EAST CAROLINA UNIVERSITY
FACULTY SENATE
FULL MINUTES OF DECEMBER 3, 2002
The fourth regular meeting of the 2002-2003 Faculty Senate was held on Tuesday, December 3, 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 November 5, 2002, were approved as distributed.
Agenda Item III. Special Order of the Day
A. Roll Call
Senators absent were: Professors Twarog (Art), Tabrizi (Computer Science), Griffin (Education), Watson (English), Ulffers (Music), Pozzuto (Social Work and Criminal Justice Studies) and Varner (Administrative Council Representative).
Alternates present were: Professors Christian for McCarthy (Business), Tucker for Sugar (Education), McKernan for Warren (Education), Robinson for Ries (Mathematics), Kellogg for Dobbs (Medicine), Willson for Meredith (Medicine) and Joyce for Sprague (Physics).
B. Announcements
1. The Chancellor has approved the following resolutions from the November 5, 2002, Faculty Senate meeting:
02-34 Approval of the Fall 2002 Graduation Roster, including honors program graduates, subject to the completion of degree requirements.
02-35 Curriculum matters contained in the minutes of the September 26, 2002, and October 10, 2002, University Curriculum Committee meetings.
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.
2. 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 February 15, 2003.
3. Letters concerning unit elections for the 2003-2004 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.
4. 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.
5. A special thanks was extended to Chancellor William Muse for providing the food and wine for the meeting.
C. William Muse, Chancellor
Chancellor Muse briefly reported on his attendance at the American Association of State Colleges and Universities’ annual meeting last week to receive the Christa McAuliffe award presented to ECU for excellence in teacher education and for the Latham Clinical School Network, which is a partnership of 16 public school systems in North Carolina. In particular, the latter award ties in with discussions about teaching as a clinical activity and the need to strengthen those partnerships as an integral part of our education program. Another session attended concerned a report on a yearlong task force that looked at public Universities as “stewards of place”. The basic argument here is that a public University should be a good steward of the place where it is located, and should use its knowledge and resources to improve the quality of life within that region. Although we are doing many things already, there are other things that could be done. ECU has a very special relationship to eastern North Carolina to change lives and to improve the quality of organizations in this area.
Dr. Muse noted that the Faculty Welfare Committee has studied the proposed parking plan and has a resolution for review by the senate. Senate recommendations along with other input will be considered and the proposed parking plan will be presented to the Board of Trustee on December 13th, 2002.
Dr. Muse was asked by the Faculty Officers (two weeks ago) to look into procedures by which salaries were determined and into the level of faculty participation, (given the expectation of faculty involvement in an October letter to the Chancellors from Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs, Gretchen Bataille). As mentioned last month, the guidelines specified that there would be no funds available for merit, only for equity and market adjustment; yet, many unit codes do not address these categories. Dr. Muse also understood that not all unit codes provide for faculty discussion of the salary adjustment processes and criteria. He recommended to the officers that the University Budget Committee take a look at faculty involvement in these matters. He feels that the faculty should be a part of these discussions both in terms of the process and the criteria that is ultimately used. Dr. Muse did not know the level of faculty involvement this year and guessed it might be different across different units. He did suggest that guidelines are probably needed outlining faculty involvement in this process and stated that he supports faculty involvement in the salary process and the criteria.
Chancellor Muse was aware of and encourages the discussions going on about general education. The deliberate and systematic review, at appropriate intervals, of what we are doing seems to be good principle of practice. There were questions about whether course requirement changes might bring funding changes, and of course this is possible. Our University is funded by a formula that is enrollment driven. There is no way to fairly fund the instructional mission of the University without considering existing student/faculty ratios and credit hour production. The debate and discussion about the economic consequences and possibilities is part of the process followed by a democratic society.
