EAST CAROLINA UNIVERSITY
FACULTY SENATE
FULL MINUTES OF DECEMBER 4, 2001
The fourth regular meeting of the 2001-2002 Faculty Senate was held on Tuesday, December 4, 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 October 9, 2001, and November 13, 2001, were approved as distributed.
Agenda Item III. Special Order of the Day
A. Roll Call
Senators absent were: Professors Griffin (Education), Palumbo and Wilentz (English), Rigsby (Geology), Engel and Meredith (Medicine), Jones (Social Work and Criminal Justice Studies), Rosenberg (Faculty Assembly Delegate), Vice Chancellor Feldbush, and Vice Chancellor Thompson.
Alternates present were: Professors Bamberg for Albright (Allied Health Sciences), Hebert for McCarthy (Business), Eribo for Godbold (Communication), Tovey for Watson (English), Kellogg for Dobbs (Medicine), and Engelke for Droes (Nursing).
B. Announcements
* The Chancellor has approved the following resolutions from the November 13, 2001, Faculty Senate meeting:
01-32 Approval of the Fall 2001 Graduation Roster, including honors program graduates, subject to the completion of degree requirements
01-33 Selection Procedures for the University Award for Outstanding Teaching and Robert L. Jones Award for Outstanding Teaching
01-34 Curriculum matters contained in the minutes of the September 27, 2001, University Curriculum Committee meetings
* The Committee on Committees has been charged to seek volunteers to serve on the various academic,
appellate, administrative, Board of Trustees, and student union committees. Volunteer information,
with brief descriptions of these University committees, will be e-mailed to all faculty soon. Faculty are
strongly encouraged to participate in this component of shared faculty governance and return the volunteer
form by Monday, February 11, 2002.
* Letters concerning unit elections for the 2002-2003 Faculty Senate representation will be mailed to unit
code administrators later this month. In accordance with the ECU Faculty Manual, Appendix A, elections are
to be held during the month of February. Please call the Faculty Senate office if you have any questions.
* 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.
* Faculty interested in periodically receiving past copies of "The Chronicle of Higher Education" are asked to call the Faculty Senate office at ext. 6537 and place their name on a list for distribution.
* A special thanks was extended to Chancellor William Muse for providing the food and wine for today’s meeting.
C. William Muse, Chancellor
Chancellor Muse discussed his continued Hometown Tours and visits to internal units. He has spent time with Jim and Karen Nichols, the consultants helping us prepare for the SACS review. He has worked with the Nichols before and has found them to be very knowledgeable as SACS consultants, and especially with the centrality of assessment. He expressed concern about the assessment process and would have preferred for our efforts to be more advanced at this time. The best we can do is to demonstrate our commitment to this process by the development of a sound plan for the future. Chancellor Muse encouraged Senators to join with colleagues in insuring that this process unfolds in each academic unit. It should permeate all of our efforts to serve the needs of our students and other constituencies. All administrative service units need to think in similar fashion, focusing on a clear definition of their function, whether and to what extent the function is being accomplished, and on the results of the assessment being used to improve future performance. The Chancellor also addressed the concern by members of the Board of Trustees about Appendix L and noted that it was the Board that added Deans to the list of administrative appointments that are to be voted on by faculty. He also noted that the final authority rests with the Chancellor. After a review of administrative appointments over the past ten years, he found only two instances where the faculty voted against final candidates, and in both those cases the judgments of the faculty were probably correct. For these reasons, he has recommended that Appendix L stay as it is.
Martinez (Foreign Languages and Literatures) raised a question about the SACS review and assessment. She asked what will happen if a department creates goals and measures and determines that the goals haven’t been met. What if one of the problems interfering with achievement of those goals has to do with the admissions policy of the university? For example, In Foreign Languages, students are expected to achieve a BA in Spanish Studies in 4 years, assuming the student has never studied Spanish. One program goal is accomplishment of a specific level of Spanish speaking ability, which is almost impossible if there is no foreign language requirement of entering students. How can this problem be resolved within the department? Chancellor Muse responded that SACS doesn’t specify absolute standards for outcomes. We set those ourselves, based on our knowledge of our students and what we feel is a reasonable standard as to outcomes. Sometimes, the most impressive thing is not so much the end product but the change that has occurred (the value-added). We can often demonstrate significant value added because we have taken students at a basic level and shown improvement. Thus, we need to be clear about what we think we can accomplish and how we will assess it. Failure to achieve the standard may mean that we need to change what we do or that the standards have been set too high. It is the process of assessment that matters, not some arbitrary standard that is compared across institutions.
