For the studentto implement the policy, the form must shouldbe submitted no later than the last day of classes of the semester in which the student retakes the course . . . . “
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 and accepted.
G. Unit Code Screening Committee
Ralph Scott (Academic Library Services) , Chair of the Committee, presented the revised School of Allied Health Sciences’ Unit Code of Operation. There was no discussion and the amended School of Allied Health Sciences’ Unit Code of Operation was approved as presented. RESOLUTION #02-33
Agenda Item VI. New Business
There was no new business to come before the Faculty Senate at this time.
The meeting adjourned at 4:35 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
John Cope Lori Lee
Secretary of the Faculty Faculty Senate office
Department of Psychology
FACULTY SENATE RESOLUTIONS APPROVED AT THE OCTOBER 1, 2002, MEETING
02-28 Curriculum matters contained in the September 12, 2002, University Curriculum Committee minutes.
Disposition: Chancellor
02-29 Revised University policy for Distance Education Class Evaluations as follows:
“All student evaluations of instructors in distance education classes are to be submitted by the Monday following the last full week of classes in a given semester (i.e. no extension of deadlines following the completion of courses). To increase student response rates, the office of Planning and Institutional Research will send a reminder e-mail to all students enrolled in distance education classes one week prior to the deadline.”
Disposition: Chancellor
02-30 Revise the ECU Undergraduate Catalog, Section 5: Academic Regulations, subsection Grade Replacement Policy to read as follows:
“To replace a grade, the student shouldrequest a grade replacement on the online registration form, the schedule change form, or the grade replacement form . . . . For the student to implement the policy, the form should be submitted no later than the last day of classes of the semester in which the student retakes the course . . . . “
Disposition: Chancellor
02-31 Revised Educational Policies and Planning Committee charge.
Disposition: Faculty Senate
“As soon as they are determined at the end of each semester or summer term, grades are posted electronically. Students may secure their grades via the automated voice response system using their pin number, and via the OneStop (https://onestop1.ecu.edu/onestop/) using their exchange userid and password. In compliance with the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act, faculty are not allowed to post grades by Social Security Number, any sequential part thereof, or any other personally identifiable characteristic.Upon receipt of a written request to the Office of the Registrar, a report of grades is sent to the student at his or her permanent home address. Questions about final examination grades should be directed to the instructor who determined the grade. “
Disposition: Chancellor
02-33 Revised School of Allied Health Sciences’ Unit Code of Operation.
Disposition: Chancellor
