EAST CAROLINA UNIVERSITY
FACULTY SENATE
MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 5, 2002
The third regular meeting of the 2002-2003 Faculty Senate was held on Tuesday, November 5, 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 October 1, 2002, were approved as presented.
Agenda Item III. Special Order of the Day
A. Roll Call
Senators absent were: Professors Conner-Kerr (Allied Health Sciences),Griffin and L’Esperance (Education), Watson (English), Toppen (Industry and Technology), McMillan and Meredith (Medicine) and Vice Chancellor Feldbush.
Alternates present were: Professors House for Twarog (Art), Deena for Wilentz (English), Knickerbocker for Martinez (Foreign Languages), Robinson for Ries (Math), Hodson for Fletcher (Medicine) and Funaro for Phipps (Theatre and Dance).
1. The Chancellor has approved the following resolutions from the October 1, 2002, Faculty Senate meeting:
02-28 Curriculum matters contained in the September 12, 2002, University Curriculum Committee minutes.
02-29 Revised University policy for Distance Education Class Evaluations.
02-30 Revised ECU Undergraduate Catalog, Section 5: Academic Regulations, subsection Grade Replacement Policy.
02-32 Revised ECU Faculty Manual, Part V. Subsection I.N. Posting Grades.
02-33 Revised School of Allied Health Sciences’ Unit Code of Operation.
2. The following information, relating to activities within the Joyner Library, was forwarded to faculty members on behalf of the Academic Libraries Committee. Please call or email Professor Ann Schreier, Committee Chairperson, if you have any questions.
“We in Academic Library Services invite all faculty to use our services. Your department has a liaison in the Library whom you can consult on the purchase of Library materials, training on the various databases related to your field, bibliographic instruction for your students on how to locate and interpret information resources, and assistance in locating information needed for research. We encourage your departments to invite your liaison to at least one of your faculty meetings each semester to promote information exchange and get an update on new products and services. You can find your liaison at http://www.lib.ecu.edu/cdpgs/librarians.html or by consulting the faculty library representative within your department. “
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 2, 2002.
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 2, 2002.
5. 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.
6. Faculty interested in periodically receiving past copies of "The Chronicle of Higher Education" are asked to call the Faculty Senate office to place their name on a list for distribution.
7. 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.
C. William Muse, Chancellor
Chancellor Muse stated that the budget situation for the year has turned out better than expected. We are working to allocate the enrollment increase money in a fair and equitable manner, and we have some one-time funds that we can use to address high priority items this year. The Vice Chancellor and the Deans are working to determine the priorities. Unfortunately there are only limited dollars for salaries. Market adjustment and equity are the only criterion that we are authorized to use. Also, we are not out of the woods yet for the year. Although the enrollment increase money will be helpful to us, we expect the revenue picture will remain uncertain. We must be able to plan in a manner that will allow us to respond to any reversions that may be called as the year unfolds. In anticipation of that possibility, our reallocation process will be multiphased.
The chancellor reported that parking has been a problem at all of the schools he has worked in, and it is not hard to understand why this problem exits. States normally do not provide funding for parking spaces or services; hence parking on campuses must be self-supporting. In North Carolina that problem has been exasperated by recent litigation that resulted in a court ruling that parking fines must be turned over to the local school boards. If on appeal, this decision holds, ECU will lose approximately $350,000 annually. In successful parking systems that the chancellor has seen in the past, parking spaces have always been at a premium and typically have been rationed on the basis of cost. The structure of the plan currently under consideration is, therefore, not surprising.
Before the senate meets again in December the ECU Board of Visitors will be on campus on Friday, November 22nd. This 50-member board was formed a few years ago as an advocacy network for ECU. The Chancellor also indicated that he has agreed with a request by Professor Morrison to consider faculty appointments for all administrative committees.