Ferrell (History) expressed congratulations to Chancellor Muse because he defended faculty governance on the Appendix L issue.
D. Richard Brown, Vice Chancellor for Administration and Finance
2. Budget planning for 2002-2003 doesn’t look promising. The economic recession, lowered state revenues, key industries for NC being hit hard, and the fact that 2002 is an election year making tax increases difficult contribute to the uncertain economic outlook for ECU. This is the second year of the biennial budget, which normally has a built in increase for enrollment increases, but that was not done this year. We will need additional resources to fund enrollment growth. Projecting 540 more students, we need 31 new faculty positions, and Distance Education will yield about 16 additional positions. Whether we get these positions will depend on how the Legislature funds enrollment growth. There is no new Doctoral II funding. All current year budget reductions continue, and as normal no salary increases were built into the biennial budget. That usually gets approved in session. On the revenue side of the budget, there is discussion of another campus initiated tuition increase. There is no permanent solution to the utility shortfall, but a combination of good weather and lower fuel costs has resulted in a lower deficit for this year. It still needs to be resolved for next year. At present, we have a 2.7% reversion of budget; they are trying to plan for next year’s challenges, including carrying some funds forward. The hiring freeze on SPA positions has helped.
Wolfe (Anthropology) stated that Brewster Building is aging, and there are frequent problems with plumbing. Work orders may hold for several weeks. If housekeeping reported these problems directly, it might save money. Vice Chancellor Brown responded that he will alert housekeeping to be more attentive.
Sugar (Education) asked who is targeted to move into Rivers and Austin. Vice Chancellor Brown responded that there is no decision about what programs will move into vacant spaces. They are looking at where enrollment growth will be in order to estimate the need for program expansion. Sugar suggested that it might be best to include affected departments in any renovation. Vice Chancellor Brown said that that would be considered.
3. Library budgets really come under Academic Affairs. The library was spared as much as possible this year. The reduction in enrollment cost the library 212K, but those funds will come back next year. Distance Education enrollment increases added to the library budgets. They are trying to eliminate any long-term damage to the library from the current budget reductions.
Pravica (Mathematics) stated that there had been serious cuts in math journals, some of which were cut without discussion with the department. Some electronic journals were also cut. He strongly stated that departments should be contacted. Director of Joyner Library Varner responded that the website has a section on journal cancellations. He acknowledged that cancellations do fall disproportionately on mathematics and the sciences. However, many journals have been replaced with greater electronic access. At present, there are nearly 12,000 electronic journals.
4. Parking availability has been an issue for a long time. The Committee has worked about 18 months on proposals to improve campus parking. The consultant’s report was received and had some good recommendations but didn’t give a complete solution. A subcommittee was established to develop a final plan. There are three groups of customers involved: faculty, staff, and students. There are enough spaces (37 spaces per 100 vehicles), but they’re not conveniently located, and the only way to solve the problem for one group is at the expense of others. The two variables are convenience and cost. Raising prices by nature moves people into less convenient spots. Parking decks cost about $10-12K per space, compared to surface parking costs of $12-1500 per space. In a deck, the monthly cost would be very high, so that’s not in the current plan. The Committee is trying to get their proposals to VC Brown before the March meeting of the Board of Trustees. They are pushing implementation out a year – to the fall of 2003 – after significant campus discussion.
Glascoff (Health and Human Performance) stated that those with offices near Minges get evicted from their parking spaces for every sporting event. In the two big commuter lots, students are moved out two days in advance. Classes could not meet in their regular spaces on a recent Thursday evening because of a ball game. Transit and Buses didn’t run, faculty had to leave, classes had to be relocated, which meant that students had to find other spaces. She added that it is a sad commentary that academics have to give up access to the campus for sports. There needs to be some concession or acknowledgment of academic needs. VC Brown stated that this position is difficult to challenge.
Wolfe (Anthropology) asked about the Darryl’s property. VC Brown stated that the university has a standing informal offer with the owner. When he is ready to sell, we want to buy.
Ciesielski (Industry and Technology) asked how many faculty/staff permits are issued and how many spaces. VC Brown replied that there are about 7800 spaces on east campus for faculty, staff, and students.