D. Tom Feldbush, Vice Chancellor for Research, Economic Development and Community Engagement
When the Chancellor reorganized the University he changed the perspective and focus of the Division of Research and Graduate Studies into the Division of Research, Economic Development and Community Engagement, which Dr. Feldbush now heads. Dr. Feldbush was asked by the Senate Officers to provide insight as to his new role, and he briefly outlined his focus on economic development and community engagement, given that the research role has not changed. He noted four different ways that we can have an impact: 1) quality of life, 2) workforce development, 3) intellectual capital and resources, and 4) technological transfer. Each of these areas was discussed briefly.
Quality of Life. Dr Feldbush noted that we have formed a partnership with the City to improve quality of downtown Greenville as the University moves west. Based on a new master plan, there are many exciting things that we would like to work cooperatively with the city to achieve, including joint grant applications to the Gold Leaf Foundation and Wachovia Bank, and the establishment of a downtown revitalization committee. We have also established the ECU Outreach network, which is designed to help local communities develop grant proposals. An outcome of this work is a HUD grant for approximately $400,000 awarded to help revitalize downtown Rocky Mount.
Workforce Development. Dr. Feldbush noted that our graduates are the most significant contribution to the workforce. We currently have an agreement with Pitt Community College, which has put together a Biotechnology Training Consortium, involving eight different Community Colleges with the goal of providing a two-year certificate in Biotechnology. The University’s role is to teach the teachers and to provide them an opportunity to continue work in the area of biotechnology. He also noted a joint effort between the Pitt County Development Commission, the University, and DSM Pharmaceuticals, which proposes to establish a bio-processing pilot-plant out at DSM to be used as a training center for our biotechnology graduate students and those in the Community College program.
Intellectual Capital and Resources. The Southeastern Crescent Authority (which is our answer to Appalachian Regional Commission) has been proposed as a way to provide funds to poor regions of the Southeastern portion of the United States, based on a pending U.S. House Bill to be considered when the 108th Congress reconvenes. We are also working with Pitt County Development Committee to develop a Technology Park. Attempts to acquire property for this project are currently underway. Dr. Feldbush also mentioned the Eastern North Carolina Science Center, which is a collaborative project between the University, the Pitt County Schools, the Community College, the Development Commission, the Chamber of Commerce, the City of Greenville, and Pitt County to establish a center for K-12 science and education enhancement and a research tool for the University.
Technological Transfer. Dr. Feldbush stated that actually the University has done quite well in this area when you consider the size of our research program and the amount of money we have had to spend in this area. We were ranked second in the Country last year when you corrected the results by our research expenditures. He also mentioned the proposal to establish the East Carolina Research Institute, which is going forward to the Chancellor next month. Although the source of funding is not absolutely clear, we are going to try and establish a pool of funds that can be used to seed the establishment of new research centers, which could ultimately become self-supporting through the provision of community support (grants and endowments).
Wilentz (English) noted that when we work on economic development in relation to outreach programs we must not solely focus on economic issues and ignore the cultural aspects of community development. Dr. Feldbush responded that was what the “quality of life” issue was all about.
Professor Wilentz asked what was being done in these projects to build the socio-cultural component to work across ethnic groups? Dr. Feldbush responded that the project in Rocky Mount underscores this particular focus. It was a project that was pursued by the ECU outreach network and a consortium of African American churches, to improve life and well being of individuals in the African American community in Rocky Mount.
Tovey (English) noted that Vic Abbey (Health and Human Performance) has started a series of Health Education sessions and a Health Fair in Rocky Mount that began once the HUD grant came into effect. She also thanked the graduate students who had provided much of the hard work needed to make the project successful.
Ferrell (History) asked if the activities described included improving public transportation, regarding access and egress from the East? Dr. Feldbush indicated that he had very little to do with public transportation, but that he knew of some discussions. For example, there are talks that involve connecting Stantonsburg Road, the Farmville Highway, and 10th Street, making this a major entrance into the city. There are also discussions, coming from Student Life, that involve the City and the University looking into ways to merge bus systems.
