EAST CAROLINA UNIVERSITY
FACULTY SENATE
MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 13, 2001
The third regular meeting of the 2001-2002 Faculty Senate was held on Tuesday, November 13, 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
Approval of the minutes of October 9, 2001, was postponed until the December meeting.
Agenda Item III. Special Order of the Day
A. Roll Call
Senators absent were: Professors Graziani (Art), Griffin and L’Esperance (Education), Toppen (Industry and Technology), Cox (Medicine), Bass (Social Work) and Mooney (Sociology).
Alternates present were: Professors Eribo for Godbold (Communication), Ciechalski for Sugar (Education), Tovey for Watson (English), Felts for McGhee (Health and Human Performance), and Fletcher for McMillen (Medicine).
B. Announcements
1. The Chancellor has approved the following resolutions from the October 9, 2001, Faculty Senate meeting:
01-29 Amended Unit Codes of Operation for the School of Medicine and the Department of Geography.
01-30 Curriculum matters contained in the September 13, 2001, University Curriculum Committee minutes.
2. An editorial amendment has been made to the ECU Faculty Manual, Appendix L. to include the title of “Vice Chancellor for Research” in Section B. Appointment of Administrative Officials. Noted below is the revised text. “B. Appointment of Administrative Officials
Each administrative official (exclusive of the Chancellor, the Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs, the Vice Chancellor for Health Sciences, the Vice Chancellor for Research, the Vice Chancellor for Business Affairs, the Vice Chancellor for Student Life, the Vice Chancellor for Institutional Advancement, the Director of Athletics, and their assistants) whose direct concern is with academic matters will be appointed according to the following procedure:”
3. 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 3, 2001.
4. 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 3, 2001.
5. Nominee’s materials (departmental and unit review committee nominating letters, complete CV, and 5 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 Friday, December 7, 2001.
6. The deadline for submitting undergraduate curriculum proposals to the University Curriculum Committee for consideration during this academic year is February 14, 2002. Copies of material for consideration must be received by the Committee Chair (Dale Knickerbocker) by 5:00 p.m. two weeks prior to the scheduled committee meeting.
7. Faculty members are reminded to return the short survey instrument distributed several weeks ago relating to efforts to reduce the impact of alcohol and drugs at ECU. Further information may be obtained from Brian McMillen (Medicine) or Mary Glascoff (Health and Human Performance).
C. William Muse, Chancellor
Chancellor Muse reported that the University’s financial situation is difficult but manageable. However, he noted that we must maintain reserve if we face additional reductions. Cuts have been absorbed in areas that will cause the least damage to instructional programs. Second, the Chancellor discussed his study of organizational issues. He asked again for input from faculty. Two major issues are whether there should be a Provost and whether the Vice Chancellor for Health Affairs and Dean of the School of Medicine should be one position or two. Comments about organizational issues may be mailed or e-mailed to Chancellor Muse (musew@mail.ecu.edu). He continues to visit campus units, as well as community colleges and communities in eastern North Carolina. He has also met with Governor Easley and Lt. Governor Perdue. The SACS self-study consultants continue their work on campus. Finally, Chancellor Muse extended congratulations to Professor Ferrell for 40 years of service to ECU.
D. Vice Chancellor’s Report
Phyllis Horns indicated that she has been very busy planning for relocation of AHS, Nursing, and the Health Sciences Library to a new building on West Campus. The challenge is to determine what is needed in the new building. Programs in the planning phase include a BS in Allied Health Sciences, MA in Public Health, MS in Medical Sciences, and a PhD in Nursing, Rehabilitation Counseling and Administration PhD. They are currently looking at the health care workforce that will be needed in the future, including the possibilities of programs in pharmacy and dentistry. Divisions are currently working on many smaller reports that will be compiled and completed by the end of this academic year. Allied Health Sciences is also actively preparing for the SACS visit.