Cope (Psychology) asked how the cost of parking spaces is passed on. He added that new buildings take parking away. VC Brown responded that parking is self-sufficient throughout the UNC system, including construction and operations. New buildings are designed to squeeze in some parking. The fee structure includes fines, tag fees. Rates must be set to keep the system self-sufficient.
Allred (Psychology) noted that parking fees have been used in the past to purchase property that was later used for new buildings without reimbursing the parking fund. VC Brown responded that some property purchased this way is still being used for parking, but that the university administration is now more sensitive to this issue.
Ciesielski (Industry and Technology) stated that there seems to be non-parallel structure for considering these issues. Building must generate bonds paid off by tax money, but parking lots must sustain themselves. Do sidewalks have to generate revenue? VC Brown responded that he hadn’t thought of that, but that it isn’t unusual for universities to charge for parking.
E. Bob Morrison, Chair of the Faculty
Professor Morrison reported on the expanded definition of scholarship and how we might use this. Charles Glassick’s workshops helped us to refine some of our ideas about scholarship. Two and a half years ago, in a meeting of faculty officers with Chancellor Eakins, Professor Morrison raised the concern that faculty aren’t really rewarded for participation in governance. Faculty members do this service out of the goodness of their hearts for the good of the institution. In 1999, VC Ringeisen and Brenda Killingsworth were charged with the formation of a committee on faculty roles and rewards. This committee met throughout the year, and folded into their discussions the concept of a community of scholars, which was being considered by one of the SACS committees. ECU representatives have attended several American Association of Higher Education meetings that addressed redefining scholarship and faculty roles and rewards. There is an upcoming meeting that emphasizes the Scholarship of Engagement. VC Thompson has expressed an interest in sending a delegation from ECU to attend this conference. We want to learn how other institutions have addressed some of the issues involved with implementing an expanded definition of scholarship in tenure and promotion procedures and to learn whether we can adapt a redefinition of scholarship that will fit us at ECU. Some of these ideas are incorporated into the SACS self-study report. Any new policies and procedures associated with the redefinition of scholarship will come through the Faculty Senate. It would be a mistake to dismiss the redefinition of scholarship at ECU. We have a responsibility to learn as much as we can to determine whether this will be beneficial to ECU. The SACS self-study is a blueprint for us as we reshape the university. We have a lot of work ahead.
There is a good chance that the academic calendar will be shortened 1 week per semester. A proposal sent to Board of Governors that would shorten the academic year calendar to 15 weeks including final exams. The current calendar has 15 weeks in addition to final exam week. The calendar committee is working on two versions of the 2003-2004 calendar; one is the current standard, a second one includes the final exam week as the 15th week.
Yarbrough (Political Science) asked if it is correct that we will be working the idea of a community of scholars through ECU faculty governance. Does the SACS report say the same thing? Professor Morrison replied that the SACS report states that a committee will be appointed to discuss the issue.
F. Brenda Killingsworth, SACS Self Study Director
Professor Killingsworth presented a brief overview of what has transpired to date. There are now 150 individuals serving on committees. Reports have been posted on the website throughout the process in order to encourage input. Forums have added input. The draft report presented today reflects this input. The enhancement report is still being updated, and this process will continue. Now, the 33 strategies in the enhancement reports have to be reviewed to see that appropriate constituencies are included and clearly identified. On January 16th, Laura Lindsey (our site visit chair) will be on campus and may want to speak to some faculty.
Martinez (FORL) stated that since Chancellor Muse reminded us of the importance of this process, 10 years from now, when we do next SACS study, will what is now considered enhancement be compliance? Professor Killingsworth responded that one issue is how our strategies will keep us in compliance 10 years from now. Her hope is that we won’t be doing this kind of search and uncover operation, but looking at new ways to improve. Professor Martinez then asked whether 10 years from now the SACS reviewers will expect that all strategies have been completed. Professor Killingsworth replied that they will look back to see whether we followed through on what we proposed.
Ferreira (Social Work and Criminal Justice) observed that we can’t use the fact that students pass courses and graduate as measure of success. In areas that have national licensing exams, we use those as indicators of success. For disciplines that don’t have this type of exams, an internal measure must be developed. What will happen with a student who gets a 2.2 GPA but fails this last “test”? Will they be allowed to graduate? Professor Snyder responded that students must meet a certain level, but that these tests will be used primarily to help define areas where we could improve, not to deny individual students graduation.