E. Bob Morrison, Chair of the Faculty
Professor Morrison began his comments with an update on sabbatical leaves. He stated that the last time he spoke to the group he had been trying to find out why there were no sabbatical leaves in North Carolina. This issue came up at a Faculty Welfare Committee meeting this Fall. Assistant University Attorney Kitty Wetherington had been looking for appropriate documents, and she had asked the staff at the Office of the President for assistance, who even contacted the previous Vice President for Academic Affairs to track down the documentation. Chair Morrison noted that the reason given for no sabbaticals was that the State Personnel Manual does not include sabbatical leaves as one of the 15 reasons that state employees can take leaves. Those 15 reasons include Vacation Leave, Family and Medical Leave, Voluntary Shared Leave, Holidays, Compensatory Leave, Adverse Weather, Civil Leave, Community Service Leave, Educational Leave, Military Leave, Special Leave Awards (up to 24 hours), Worker’s Compensation Leave, Leave Without Pay. This list has been interpreted to be a list of all the reasons state employees can take leaves. Since sabbatical leave is not on the list, it’s not an approved reason. But you can take research leaves if you submit a request and that request gets approved. For example in the College of Arts and Sciences there is a program for a limited number of research leaves. A faculty member writes a proposal for a one-semester research leave, and if awarded, can spend one semester doing research exclusively. There may be other programs on campus, but there is no university-wide program for research leaves. These differ from sabbatical leaves in that they are not automatic. You have to win one of these research leaves through a proposal process.
Chair Morrison stated that in his discussions with Betsy Brown, Associate Vice President for Academic Affairs, she said that this request for information brought to their attention the need for sabbatical leaves in the UNC system. Though, she said, this is not the right time to pursue it. Chair Morrison stated that he felt that there was some hope that when the economy improved we would be able to pursue the sabbatical leave question.
On another matter, Chair Morrison discussed the activities of the Commission on Scholarship. He stated that they had been contacting other universities in an effort to find out how Scholarship of Engagement is evaluated at other institutions. They were especially interested in what Portland State University and the Indiana University Purdue University at Indianapolis were doing. They appear to be leaders in implementing expanded definitions of scholarship, though the University of Georgia and Auburn University have done some interesting things as well. Other universities the Commission is contacting are the University of Memphis, the University of Alabama at Birmingham, UC Davis, and Michigan State University. He stated that the minutes of the Commission on Scholarship and many of the documents and links to documents at other web sites are on the Commission’s web site, located on the Faculty Senate main web page. Chair Morrison stated that he believed that the Commission would have a preliminary report early next semester.
F. David Pravica, Faculty Assembly Delegate
Professor Pravica presented a report on the Faculty Assembly meeting of November 15, 2002. The full minutes of the meeting are available at: http://www.uncwil.edu/facassembly/minutes/nov02.htm.
Robinson (Mathematics) asked for a clarification of the guidelines from the Office of the President concerning faculty involvement with how moneys were distributed this year. He indicated that faculty in Mathematics were not aware of such discussions. Professor Pravica responded that Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs, Gretchen Bataille had sent a letter to the Chancellors concerning raises, and it contained the expectation that salary decisions should be based on discussions of the criteria and the process by the faculty.
G. Gary Lowe, Associate Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs
Professor Lowe provided the Faculty Senate with an update on the 2003 fall admissions. The forecast size for the Fall 2003 class is projected at 3200, which is 270 students below the forecast for the current fall semester. However, due to growth in other areas, we expect to still reflect an overall increase in students. We are approaching a critical point on December 15th, which is the Priority Decision Date, and based on the profile of the moment, Dr. Lowe indicated that we are down by about 412 students compared to the same time last year. He also indicated that the quality of the projected 2003 class had gone up compared to last year.
Robinson (Mathematics) asked what percent of the entering class were minorities? Dr. Lowe indicated that he did not have the numbers with him but that information could be provided from information routinely obtained each week.