E. Bob Morrison, Chair of the Faculty
Professor Morrison reported on the October 19th meeting of the Board of Trustees. Morrison stated that most of the actual work occurs in the committee meetings, and that the full board meeting went quickly. The Academic Affairs, Research, Graduate Studies, and Student Life committee approved a revised royalty distribution policy that would return more money to faculty was approved. The funding of the Agromedicine Institute was discussed, as was the feasibility of establishing an ECU-supported Research Park. The Division of Student Life setting up an Office of Parent Services to facilitate communication between the university and parents. The Finance and Facilities Committee discussed building projects; the Science & Technology building is on schedule; the Strength & Conditioning Center should open in December; revisions to design of the Rivers Building addition were discussed, as were designs for the west end dining facility and the Allied Health/Nursing Building. The Executive & Audit Committee heard a report by VCAA Thompson on how other UNC institutions hire administrative officials below the level of Chancellor. At ECU, according to Appendix L, nominees are voted on by the tenured faculty in that unit. If they vote negatively, the name doesn’t go forward. The Board is concerned about this; they believe that the vote should be for recommendation only. Professor Morrison noted that in 1981, when the process started, faculty senate sent a list to trustees with separate processes for deans (no vote required) and chairs (vote required.) In May 1983, the Board rejected Appendix L as prepared by the Senate, combining processes for selecting Chair and Dean into one process, which requires a vote for either Dean or Chair. Even though the revised L was not an invention of the senate, Professor Morrison thinks that it is a good process and it works. He added that faculty members recognize that the Chancellor has the final authority in all personnel matters, even though that is not always explicit in the Faculty Manual. The Board also discussed giving honorary degrees to family members of donors. Vice Chancellor Feldbush has been asked to chair a committee to consider this. The Board expressed concern that enrollment growth was only 2.5%, lower than the 4.3% growth rate for the UNC system at large.
F. Brenda Killingsworth, SACS Self Study Director
Professor Killingsworth presented each Senator with a set of lapel pins that show key landmarks representing the five major areas of self-study. Once again, she asked that faculty read draft reports as they become available and provide input. A summary of the Enhancement Report proposed strategies was distributed. She noted that there is overlap among some committees. Their reports will be edited and merged before a final document is prepared. After all forums, faculty input will be incorporated, and drafts will be on the website when available. On January 16th, the visiting team Chair will visit and look at the reports. The consultants will review the final documents prior to the SACS visit in March.
Yarbrough (Political Science) stated that one strategy is the community of scholars concept. He follows the reasoning behind this concept but said that the implementation is unclear. What will happen with the concept of teaching, research, and service that is currently in place. Will some faculty have different patterns of responsibilities than others? Professor Killingsworth deferred to Professor Bailey (chair of that committee), who said that the initial step will be input from faculty to decide what model of community of scholars we would like to use. There are several possible approaches, and the committee is not committed to any specific model, but seeks faculty input on what model should be used.
Jones (Social Work and Criminal Justice Studies) expressed opposition to the idea of students being referred to as customers. Kris Smith replied that the focus has been on customers in terms of business/service perspective. However, since the committee has addressed some academic areas as well, she will go back to the committee with this concern. They will look carefully at the wording used in discussions of the academic environment.
Ferrell (History) stated that as the university turns more to business rather than academics, there is more concern with dollars. How many businesses survive for hundreds of years? Previously, SACS left implementation to existing structures. We don’t need another substructure, more committees, to do this. The Committee on Committees was careful to remove duplication in the new committee charges. Professor Ferrell noted that each implementation strategy can be dealt with by one of the existing senate committees. Professor Killingsworth stated that they have tried to bring existing committees into the process, and that they will look at the action plans to determine what committee is responsible for what and to define time lines.
Martinez (Foreign Languages and Literatures) requested clarification about whether the Senate will be asked to approve the final version of the SACS report. Professor Killingsworth replied that the final report is for our information only but that the SACS committee wants sufficient input that the Senate will support the final report. Without that, she added, the plans won’t be successfully implemented.
Wall (Philosophy) stated that the draft of the Education & Research Enhancement report discusses such possibilities as giving teaching and the application of knowledge the same prestige as scholarly presentations, essentially redefining scholarship and teaching. He asked whether we should redefine these or just call it what it is. His concerned is that we’ll end up with a situation where teaching notes could equal a scholarly publication in a journal. Professor Killingsworth encouraged faculty to attend Dr. Charles Glassick’s workshops, which will focus on this issue. There are many possibilities on table at this time. After Glassick’s visit, the committee will seek input on how ECU wants to define scholarship. The concept of expanding scholarship is growing across the country, with many different opinions.