D. William Swart, Provost
Provost Swart reported that several committees are beginning to look at issues related general education requirements and as a result everyone is concerned about resource issues. In order to explain his views regarding this process the Provost felt it was important to first explain how this institution acquires recourses. This is done through a standard formula provided by the Office of the President for all of the UNC system institutions. This formula, which has been shared with all Deans, Directors and others, makes it very easy to understand what you must do to obtain more resources. The Formula tells you, based on the level of courses, and the nature of courses, how many student credit hours (SCH) you must produce in order to obtain one faculty position funded at $62,800. So, in other words, if we report our student credit hours by discipline to the Office of the President, then in return mail we essentially get our budget allocation. As an example of how it works; if you are in the College of Arts and Sciences, then in order to earn one full time equivalent (FTE) faculty member or $62,800 of budget, you must produce 643 SCH at the undergraduate level or 171 SCH at the graduate level. Looking at the preliminary data generated from this institution concerning how many faculty positions are generated by the formula, and how many we actually have (at least by one account) we find that we go from being over (more than can be justified by formula) by 16 faculty positions in one School to being under (fewer than justified by formula) by about 100 positions in one of the Colleges. The Provost noted that we have some very severe shortages in some Schools and Colleges in terms of the resources that they are generating compared to what they have, yet in other Schools we are in a surplus situation. What this means is that resources will revert back to those areas that are successful in helping this University generate funds. In order to hold to this commitment then we have to do something about those particular areas that have a severe shortage of faculty based on money they are generating and those areas that have an overage. What then will happen to resources when and if we rethink our General Education package? The Provost indicated that when he first met with the committee that he made the statement that he wished them to focus, not on the resource issues, but on doing the right thing so that the University has the best possible General Education Package. The Provost intends to make it his responsibility to be sure that doing that is the right thing for all of us from a resource point of view, so that there are no major punitive issues that arise with possible shifts in resources. Most General Education courses are contained in the College of Arts and Sciences, which is severely under-resourced, being down by 70 to 100 faculty members. So if this shift in General Education takes General Education courses from Arts and Sciences and shifts some of those requirements to some of the other Schools, then in a sense we will be helping the College of Arts and Sciences to remedy its shortage. There seems to be no way that in a short time that we can make up this severe deficit in faculty positions in this College. The other way to take care of the workload is to take some of the requirements that they have and shift them to units that may have more faculty than they need.
Pravica (Mathematics) asked what policies/people have resulted in this deficit? The Provost indicated that he has only been here a short time and simply was not sure, but it looks like the numbers were not being paid attention to, in that they are not easy to get.
Ciesielski (Industry and Technology) asked, if all faculty positions were lumped together, we had overall too many or too few positions? Provost Swart indicated that overall we were short by about 211 positions according to the formula. We are generating 1145 positions and we only have 933 positions.
Wall (Philosophy) asked that when considering the shift with regard to general education requirements, if long standing liberal art traditions would be respected? The Provost reiterated that he did not say that we have to shift. The committee has been charged with finding the right thing to do. He reminded the faculty that the curriculum belongs to them, and that he is more concerned with doing the right thing.
Sprague (Physics) asked if we all decide to keep General Education requirements within Arts and Sciences, would Arts and Sciences get new positions to make up for the deficit? The Provost felt that there was no way that he could see getting enough positions in a reasonable length of time.
Knickerbocker (Foreign Languages and Literature) asked if this committee that we are talking about says that we are going to take hours from Arts and Sciences and put them in the professional schools, will there be a fiscal penalty to the College of Arts and Sciences? The Provost responded that the College would still be short. Knickerbocker asked if dollars would still be going out of Arts and Sciences in this plan? Provost Swart responded that that they would not and that if you are down 80 or 90 positions that it will not make much difference on paper.
Hanrahan (Medicine) asked how the understaffing in Arts and Sciences compares with other components of the University? Part of the trouble might be that introductory classes may be bigger in size. The Provost responded that this is taken into account in the formulas. For example, in Arts and Sciences you have to generate 643 credit hours to earn a faculty position whereas in Music you would only need 264 credit hours. The challenge to all of us is to be most effective and efficient
Pravica (Mathematics) asked how the proposed policy of moving classes out of Arts and Sciences would work given recent SACs requirements? The Provost reiterated that no one is being asked to move courses outside of Arts and Sciences. We are simply looking at General Education in terms of what is the right thing to do academically for our students. That needs to be our overriding concern. The budget issue is a non-issue.