McKernan (Education) noted that while raising standards for entry we might be hurting our ability to reach more neglected, lower socio-economic-status individuals that ECU has traditionally been charged to serve. Professor McKernan stated that he was concerned about the students in poverty, which represent about 21% of Pitt County. Only 20% of the students in the bottom socioeconomic status tend to get into college. By continuing a policy of high selectivity and increased standards we may run the risk of hurting disadvantaged students. Dr. Lowe stated that the process we are working with this year divides the incoming students into several different categories, including those on a hold list where we might be waiting on updated test scores (SAT or ACT) or other information. In February there will be third round of decisions. We are sensitive to the kinds of issues, and we are not interested in keeping people away for what can be described as “experience reasons”. He indicated that it is a challenge and we are trying to be as sensitive as we can to all categories of students while still trying to raise the bar for academic standards.
Wilentz (English) asked if you have a student with a high ranking and a low-test score would that override admission? Dr. Lowe indicated that it would probably place the student into the priority decision category, and such a student might not be offered admissions straight away, but would have a slightly later decision date.
Ferrell (History) noted that the Office of the President would require foreign language for admission to the University in 2004-5. Dr. Lowe indicated that the standards are going to alter beginning in 2005.
Dr Ferrell asked how students who had not met this standard would be handled? Dr Lowe responded that this involves what the public schools have to do in terms of providing opportunities for their students given new requirements for high school graduation. If the public schools have met this standard there will not be an issue any different from any other admission. Dr. Ferrell asked what happens with out of state students not subject to North Carolina standards? Dr. Lowe indicated that he would look into the problem and attempt to determine what will happen in the case of an out of state student.
H. Rita Gonsalves and Rhonda Brown, International Programs
Ms. Gonsalves and Ms. Brown discussed the Student Exchange Visitors Scholars Tracking System (SEVIS). SEVIS is designed to secure the entry process into this country, and it goes into effect January 30, 2003. Ms Brown, who is in charge of tracking this data at ECU, noted that under the proposed regulations, each school would be required to maintain and report accurate information pertaining to graduate and undergraduate students and that all international students must maintain a valid immigration status while here at ECU. She also noted that international-students are limited to 20-hour assistantships. This precludes the addition of extra hours that might be added individually by host departments.
Gemperline (Chemistry) stated that often international-students travel in the U.S. prior to actually arriving here at ECU; and wondered if this would still be possible? Ms. Brown indicated that extensive travel prior to enrollment would not be possible under the new rules. A student must report for enrollment no later than 30 days after they have entered the country.
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.
Ferrell (History)reiterated his earlier question to Dr. Lowe, as to what would happen to students in terms of the foreign language requirement who have not attended North Carolina public schools (such as those in private schools, those in home school settings, and those from other States)? Dr. Lowe indicated that accredited schools would probably have met this requirement.
Wolfe (Anthropology) asked if there was any news on the reorganization of the University? Dr. Swart indicated that there was no new information available at this time.
Wall (Philosophy) noted that neither Dr. Muse nor Dr. Swart have mentioned the notion of academic excellence nor a commitment to a Liberal Arts core at this University. There was a question raised at the last meeting concerning general education courses moving from Arts and Sciences into the professional schools. Professor Wall asked Dr. Muse about his position on this issue, if he had a commitment to the liberal arts tradition at ECU and how that might factor into current planning. Dr. Muse responded that at every University where he has been the core curriculum is composed largely of liberal arts classes. He stated that he feels very comfortable with this idea, in that these courses are built around the notion of what an individual needs to know or to be able to do in order to be an educated person. Those are the things that the faculty assumes every student needs to have in a required course of study. Chancellor Muse felt that curriculum decisions belong to the faculty. He stated that he has not had any discussion about trying to push liberal arts or professional courses or de-emphasis professional courses. The curriculum is an issue that the faculty deals with and Chancellor Muse encourages frank discussions on that topic.
Agenda Item IV. Unfinished Business
The curriculum matters contained in the minutes of the October 29, 2002, University Curriculum Committee meeting were discussed. These minutes included prefix changes and cross-listings for courses being transferred to the School of Education.