Ferrell (History) asked Professor Bailey if it is possible that there will not be one broad definition of scholarship but that each unit will define it’s own “scholarship”. Professor Bailey replied that the final decision had not been made; some like more uniformity, some like less. Professor Ferrell then stated that certain definitions exist now in unit codes. Has committee considered that? Should unit codes be changed? Professor Bailey replied that that will depend on how extreme redefinition is. It could require simple changes in some unit codes or broader revisions to the Faculty Manual.
Vice Chancellor Thompson emphasized that we are really having the opportunity for broader discussions. Dr. Glassick’s common theme is that rigorous peer evaluation is critical. We might even extend peer review beyond the institution. The process could be harder than at present.
Joe Ciechalski (Education) moved the approval of the Fall 2001 Graduation Roster, including honors program graduates,
subject to completion of degree requirements. The roster was accepted by acclamation. RESOLUTION #01-32
H. James LeRoy Smith, Executive Assistance to the Chancellor
Professor Smith discussed the NCAA Self-Study Report that was distributed to Senators in late October. A copy of the report is available in the Faculty Senate office. Smith stressed that input from the Faculty Senate is important. Senators are urged to contact him with concerns, comments, and questions.
Niswander (Business) noted that athletics programs often get into trouble because of loosely affiliated groups outside of university. On page 1-12, one question deals with other groups and how they are maintained under clear control of the institution. Niswander is not convinced that the report explains whether the Pirate Club is controlled by the institution. Professor Smith said that he will take this concern back to the steering committee, and that they may need to modify the report to clarify the issue.
Scott (Academic Library Sciences) noted that in a letter from the State Auditor to Dennis Young, it was recommended that the foundation have greater oversight of Pirate Club chapters. There was no follow-up memo on oversight of clubs. Professor Smith said he would follow up that issue. Scott also asked about the Code of Conduct. Have there been any occasions when the code has been enforced, especially the section on publicly drunkenness or unsportsman-like conduct? Professor Smith responded that he was not aware of any, but would check. Smith also noted that nationally this code has been renamed to include sportsmanship as concept, and that sports conferences are placing more emphasis on conduct.
Hanrahan (Medicine) asked under what conditions can a full scholarship be removed and what happens to student? Professor Smith deferred to Rosemary Stelma (Director of Financial Aid) who responded that, basically, an athletic scholarship cannot be cancelled during current year unless there is a serious violation (such as crime conviction). The department or coach can choose for any reason not to renew any grant-in-aid for the coming year. Guidelines about this are available from Rosie Thompson in Athletics. Hanrahan also asked what happens if an athlete sustains injuries? Stelma replied that a scholarship is never cancelled because of injuries. The student can be carried through to graduation or whenever they leave. VCAA Thompson added that when a scholarship is withdrawn because of academics, the student can appeal to scholarship committee.
I. Paul Cunningham, Director
Professor Cunningham discussed the Administrative University and Medical Center Institutional Review Board.
He began by encouraging consultation for those doing research with people. The Last two years have been especially hard: Health and Human Services (HHS) has increased its oversight of research with human subjects nationally. They have focused interest in the education and training of researchers and staff. HHS monitors research, conflicts of interest, and can levy civil, monetary penalties (large, institutional, or individual). There is a greater thrust for compliance. Prior, the major oversight agency was the National Institutes of Health, who were more collegial, on our side. Now, the primary function of the review board is the sole body responsible for human research at the entire university. Their charge is to protect the rights and welfare of human subjects and to assist investigators in the conduct of research. The Board reviews any human research conducted by ECU faculty or students (including all ECU institutions and the hospital). To avoid conflict of interest, the Board has been constituted as a department of the university under the direct leadership of Chancellor Muse and Vice Chancellor Feldbush. The board looks at clinical matters, non-clinical matters, and policy review. The office administrator is a nurse. There are 15 members and 45 alternates; scientists and nonscientists, including non-affiliated individuals with no relationship to the university. These are advocates for vulnerable populations. They must abide by state law and institutional policies. All research projects involving human subjects must be reevaluated by the board annually. Professor Cunningham described the review criteria used and the types of decisions that can be made by the board. Much of this emphasizes clinical/medical research. While faculty on the east campus do research that doesn’t involve patients, the greatest risks lie in medical research, so the guidelines are slated to that. The Board has a web page that provides documentation for submission, templates, links to educational website with sanctions. Professor Cunningham concluded by emphasizing that anyone contemplating human research should consult the IRB early on.