Rigsby (Geology) noted that some suggestions about redoing the general education curriculum have involved creating classes in Arts and Science with fewer students in seminars of 15-20 as opposed to larger sections of 200-500 students. Will this mean that some of the schools that are over funded will have to lose some of their positions, and will this have qualitative effects? Provost Swart replied that over time resources would shift so that there would be a closer correspondence between what is being generated by a unit versus what they have.
Provost Swart continued with his main presentation. It has been alleged that the Deans, Directors, and the Provost are doing their own version of General Education program. Swart assured the faculty that he has no desire to do that. He has spoken with the Deans and Directors for the purpose of identifying common issues dealing with general education. The Deans and Directors could then pass on these comments to those on the committee. The thinking was to provide information while the committee is at work rather than afterwards.
The last issue mentioned by Provost Swart dealt with the lack of merit-based raises. He believes that performance and raises should be correlated. Unfortunately, this year, we are not in a position to have merit increases, such that funds have been earmarked for only equity and market adjustments. In order to recognize high performers this year, the Provost has asked the Deans to maintain a cumulative performance record until such a time that merit monies become available.
E. Bob Morrison, Chair of the Faculty
Professor Morrison reported on the October meeting of the Board of Trustees. Morrison stating that many of the items presented at the meeting were reports and didn’t require their action. Provost Swart discussed new initiatives he is taking and reported the formation of 14 task forces to develop these initiatives. Each task force will be chaired by one of the deans. The Faculty Officers have been asked to look at these task forces to see which should have representatives from our Faculty Senate committees. The fall enrollment of 20,624 was reported. This is an increase of 1,212 students over fall 2001, an increase greater than any other UNC institution. Two management-flexibility plans were approved, one for information technology and the other for personnel management. The flexibility plans allow campuses to make more of the decisions locally without going to the Office of the President or the Board of Governors for approval.
Professor Morrison stated that he reported to the Board of Trustees on concerns expressed in the Faculty Welfare Committee on the disadvantages the University’s benefits packages present when recruiting new faculty members. The first of these items was the lack of opportunity for a standard sabbatical leave every seven years. The board listened, but didn’t respond to that concern. Professor Morrison noted that ever since he has been at ECU, he has heard that sabbatical leaves are prohibited by the General Assembly. So he recently asked Kitty Hill Weatherington, assistant university attorney, to look into this to see if she could find the specific documentation that prohibits sabbatical leaves. She looked in the state statutes but didn’t find it. So she contacted the Office of the President. They said they have always heard that it’s prohibited, but they haven’t yet found the specific documentation. Professor Morrison stated that he would keep the Senators abreast of what is found out. Professor Morrison also mentioned to the Board of Trustees the problems with health care. The costs are going up and the coverage is going down. He stated that the Board members are quite interested in helping to solve the health care benefits problem. Vice Chancellor Michael Lewis has been asked to check to see what the clinics in the School of Medicine could do to help out. Professor Morrison also discussed with the Board the lack of a tuition break for the family members of faculty members. Chancellor Muse was asked to get together with other chancellors in the University and take this issue to the Board of Governors.
Professor Morrison also briefly discussed non-tenure-track faculty issues. The report of the UNC NTTF Committee was approved by the BOG last spring and is available at: http://www.northcarolina.edu/aa/reports/ntt_faculty/. Gary Lowe is the campus coordinator for implementation of the NTTF recommendations and recently there was a videoconference with representatives from the Office of the President and the other UNC institutions to discuss the implementation process.
In relation to this, Professor Morrison noted that recently several of the NTTF in the English department wrote a letter to state representative Marian McLawhorn to lay out their issues and to seek relief. That letter was forwarded to the Faculty Welfare Committee who will continue to discuss this issue. Provost Swart has requested information on the number and nature of all the non-tenure-track faculty positions from all of the deans. He is requesting the number of one-semester contracts, the number of one-year contracts, the number of multi-year contracts, and whether they are part time or full time. Professor Morrison stated that he would keep the Senators informed of the discussion on this important issue.