Robinson (Mathematics) stated that one of our concerns at the last meeting was that regular meetings of the University Curriculum Committee (UCC) were to serve as a forum where faculty members could discuss issues without the time pressures encountered in the Faculty Senate. He asked if there could be a meeting to discuss the curriculum changes that have been proposed and if we could decide to do this in the today’s senate meeting? Professor Knickerbocker (Foreign Languages and Literatures and Chair of the UCC) responded that it would depend on the wishes of the Faculty Senate. The report on the floor has the weight of a motion, and must be voted on one way or another. As indicated at the last meeting we have attempted to disseminate this to all faculty so that anyone with issues could ask for speaking privileges at this meeting. Dr. Knickerbocker felt that this was the best we could do under the circumstances.
Rigsby (Geology) asked what steps would have been taken if this had been done properly? Professor Knickerbocker stated that it should have gone through the unit curriculum committees of the associated departments on the Arts and Sciences side and the curriculum committee on the School of Education side and be voted on by the respective faculties, and at the same time, courses changing prefixes should have gone through the University Curriculum Committee, which did not happen in the current process. He also noted that Math 1067 was not being transferred, it is being cross-listed.
Martinez (Foreign Languages) asked what would happen if we failed to approve the report, since the courses are already listed for the spring and students have already been allowed to register? Professor Knickerbocker was not sure of the process and assumed that the Senate would instruct his committee.
Pravica (Mathematics) moved to postpone the University Curriculum Committee minutes of October 29, 2002, until the Academic Standards Committee could review the issue of the effect on the general education curriculum.
L’Esperance (Education) questioned the move to postpone, and noted that courses are already listed, and that perhaps we should move on to other issues.
Glascoff (Health and Human Performance) noted that without thought from the senate that we may be starting down a slippery slope. We have not decided what will happen with our general education requirements, if some of them can come from professional schools. If this is already decided then we now have a general education requirement residing within a professional school. Our subsequent discussions concerning general education will be very different if this has already been approved by this body. Dr. Glascoff stated that we are not ready in our deliberative process to do this, and should wait another month.
Robinson (Mathematics) noted that the question regarding general education mathematics credit being offered by the School of Education has to do with whether or not there are a sufficient number of mathematic Ph. Ds within the School of Education to make judgments about mathematics general education curriculum.
Rigsby (Geology) indicated that the discussion might have moved off the major point. She felt that we do not need the same conversation as last year. The senate made a decision, and was over-ruled by the Chancellor. She felt that we should now move on to new issues. However, Dr. Rigsby did not think we had agreed to circumvent the committee system of this University. All that is being asked is that procedures go through the right set of steps that the faculty and administration have agreed to, and we have not been allowed to do that. Professor Rigsby requested that the report should be sent back to the UCC so that all appropriate steps can be taken.
Eribo (Communication and Broadcasting) indicated that there has been a great deal of discussion of this issue, all of which seems to be missing the point as to what is in the best interest of the students that have already signed up for these courses. He suggested that the discussion should move on, in the interest of the students.
Conner-Kerr (Allied Health Sciences) noted that the current process has been alarming and that it seems that the committee system has been circumvented, and that she would suggest postponing the report on that basis.
Martinez (Foreign Languages) spoke against the motion to postpone. She indicated that there are two issues, one dealing with how the process has worked and another that concerns the issue of assigning credit as general education courses. This issue has not been brought through the Academic Standards Committee; they were simply informed of the change. This particular discussion should deal with how the process was circumvented; hence, we should not postpone the matter. Dr Martinez suggested that we reject the UCC report and the process should restart at the departmental level.
Pravica (Mathematics) stated that his only reason for wishing to delay the current process was so that the report from John Tilley (Chair, Academic Standards Committee) could be heard at our next meeting.
Eribo (Communication and Broadcasting) noted again that we should consider the interests of the students who are already enrolled in the respective classes.
Hall (Psychology) asked if the individuals who were moved to Education were given dual appointments?