Ferreira (Social Work and Criminal Justice) asked about what incentive there is for student to do well on such an outcome measure. What’s to stop them from just treating the test as trivial? Professor Snyder answered that this is a widespread problem. Having some incentive for the students helps. We must develop creative ways to do this, and we may have to provide some reward structure.
Toppen (Industry and Technology) described the “Employee readiness survey” used in his program. Snyder agreed that assessment doesn’t have to be an exam.
Scott (Academic Library Sciences) asked about the criteria for determining faculty merit raises. Anderson (Education) stated that the criteria on which salary increases are based are clearly stated in the report, including the fact that some criteria must come from the unit. Scott also asked whether the distribution of Doctoral II monies followed the criteria that had been established previously. Professor Killingsworth replied that she doesn’t think that we are out of compliance; the SACS review will look at whether their recommendations from 10 years ago were implemented.
G. Henry Ferrell, Faculty Assembly Delegate
Professor Ferrell presented a report on the Faculty Assembly meeting of November 16, 2001. Minutes are on fa@uncwil.edu; Ralph Scott is Faculty Assembly secretary. One item, a report from finance officer Jeff Davies, discusses the impact of the economic decline following 9/11 and how the UNC system can sustain with increasing enrollments. They are aware of problem and have no answer at this time. VP for Institutional Advancement Milliken remarked that the GA leadership is aware of the problems and is being very careful about the issue of growth, and that we’re doing better than other states. Another issue was email privacy. At UNC-Wilmington, a student requested all files of a professor dealing with her course. Finally, the Office of the President is drafting a change in UNC personnel decisions. This report suggests that some universities make all of their own personnel decisions. Policies and what universities will be involved haven’t yet been worked out, but Boards of Trustees will grant tenure and promotion and approving employment. Legislative committees are going to review the composition of the Board of Governors. If we become a “flexible” university, so that trustees are handling final appointments, we will have to change personnel policies.
H.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.
Pravica (Mathematics) asked Chancellor Muse about the proposal from VC Thompson to move the three teacher education programs from the College of Arts and Sciences to the School of Education. Professor Pravica asked that his questions and comments be reported verbatim.
“In the Vice Chancellor’s proposal to remove 3 Teacher Education from the College of Arts and sciences, he makes the following statement concerning the recent accreditation report by the National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education:
’Having the Dean of Education exercise line authority over Education faculty in the core areas of Math, English
and Social Studies would more clearly meet the guidelines as put forth by the National Council for Accreditation
of Teacher Education. While the most recent review team did not directly address this matter during the most
recent site visit, it remains an issue for them and will likely arise in the future. This past time, ECU was able to
steer the reviewers away from the matter.’
”There are 2 items relating to this statement that I would like to have addressed by Chancellor Muse.
1) The Math Department has been in contact with NCATE. In response to our inquiry, Dr. Denisse Thompson, who was part of the NCATE site visit to ECU, stated,
’I think there may be a misinterpretation of NCATE policy. But I would suggest you contact someone at NCATE headquarters for a better read. If there is a misinterpretation, or if the guidelines are being interpreted in this way for some internal political reasons, having a statement from someone at NCATE would have far more weight than a statement from me.’
In fact, the Math Department has such a statement, which was provided to Dr. Thompson in September. It is a written communication by the Director of Program Reviews for NCATE, Wendy Wiggins. Regarding the location of Teacher Education programs, she stated,
‘Programs that are organized around a specific discipline such as Math are usually located in the unit that houses the discipline (e.g., Music, Arts and Sciences, Business).’
Furthermore, the latest NCATE program review of ECU cited ‘no weaknesses’ in our teacher education programs. In light of Dr. Thompson’s interpretation of NCATE accreditation policy to support his proposal to move a number of faculty members against their will, would you be willing to write to NCATE to ask whether or not they will stand behind their accreditation report?
2) Dr. Thompson clearly wrote that ‘ECU was able to steer the reviewers away from the matter.’ Would it be usual
policy for Dr. Thompson to steer reviewers away from difficult accreditation issues or did he plan to interfere in the
teacher education process just that one time? Are there any issues away from which Dr. Thompson plans to steer
the SACS visiting team?”