Professor Morrison stated that the Commission on Scholarship was meeting every two weeks. Their activities can be followed at: http://www.ecu.edu/fsonline/CommissiononScholarship/Commission.htm. He noted that they are examining what other universities are doing with respect to the scholarship of teaching and the scholarship of engagement. The Commission is expected to make a preliminary report in January.
F. George Harrell, Senior Associate Vice Chancellor for Campus Operations
Dr. Harrell began his discussion of the proposed Parking and Traffic plan by stating that he realized that it was a currently a bad time to talk about parking and changes in the fee structure, given the lack of raises and the increases in benefit costs. He briefly discussed the make up of the parking committee, its charge, the review process concerning recommendations from the Chance Management study, and the number of drafts (13) needed to arrive at the current plan. Dr Harrell also noted that there have been 2500 hits on the parking web page in the last two weeks. Hence, the parking issue seems to be popular.
The plan being proposed has been designed to meet the needs of a faculty who do not always have an 8-5 schedule; who need to come and go during the day. Zone A will be have an over-sell rate of 1.1 (or about 10%), which matches the P1 and P2 rates now in force. Faculty and Staff should be able to go and come as necessary. Zone A solves this problem at a higher cost ($288). As an alternative, a commuter lot (Zone B) will be established across 10th Street at a reduced cost ($144), and additional parking would be available in the vicinity of the Minges Coliseum ($72). Dr. Harrell indicated that we cannot accommodate the projected increases in enrollment with the present parking plan, and that an additional 3000 spaces will be needed. Moving various administrative and support services off campus will offset some of this need.
The fee structure has been designed to reflect the fact that ECU will be reverting approximately $360,000 in annual parking fines to local school systems (pending appeal). Dividing this number by 13,000 decals yields a value of approximately $24, which is then added to $120 to equal a Zone B rate of $144 (Zone A rates are calculated by doubling $144). These rates are projected to last about four to six years. Harrell stated that he could hold fees constant for four years.
Knickerbocker (Foreign Languages and Literature) asked if staff is adequately represented on the committee and if the committee had examined the possibility of reduced rates for lower paid staff? Dr. Harrell noted that the staff was well represented and many different scenarios had been considered along the road to the current plan.
Painter (Allied Health Sciences) indicated that many of the individuals working in the School of Allied Health and other off campus units were required to come to the main campus for various meetings. Professor Painter asked how these issues were being addressed, and inquired as to how handicap spaces were going to be handled? Mr. Santa Ana (Director of Parking and Traffic Services) noted that the committee is currently looking at off campus access issues, and that handicap parking would not change from what is currently provided.
Tovey (English) wanted to know if the quality of driving on the transit buses would be addressed given the increase need for mass transit systems in the current plan? Dr. Harrell indicted that was not part of his direct responsibilities.
Ciesielski (Industry and Technology) indicated that the current plan appeared to be a “scotch tape” fix or a short-term solution to a problem that may need to be addressed as far out as 20 years. He asked if long-term planning for a deck (which does not have to be paid for all at once) was being considered? Dr. Harrell indicated that the current plan was aimed at working around 27,000 students and the need for 3000 additional spaces and should be effective for 8-10 years. He reiterated that we should be able to hold the fee structure for about the next four years.
Sprague (Physics) was concerned with the notion that the best spaces are to be provided at the highest cost and asked, how many individuals had indicated the desire for these spaces on the survey? Dr. Harrell noted that there were 500 people currently on waiting lists for private parking.
Glascoff (Health and Human Performance) asked how the scheduling of athletic events would influence the ability to use spaces around Minges Coliseum, in that athletic events were disruptive to parking in these areas now? Dr. Harrell was not able to fully answer this question at this time but indicated that they were aware of the problem.
Sugar (Education) asked how faculty were informed about getting on the present waiting list for the P1 and P2 lots prior to the deadline (October 31, 2002)? Dr. Harrell indicated that the waiting lists would be reopened.
Hall (Psychology) expressed concern that part-time faculty not on nine-month contracts cannot presently use payroll deduction for parking fees. Mr. Santa Ana indicated that they were currently working on this problem.