Swart (Provost) noted that individuals who are transferred could choose to have a joint appointment. A joint appointment indicates that an individual can list themselves as a member of a particular faculty, and they can be assigned courses in that particular department. However, that individual can have voting rights only in one department. Provost Swart went on to note that what has not been mentioned in these deliberations is that after the Chancellor made his decision that this transfer would go forward, a very detailed transition memo was agreed upon that included a statement as to what courses would be transferred. The program faculty and the chairs of departments of Mathematics, English and History were asked to confirm the list of courses to be transferred by no later than September 13, 2002. Any disagreements were to be forwarded to Bob Thompson. He did not think that there were any objections raised. As to new course prefixes, the memo stated that Dean Sheerer and the various program faculty should work with the Office of the Registrar to decide new course prefixes for the courses to be transferred. Dr. Rita Reeves (Academic Affairs) and the Office of Institutional Research should be informed of the final decisions. Academic Affairs will, in turn, inform the appropriate curriculum committee. Dr. Swart indicated that these are specific statements that were in the transition memorandum that were carefully followed. Provost Swart also mentioned that he was the one who had stopped this from this being a reality already and that he had asked that this particular issued be brought back to the UCC. He indicated his support for the shared governance concept. Dr. Swart noted that the UCC has approved the current process and he asked that the senate do the same.
Rigsby (Geology) noted that because this issue went to the UCC without the appropriate time needed to adequately deliberate the issues, revisiting this issue would allow us to go through the steps and make sure that we are doing everything appropriately, according to our standards of faculty governance.
Following this discussion, the motion to postpone action on the University Curriculum Committee minutes of October 29, 2002, failed by a 21/23 vote.
Martinez (Foreign Languages and Literatures) moved to reject the University Curriculum Committee’s minutes of October 29, 2002. The motion stated that the Math, English and History courses that were transferred to the School of Education should retain the old prefixes. The proposal to change the prefixes should then go through the appropriate curriculum committee process before the Faculty Senate takes action.
L’Esperance (Education) asked how this would be handled on One-Stop if we rejected this report and stared over? He asked if this action would be binding?
Yarbrough (Political Science) guessed that the answer to Dr. L’Esperance’s question would be that Dr. Muse could do what he would like to do. If we approve this we will have acted in good faith and in support of our usual committee procedures, but Dr. Muse can take into account the interests of students and make his own decision about if it should be approved for this spring semester. Then if it is rejected we will revisit it at that time.
Eribo (Communication and Broadcasting) did not feel that he could support the motion because we have not considered the interest of our students; he stated that we are leaving that to the Chancellor. This is not fair to our students who have registered for these classes, in that procedures can always be fixed over time. Allowing the Chancellor to act in the students’ behalf abdicates our role as faculty.
Ferrell (History) offered a friendly amendment to the motion to include that those courses that failed the normal process of approval be given temporary approval for the spring semester of 2003. This was offered so as not to cause problems for the students already registered in them. The motion was approved.
Swart (Provost) asked if the present report was not already a motion, and did we have a motion on top of a motion? Dr Morrison replied that it would be considered as a substitute motion.
The curriculum matters contained in the minutes of the October 29, 2002, University Curriculum Committee meeting were rejected. Those courses in Math, English and History being transferred to the School of Education should retain the old prefixes. All courses should go through the appropriate curriculum committee process before the Faculty Senate will take action. Those courses that failed the normal process of approval are given temporary approval for the spring semester of 2003. RESOLUTION #02-38
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 October 24, 2002, and November 14, 2002, Committee meetings. There was no discussion and the curriculum matters were approved as presented. RESOLUTION #02-39
B. Admission and Retention Policies Committee
Jan Tovey (English), Chair of the Committee, presented a proposed addition to the ECU Undergraduate Catalog, Section 5: Academic Regulations, Subsection: General Requirements for Graduation. The revision would be to include the following as a new paragraph: “The university does not award degrees solely because a student successfully completed the required courses. Violations of the student Code of Conduct, including both academic and nonacademic violations, may result in a degree not being awarded. For example, when the student has disciplinary charges pending, the degree may be withheld or the awarding of the degree may be delayed.” Wetherington (Assistant University Attorney) requested that this new paragraph also be included in the ECU Graduate Catalog. It was noted that the Faculty Senate does not have authority over the graduate catalog and that the Graduate Assembly should receive that request.