Chancellor Muse responded that it would be inappropriate for him to try to respond to these very specific questions at this time. He recognizes that this is a sensitive issue, as it rightly should be because of its importance. In his conversations with VC Thompson, a primary objective is to comply with the letter and spirit of Appendix L to provide full and open disclosure and discussion. The proposal disseminated last week came from two deans (Arts and Sciences and Education). In its early stages, there were points on which they did not agree. The current proposal represents considerable discussion and is an attempt to provide a full and complete summary of the rationale for the proposal. There will be ample opportunity for all those affected by or interested in the issue to respond. If the issue is what NCATE really feels, there will be opportunity to ask about this. He stated that he has kept an open mind about the matter. His only concern is that we provide the most effective structure organizationally and programs academically to prepare teachers – there is reasonable room for discussion and debate about the most appropriate way to do that. The process will be followed.
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 Standards Committee
John Tilley (History), Chair of the Committee, which replaces the former General Education committee stated that part of the charge of the new committee is to recommend changes in general education requirements. One duty is to serve ex officio on the general education assessment committee. General education assessment is part of the SACS assessment recommendations. While the General Education Assessment committee is an administrative committee and doesn’t report to the Faculty Senate, Professor Tilley emphasized that the committee is actively seeking and welcomes faculty input. The committee hopes to complete its recommendations for a system of general education assessment this spring. Determining what sort of instrument to use is difficult. Motivating students to take a test of general education achievement is also an issue. Many students complete their general education requirements are community colleges; determining how these students should be assessed is also an issue.
We could develop our own measure. However, at this point, to have something to show to SACS makes developing our own measure out of the question. The Nichols recommended three commercial tests: the College Assessment of Academic Proficiency; the Academic Profile; and the Basic Academic Skills Examination (College BASE). As of now, copies of these tests are being looked at by the committee and are available in Kris Smith’s office in 207 Spilman. Faculty are encouraged to examine these tests, but should call first. Once evaluated, the committee will select one and administer it this spring to show SACS. We won’t actually be evaluating our general education program yet but just demonstrating that we’re making progress in this area. The purpose is to determine how well the university is doing with general education, not to tell individual instructors what to do in the classroom. There have been no major changes to general education requirements in at least 20 years, so it may be a good idea to think about reviewing and/or changing the requirements.
McMillen (Medicine) raised some major problems. Licensure exams are now mandatory to move into the clinical years; the distribution has always been bimodal, with about 20 failing. When the exams became mandatory for licensure, none failed. If there is no consequence, the results will be false. On the other hand, a mandatory exam becomes an exit exam. What different programs want in incoming majors is different. Professor Tilley responded that these are problems the committee knows are there. One solution may be to use embedded questions in course exams. Professors can decide whether or not to count the questions as part of the grade. There are implications for academic freedom, and making students take such an exam seriously is a big issue. This problem exists on every campus, and since SACS now requires this assessment, we can look to other universities for help.
Professor Smith added that from her experience before coming to ECU as an institutional assessment coordinator, students were motivated to see how well they could do. A few didn’t apply themselves, but most had internal motivation to perform. Standardized tests have national norms that may be a motivator: many of our students feel that people don’t know how good they are.
Ries (Mathematics) asked why SACS doesn’t care about scores on the test. Professor Tilley responded that on this visit they are not trying to evaluate how well we’re doing in general education, just looking at how well we are assessing it. The best we can do is demonstrate that we’re working on it
Ferrell (History) asked if a list of the assessment committee members could be provided. Professor Tilley responded that this list would be placed in the minutes and that there was no attempt to exclude the faculty from the decision process. Members of the General Education Assessment Committee are: Kris Smith (Planning and Institutional Research), Michael Brown (Psychology), Bob Chin (Industry and Technology), David Lawrence (Geology), Dot Muller (Undergraduate Studies), Claudia McCann (Planning and Institutional Research), Phil Phillips (Art), Michael Poteat (Computer Science and Communication), Rita Reaves (Academic Affairs), Chuck Singhas (Biology), Scott Snyder (Geology), Richard Taylor (English), John Tilley (History), Patricia Clark (Theatre and Dance), David White (Health and Human Performance), and Linda Wolfe (Anthropology).
Hall (Psychology) stated that assessment can be broader than just a test. What have other universities done besides tests? Assessment has been around a long time and can include lots of things: portfolios, writing samples, videos, presentation skills, performance evaluation, team approaches, assessment centers as in business. Professor Tilley stated that we are committed to finding a tool, but the approach is to look at a combination of things – standardized testing plus other things.