Tabrizi (Computer Science) noted many environmental problems with surface parking systems and indicated that the issue of funding a parking deck was quite complex and that planning should start now rather than 10 years from now. Dr. Harrell reiterated the expense of multilevel parking structure and indicated that one did not need to plan for this type of expense unless all other surface solutions had been exhausted.
Ferreira (Social Work) raised several issues concerning the enforcement of current parking ordinances and specifically noted the apparent fact that many “healthy” people are currently using handicap parking because they obtain stickers from “grandmothers” etc. Dr. Harrell noted that the Zone A towing policy would be the same as that in force now in the P1 and P2 lots. He also noted that Disability Support Services would be reexamining the issue of handicap stickers.
Scott (Faculty Assembly Delegate) asked if there was any way of softening the monetary impact on those making lower salaries by adjusting the difference between rates for the Zone A and Zone B groups? Dr. Harrell indicated that the committee had closely examined the rate structure and had done its best to achieve an optimum balance.
Engelke (Nursing) asked what was to happen to hangtags? Dr. Harrell responded that hangtags would be the principle means of providing identification, and that bumper stickers would remain secondary.
Robbins (Biology) asked how faculty notification concerning parking in the commuter lot would be handled when that lot flooded? Dr. Harrell noted that it may be easier to find and notify faculty than it has been to find and notify students who do not have fixed campus addresses. He also noted that flooding is not a high frequency event.
Pravica (Mathematics) asked why we need to pay in order to park at our place of work? Dr. Harrell explained the fact that parking is not state supported and that there are capital, construction, and administrative costs associated with running Parking and traffic Services.
McCarthy (Business) asked, if money is important, why were we getting rid of the private lots? Dr. Harrell indicted that this issue was decided by committee vote and that essentially the whole Zone A core would become a private lot.
Wall (Philosophy) stated his opposition to the A and B zoning in the proposed parking plan. Wall argued that we should have a more democratic approach to parking. Parking should be made available on a first come, first serve basis. He stated that he felt like the proposed fees ($288 and $144) were very high and asked if a detailed breakdown of these fees was available? Dr. Harrell and Mr. Santa Ana indicated that a cost breakdown (in spread-sheet format) could easily be placed on the web site to provide this information.
Rigsby (Geology) asked, if money goes to new construction and land allocation because of student growth, and if we can already accommodate more parking than we have people, why do we need to raise rates and place an undue hardship on faculty? Why raise faculty and staff rates more than for students, when excess revenues are going to student parking? Dr. Harrell indicated that faculty, staff and students were all included in the proposed fee structure and that attempts had been made not to overly burden any one group.
Ferrell (History) indicated that parking spaces lost due to construction are often not replaced, even when they have been promised by the University. Dr. Harrell indicated that in the long-term scheme of things that these spaces probably do come back. He mentioned that the current student commuter lot is being reverted back to Zone B faculty parking.
Eribo (Communications) stated that things today are more expensive than 10 years ago, and things 10 years from now would be yet more expensive. Each time a parking deck is proposed it is deemed too expensive, and he noted that this expense will continue. Dr Eribo asked if we were ever going to get a parking deck? Each time it is postponed it simply gets more expensive. Dr. Harrell could not speculate about “ever” building a deck, but again noted that the cost was substantial. He wondered how many of the current 500 individuals on the Private lot waiting lists would be there with a potential cost of $500 to $600 a year for parking.
Holloway (Business) asked about where individuals not getting a sticker were going to park and asked if we were working with the City of Greenville on developing off campus parking solutions? Dr. Harrell responded that our parking jurisdiction does not extend past our boundaries. The city addresses its own parking needs and provides for enforcement and towing for the surrounding neighborhoods.
Following lengthy discussion, the proposed Parking and Traffic Plan will be discussed at the upcoming November 14, 2002, Faculty Welfare Committee meeting, with a final report to the Faculty Senate on December 3, 2002.
G. Jeanette D. Selby-Lucas, Special Assistant to the Provost
Professor Selby-Lucas provided a brief overview of her activities as a Special Assistant to the Provost.