Following discussion, the proposed addition to the ECU Undergraduate Catalog, Section 5: Academic Regulations, Subsection: General Requirements for Graduation was approved as presented. RESOLUTION #02-40
C. Agenda Committee
Catherine Rigsby (Geology), Chair of the Committee, presented the proposed 2003-2004 Faculty Senate and Agenda Committee meeting dates. There was no discussion and the report was approved as presented. RESOLUTION #02-41 (The meeting dates are listed at the end of this report.)
D. Committee on Committees
Henry Ferrell (History), Chair of the Committee, first presented the first reading of a revised Faculty Information Technology Committee charge. These revisions require a change in the Faculty Senate By-Laws so a second reading is required. The Faculty Senate will take action on the proposed revisions on January 28, 2003.
Hanrahan (Medicine) offered a proposed amendment that Professor Ferrell agreed to present to the Committee for their consideration. Hanrahan stated that he felt that the Committee’s Responsibilities 4.C and 4.D. were redundant and already included in 4.A. He also offered a rewrite of 4.B. so that the Committee’s Responsibilities would read as follows:
“A. The purpose of the committee is to ensure timely, informed faculty input on any information technology action in any areas of the University that may significantly affect the University’s academic mission (all information technology actions that affect more than one academic unit or that are initiated above the academic college or school department levels).
B. The committee reviews and makes recommendations on proposals to plan, implement, revise or eliminate information technology initiatives, goals, standards, policies, procedures or actions that significantly impact the University’s academic mission.
C. The committee shall prepare and make available a format for proposals requesting permission to plan, implement, revise or eliminate an information technology initiative, goal, standards, policy, procedure or action.”
Professor Ferrell then presented a revised University Athletics Committee charge. The revision includes the addition of the “Senior Associate Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs” as an ex-officio member without vote, but with all other parliamentary privileges. There was no discussion and the revised University Athletics Committee charge was approved as presented. RESOLUTION #02-42
E. Educational Policies and Planning Committee
Bob Morrison (Chemistry), member of the Committee, presented the Notification of Intent to Plan a BS Program in General Engineering. He stated that Provost Swart presented this notification to the Committee and that the Committee had forwarded their approval on to the Chancellor. This report required no action by the Faculty Senate.
F. Unit Code Screening Committee
The Committee’s report on the revised Department of Physics Code of Operation was withdrawn, pending further discussion among the unit representatives and committee members.
G. Faculty Welfare Committee
Rick Niswander (Business), member of the Committee, presented a resolution on the Proposed Parking Plan discussed by the Faculty Senate in November, 2002.
Wall (Philosophy) asked if the committee had received a spreadsheet detailing how the proposed parking fees had been determined? It seems that we are locking in a fee of $288 without a great deal of justification as to how it was determined. Niswander indicted that the committee had received a spreadsheet concerning a formula for parking fees, revenues, and expenses.
Decker (Health and Human Performance) asked if this report is accepted will the discussion on parking end or will we be able to continue working on the problems? Morrison indicated that this would go on to the Chancellor and then the Board of Trustees on December 13, 2003. It will also come up in the form of routine annual reports.
Ferreira (Social Work) wondered if towing would work as an option. We could simply provide our own impound facilities and tow trucks to avoid using parking fines.
Martinez (Foreign Languages) asked if we approve the current resolution what are the consequences? Niswander noted that the ultimate decision on this policy is with the Board of Trustees.
Gemperline (Chemistry) asked about parts C and D and the policy that certain lots not be opened until after 7:00 pm? Niswander indicated that the reason for this language was so that some group of lots would be available to faculty who teach at night and need a spot. George Harrell, Facilities Services indicated that this specification might be difficult to implement as stated but that he understood the intent and would try to be as accommodating as possible.
McKernan (Education) asked if the committee had examined the equity of the fee structure for SPA employees? Niswander indicated that it had been part of an earlier draft, but after lengthy committee discussion it was removed.