Eribo (Communication) asked if the board also reviews international research in countries with different research climates? Professor Cunningham replied that that type of research is challenging. To be ethical, the research must be culturally sensitive. The Board hasn’t had many international research projects to review, but they have considered the question. The best answer is probably that it is important to contact some structure in that country and take direction from them.
Ciesielski (Industry and Technology) asked about the jurisdiction of the board. Is there a litmus test by which a faculty member can know whether or not to contact the IRB? What are the criteria? Professor Cunningham replied that there are several indicators, but that you must use common sense judgment. If you are thinking of it in terms of research, then you should seek advice from the IRB. Ciesielski also stated that he had tried to get information from other institutions about policies but was surprised at their lack of willingness to respond. Professor Cunningham replied that there is now tremendous anxiety about the whole process, a sense of doom because of the incredible level of scrutiny from the government.
Wooden (Medicine) pointed out that another committee handles animal research.
J. Question Period
Faculty are encouraged to participate in the Question Period of the Faculty Senate meeting. This period allows faculty an opportunity to ask questions of administrators and others present relating to activities of the administration or Faculty Senate committees.
Rosenberg (Medicine) announced that he is going to retire from ECU in January. He stated that he has been fortunate to work with some special people, and that Senators work hard and deserve more credit for it.
Taggart (Music) stated that he is the Faculty Senate representative on the Academic Awards Committee. One item on today’s Faculty Senate agenda is procedures for outstanding teaching awards. Taggart emphasized that he would like input from senators about what we would like to see as part of the application process before the committee goes forward.
Scott (Academic Library Sciences) had a question for the group. Professor Killingsworth stated that the SACS report would be sent to the Senate for input not adoption. Should we do that? Thompson (VCAA) stated that its important that we have read the whole report if we’re going to have a vote on it.
Eribo (Communication) said that it is not clear to him what the definition of “research and teaching” really is. What are the objectives of the new definitions with regard to teaching and research? VCAA Thompson replied that, in part, the objectives developed in the planning process and proposal for SACS self-study was that the University needs to look at different criteria for faculty work – how it is evaluated and rewarded. Many institutions are considering this now throughout the entire field of higher education. The present objective is to open it up for discussion to see if units want to apply new definitions to their areas.
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. Academic Awards Committee
Karl Wuensch (Psychology), Chair of the Committee, presented revised Selection Procedures for the Chancellor’s Award for Outstanding Teaching and Robert L. Jones Award for Outstanding Teaching. He noted that the Committee had agreed to revise the title of one of the awards to read “University’s Award for Outstanding Teaching”. It was also noted that if funding continued for next year with the University’s awards, these procedures would be revised to separate the two awards and their selection procedures. For this year the committee will follow the same procedure as before with one modification: after selection of the final 3, one will get the Jones award, the other two will get University awards. The committee also recommends that in subsequent years the selection procedure for the alumni association award be different than those for others. The Alumni Association should vote only on those they are funding, not those they aren’t funding.
Rosenberg (Medicine) expressed concern about the vote process. Should someone who has not read the material get a vote? Professor Wuensch responded that he was not certain how this would be handled. Professor Rosenberg noted that everyone should read the application before voting on it. The video is the heart and soul of what you do in the classroom. While it may be more work, showing the video initially is a good idea.
Ullfers (Music) noted that the videographer was trained, and same person does all videos, so no one has an extra advantage. He asked how many applicants there were? Wuensch replied that there were 20.
Rosenberg (Medicine) noted that the way it reads is that you can apply for more than one award. People tend to send in video for several. Faculty Development was going to use these for peer review and for junior faculty to see people who are noted for their teaching. Rosenberg also moved to send the report back to committee to change the section about people who haven’t read an application voting on it. The motion failed.