Pravica (Mathematics) asked for an example of something that needed elimination due to duplication? Dr. Selby-Lucus noted that if you looked at Academic Affairs and Student Life, because of the way they are structured, you see there are separate budgets for personnel etc. so that there might be the possibility for merger in order to free up resources so that we can look at other areas of opportunity.
Scott (Faculty Assembly Delegate) asked if she had looked at Administrative Committees and how they functioned? Dr. Selby-Lucus indicated that they had not looked at these committees.
Knickerbocker (Foreign Languages and Literature) stated that a number of years ago the University hired outside counselors to come in and do essentially what you have been discussing. One of the things they came up with is that there seemed to be some redundancies between the College of Arts and Sciences which offered courses for General Education and Undergraduate Studies which administers all of that. Have you looked at that redundancy? Dr. Selby-Lucus noted that they are very early into the process, and it is going to be an evolutionary process, and that they would be taking a look at those kind of things.
I. 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.
Sprague (Physics) noted some difficulty in navigating through the electronic course schedule; and asked Angela Anderson (Registrar) if it would be possible to get bookmarks and a table of contents with links to each content area to ease navigation through the document? Mrs. Anderson indicated that this was a good suggestion and that they would try to do this.
Glascoff (Health and Human Performance) asked if it would be possible to get a few “token” schedules in the old original format? Mrs. Anderson indicated that a printed format was available on computer paper but not as a printed booklet.
Rigsby (Geology) asked if old versions of the schedule would be maintained in electronic format? Mrs. Anderson stated that a database was available that could be e-mailed.
Ferrell (History) asked if Academic Committees, which have just undergone extensive revisions, were going to be reviewed by Dr. Selby-Lucas’ committee? Dr. Swart replied, “not for a while”.
Knickerbocker (Foreign Languages and Literature) asked how difficult it was to change courses once they were in the online course offering? Mrs. Anderson indicated that material on one-stop from the student database is accurate as to the minute; the pdf file is updated once a week, every Monday morning.
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 minutes of the September 26, 2002, and October 10, 2002, Committee meetings. Following a brief clarification on other Committee activities, the curriculum matters were approved as presented. RESOLUTION #02-35 (These minutes are available on the Committee’s website at: http://www.ecu.edu/fsonline/AcademicCommittees/cu/cum.htm)
Ciesielski (Industry and Technology) asked why we needed to limit number of courses that can be audited? Professor Tilley replied that much of what prompted the request for this change was covered under the confidentiality of past cases, but there have been people taking advantage of the system by auditing large numbers of courses.
Ferreira (Social Work) asked what was the purpose of auditing a course? Professor Tilley noted that the rules are available on the provided attachment (available from the senate office). He also responded that it served the needs of students who did not need a grade but who were interested in getting specific information. These students are often older, are limited as to being able to ask questions, and are exempt from testing requirements.
Glascoff (Health and Human Performance) asked, if these students require the permission of the instructor, why do we need to limit the number of audits? Professor Tilley stated that they do use up resources in some cases.
Decker (Health and Human Performance; member of Academic standards Committee) noted that the proposed policy is in line with that used at the other 15 UNC campuses.
Following discussion, the proposed revision to the ECU Undergraduate Catalog, Section 5: Academic Regulations, Auditing Courses was approved as presented. It was also suggested that this addition be included in the Graduate Catalog. RESOLUTION #02-36
Agenda Item VI. New Business
There was no objection to considering the University Curriculum Committee minutes of October 29, 2002, where prefix changes and cross-listings for courses being transferred to the School of Education was discussed.
Pravica (Mathematics) asked for a detailed account of this process? Professor Knickerbocker (Foreign Languages and Literatures), Chair of the University Curriculum Committee provided a detailed synopsis. At the beginning of fall semester the University Curriculum Committee (UCC) was informed that education courses were being moved from the Math, History, and English Departments to the School of Education. This result was expected. But the UCC was informed that content courses were also being moved, in particular from the Mathematics Department to the School of Education. The committee had a problem with that, in that promises were made last spring that content courses would remain in the College of Arts and Sciences. It was also unclear whether the transition committee was going to bring these issues through the UCC and to the Faculty Senate. We asked our representative for Academic Affairs to get in touch with the chair of that committee and bring these concerns to him. After that happened that committee worked out a compromise by which content courses would not be booked but would be processed so that faculty could move to the School of education.