Ferrell (History) offered an amendment to the Committee’s resolution that stated: “BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Faculty Senate urge the Chancellor to accelerate efforts to create a public transportation system that effectively combines the SGA system and that of the City of Greenville.” The amendment was passed.
Chair Morrison (Chemistry) offered an amendment to resolve #1, replacing “a free Zone B permit” with “a free Zone A permit”. The amendment was passed.
Decker (Health and Human Performance) offered an amendment to delete #2d. and reword #2c. to read as follows: “c. Certain lots east of Founders Drive and surrounding the Jenkins Building not be opened to other University registered vehicles until 6:30 p.m.” The amendment was passed.
Following discussion, the resolution was approved as revised. RESOLUTION #02-43 (The full revised resolution is included at the end of this report.)
Agenda Item VI. New Business
There was no new business to come before the Faculty Senate at this time.
The meeting adjourned at 4:55 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
John G. Cope Lori Lee
Secretary of the Faculty Faculty Senate office
Department of Psychology
FACULTY SENATE RESOLUTIONS APPROVED
AT THE DECEMBER 3, 2002, MEETING
02-39 Curriculum matters contained in the minutes of October 24, 2002, and November 14, 2002, Committee meetings.
Disposition: Chancellor
02-40 New paragraph to the ECU Undergraduate Catalog, Section 5: Academic Regulations, Subsection: General Requirements for Graduation to read as follows: “The university does not award degrees solely because a student successfully completed the required courses. Violations of the student Code of Conduct, including both academic and nonacademic violations, may result in a degree not being awarded. For example, when the student has disciplinary charges pending, the degree may be withheld or the awarding of the degree may be delayed.”
Disposition: Chancellor
02-41 2003-2004 Faculty Senate and Agenda Committee Meeting Dates as follows:
Agenda Committee will meet: Faculty Senate will meet:
September 30, 2003 October 7, 2003
October 21, 2003 November 11, 2003
November 25, 2003 December 9, 2003
January 13, 2004 January 27, 2004
February 10, 2004 February 24, 2004
March 9, 2004 March 30, 2004
April 6, 2004 April 20, 2004
April 27, 2004, Organizational Meeting
Disposition: Faculty Senate
02-42 Revised University Athletics Committee charge to include the addition of the “Senior Associate Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs” as an ex-officio member without vote, but with all other parliamentary privileges.
Disposition: Chancellor
02-43 Proposed Parking Plan Resolution.
WHEREAS, parking operations at East Carolina University must be self-sufficient, and
WHEREAS, the current proposal has been created based on certain assumptions among these being:
1. An oversell ratio in Zones A and B of approximately 1.1.
2. The anticipation of no changes in the parking fees for a four-year period.
3. Spaces reserved for those with disabilities will not change from the current plan in terms of quantity and location.
4. Enforcement practices adequate to ensure operational objectives.
5. Transportation enhancements necessary to support an increase in remote parking.
6. Faculty and staff have a preference when permits are issued in Zones A and B.
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Faculty Senate is in general agreement with the plan proposed at the November 5, 2002, Faculty Senate meeting, and that such agreement is based on the assumptions presented in that plan, some of which are enumerated above.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Faculty Senate requests that the plan be modified in the following respects:
1. Provide retired faculty with a free Zone A permit in a manner similar to current practice.
2. Given the stated goal of providing readily available parking, explicitly provide that:
a. the oversell ratio in Zone A and B will not exceed a ratio of 1.1, and
b. parking fees will remain constant over a 4 year period, and
c. Certain lots east of Founders Drive and surrounding the Jenkins Building not be opened to other University registered vehicles until 6:30 p.m.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Senior Associate Vice Chancellor for Administration and Finance, responsible for Campus Operations, provide an annual report concerning Parking and Traffic matters, including parking lot shuttle services, to the Faculty Senate each year at their January meeting.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Faculty Senate urge the Chancellor to accelerate efforts to create a public transportation system that effectively combines the SGA system and that of the City of Greenville.
Disposition: Chancellor