Ferrell (History) asked if it would be possible for the chair to accept as this as an editorial amendment? Professor Wuensch said that he would and that the committee will review wording of paragraph 6 to something like” members will not vote on candidates whose portfolio they have not read”. Rosenberg moved to accept this editorial change. The motion was approved.
Following discussion, the Selection Procedures for the University’s Award for Outstanding Teaching and Robert L. Jones Award for Outstanding Teaching were approved as revised. RESOLUTION #01-33 (These procedures are available on the Committee’s website at: http://www.ecu.edu/fsonline/AcademicCommittees/aa/academicawards.htm and in the Faculty Senate Office.)
Rick Niswander (Business), Chair of the Committee, presented an update on the University Budget. The Committee’s report is available on the Committee’s website at: http://www.ecu.edu/fsonline/AcademicCommittees/ub/ReportToSenate.htm
Professor Niswander emphasized that budget increases can’t always offset decreases because increases are often for specific things. Funds from the tuition increase were specified when the request was sent to GA. Doctoral II increases are also specified. They are now in the process of projecting 2002 enrollments (regular and distance), which will be the basis of increases/decreases based on FTEs. If the estimate is too low, we won’t get the benefit until the following year; likewise, if the estimate is too high, we won’t feel the detriment until following year. We knew we could handle a lot of the budget reduction by eliminating unfilled faculty positions because we knew we had overestimated and had planned on that. Also, the predicted shortfall for utilities for the current year may be less than expected because of decrease in fuel costs. However, state revenues are down, so the Governor has announced a 5% across-the-board holdback for all state agencies. The UNC administration has helped reduce the holdback. This doesn’t mean that the money goes away now; it is an estimate of what we MAY have to give back if the budget doesn’t improve. The situation could get worse. At present, cuts have not gotten into operating dollars much at all. Nothing has come out of library acquisition funds. The situation for Health Affairs is all negative. They don’t have increases in students to increase their funding base since medical school enrollment is held constant. Professor Niswander concluded by stating that this report is just where we stand now. It is much more complicated than what you hear in the press. If it gets worse, it will be harder for us to make the adjustments.
Ferrell (History) asked about the lapsed faculty salary fund. Professor Niswander answered that there is still some cushion there.
Rosenberg (Medicine) asked if the second payment of Doctoral II funding is secure? Professor Niswander replied that it is secure, but some faculty positions are not yet being funded. Any reversions will come back next year.
C. University Curriculum Committee
Dale Knickerbocker (Foreign Languages and Literatures), Chair of the Committee, presented the curriculum matters contained in the minutes of the September 27, 2001, Committee meeting. It was noted that Religious Studies 2500 has not been approved yet for humanities credit. The Committee is waiting on the action of the Academic Standards Committee. Following discussion and the curriculum matters were approved as presented with the deletion of the Religious Studies 2500 course. RESOLUTION #01-34 (These minutes are available on the Committee’s website at: http://www.ecu.edu/fsonline/AcademicCommittees/cu/cum.htm.)
Agenda Item VI. New Business
There was no new business to come before the Faculty Senate at this time.
There being no further business to come before the Faculty Senate at this time, the meeting adjourned at 4:30 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Linda Allred Lori Lee
Secretary of the Faculty Faculty Senate office
Department of Psychology
FACULTY SENATE RESOLUTIONS APPROVED AT THE NOVEMBER 13, 2001, MEETING
01-32 Approval of the Fall 2001 Graduation Roster, including honors program graduates, subject to the completion of degree requirements.
Disposition: Chancellor
01-33 Selection Procedures for the University’s Award for Outstanding Teaching and Robert L. Jones Award for
Outstanding Teaching. (These procedures are available on the Committee’s website at: http://www.ecu.edu/fsonline/AcademicCommittees/aa/academicawards.htm.)
Disposition: Chancellor
01-34 Curriculum matters contained in the minutes of the September 27, 2001, University Curriculum Committee meetings. (These minutes are available on the Committee’s website at: http://www.ecu.edu/fsonline/AcademicCommittees/cu/cum.htm.)
Disposition: Chancellor