Knickerbocker (Foreign Languages) did not feel that anyone would have a problem with that plan, yet there still was no word as to whether they were going to go through the UCC to get this done. Later on the UCC found out that there was no plan to run any of this through the committee. Knickerbocker then approached Professor Morrison and asked him to take this matter up with the Provost, in that the committee system had been compromised. The Provost agreed and supported the view of the UCC. In the mean time the courses had already been listed electronically in the on-line schedule booklet. This happened at the same time as pre-registration, at the exact point at which students were going to their advisors. The UCC was placed in the position, where if they had demanded that these courses be taken out and put back into their original prefixes, that it would have been prejudicial and confusing to the students. Hence, these courses were put on-line without being approved by the UCC or the Faculty Senate. This was necessary, according to the chair of the Transition committee (Bob Thompson), because of the time pressures in getting the material out for students. Knickerbocker disagreed, stating that if the changes had come in to the UCC by September 25, that we would still be sitting here as we are now, approving the changes. No one asked the UCC if there was time enough to get this done, or explained why they were in such a hurry to get the prefixes changed in the first place, or why they could not be offered in the spring under the old prefixes. What bothered the UCC the most was that in a memo on September 25th, in which the prefix changes and cross listings were taken up in the transition committee it was stated that the appropriate curriculum committee would also be informed. This language implied that they never intended to come through the UCC.
However, under the circumstances, since an adequate compromise had been worked out and the Provost had indicated he supported the idea that administrative committees must follow the same rules that academic committees follow to effect curriculum changes, the UCC felt that it should go ahead and electronically approve the changes by e-mail. Professor Morrison indicated that if approval of the minutes could be obtained, he would offer them as new business on the November Faculty Senate agenda.
Rigsby (Geology) noted that the purpose of the University Curriculum Committee is to provide for a dialogue prior to presentation at the Faculty Senate. The way this has been done hurts the principle of shared governance. How can we be assured that this will not happen again? Provost Swart replied that much of this problem simply fell through the cracks due to his transition into a new role here at ECU, and he stated that he is a strong advocate of going through the University Curriculum Committee. He stated that this happened as a function of him being new, and that he really feels that the curriculum is in the hands of the faculty.
Robinson (Mathematics) read a statement from Michael Spurr in Mathematics. He then noted that the Chancellor's June memorandum promised joint appointments to teacher education faculty being transferred in order that content courses could continue to be taught in the content departments. Math 1067, one of the courses affected by the move of teacher education programs, is a Mathematics General Education course. Robinson stated that he though the university would be placed in the position of having the School of Education, rather than the Mathematics Department, responsible for overseeing a Mathematics General Education course. Robinson asked if this issue was properly brought before the Academic Standards Committee? There was no response to his question due to the call for a quorum.
Due to the lack of a quorum after a lengthy discussion, approval of the curriculum matters contained in the University Curriculum Committee’s minutes of October 29, 2002, was postponed until the December 3, 2002, Faculty Senate meeting.
The meeting adjourned at 5:00 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
John Cope Lori Lee
Secretary of the Faculty Faculty Senate office Department of Psychology
FACULTY SENATE RESOLUTIONS
APPROVED AT THE NOVEMBER 5, 2002, MEETING
02-34 Approval of the Fall 2002 Graduation Roster, including honors program graduates, subject to the completion of degree requirements.
Disposition: Chancellor
02-35 Curriculum matters contained in the minutes of the September 26, 2002, and October 10, 2002, 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
02-36 Revision to the ECU Undergraduate Catalog, Section 5: Academic Regulations, Auditing Courses by adding: “A student may audit no more than two courses in any semester.” It was suggested that this also be added to the Graduate Catalog.
Disposition: Chancellor