B. Academic Awards Committee
Karl Wuensch (Psychology), Chair of the Committee, presented the revised Procedures for the Annual Lifetime and Five-year University Research/Creative Activity Awards. The size of individual awards will go down because there are now 4 rather than 2. The committee hopes that the economy will improve allowing 4 large awards to be given. In addition, the current procedure requires a 4 year rotation among units. The new procedures eliminate rotations, but limit the number that may be forwarded from the unit per award per year. Finally, the new procedures require 3 instead of 5 letters from outside reviewers.
Following discussion, the Procedures for the Annual Lifetime and Five-Year University Research/Creative Activity Awards were approved as revised. RESOLUTION #01-35 (The revised procedures are available on the Committee’s web site at:
http://www.ecu.edu/fsonline/AcademicCommittees/aa/academicawards.htm.)
C. Agenda Committee
David Pravica (Math), Chair of the Committee, presented the proposed 2002-2003 Faculty Senate and Agenda Committee meeting dates.
There was no discussion and the report was approved as presented. RESOLUTION #01-36 (The meeting dates are listed at the end of this report.)
D. Committee on Committees
Henry Ferrell (History), Chair of the Committee, presented the revised University Athletics Committee charge.
Glascoff (Health and Human Performance) asked whether the phrase “Senior Woman Administrator” comes from NCAA or ECU. Professor Ferrell responded that he doesn’t know.
Nasea (HSL) stated that the phrase was present in the last athletics report.
Irons (University Attorney) stated that the phrase appears in the in self-study several times. Every university in Conference USA has this title assigned to a person who is in charge of women’s sports. It doesn’t have to be a woman.
Tovey (English) suggested that we check with Athletics to see exactly what it should be so that it reads correctly.
Scott (Academic Library Sciences) moved to refer this back to committee to either change the title or reword it so that it is handled better.
Niswander (Business) stated that it is not our job to determine what the title should be.
Glascoff (Health and Human Performance) added that if that is the official title, then that is what we must live with. If not, it should be corrected. It must be clear.
Hall (Psychology) asked if this is a position title, who holds the position at present? Mr. Irons responded that the position is currently held by Rosie Thompson.
Following discussion, the revised University Athletics Committee charge was referred back to the Committee on Committees for further clarification. RESOLUTION #01-37
E. University Curriculum Committee
Steve Estes (Health and Human Performance), Vice Chair of the Committee, presented the curriculum matters contained in the minutes of October 11, 2001 Committee meeting.
There was no discussion and the curriculum matters were approved as presented. RESOLUTION #01-38 (Copies of these minutes are available on the Committee’s web site at: http://www.ecu.edu/fsonline/AcademicCommittees/cu/cu10-011.htm.)
Agenda Item VI. New Business
There was no new business to come before the Faculty Senate at this time.
The meeting adjourned at 4:50 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Linda Allred Lori Lee
Secretary of the Faculty Faculty Senate office
Department of Psychology
FACULTY SENATE RESOLUTIONS APPROVED AT THE DECEMBER 4, 2001, MEETING
01-35 Procedures for the Annual Lifetime and Five-Year University Research/Creative Activity Awards
(The revised procedures are available on the Committee’s web site at:
http://www.ecu.edu/fsonline/AcademicCommittees/aa/academicawards.htm.)
Disposition: Chancellor
01-36 2002-2003 Faculty Senate and Agenda Committee Meeting Dates as follows:
Agenda Committee will meet: Faculty Senate will meet:
August 27, 2002 September 3, 2002
September 17, 2002 October 1, 2002
October 22, 2002 November 5, 2002
November 19, 2002 December 3, 2002
January 14, 2003 January 28, 2003
February 11, 2003 February 25, 2003
March 11, 2003 March 25, 2003
April 8, 2003 April 22, 2003
April 29, 2003, Organizational Meeting
Disposition: Faculty Senate
01-37 Review of the proposed revisions to the University Athletics Committee charge.
Disposition: Committee on Committees
01-38 Curriculum matters contained in the minutes of October 11, 2001 Committee meeting.
(Copies of these minutes are available on the Committee’s web site at: http://www.ecu.edu/fsonline/AcademicCommittees/cu/cu10-011.htm.)
Disposition: Chancellor
