EAST CAROLINA UNIVERSITY
FULL MINUTES OF JANUARY 25, 2005
The fifth regular meeting of the 2004-2005 Faculty Senate was held on Tuesday, January 25, 2005, in the Mendenhall Student Center Great Room.
Agenda Item I. Call to Order
Catherine Rigsby, Chair of the Faculty called the meeting to order at 2:10 p.m.
Agenda Item II. Approval of Minutes
The minutes of December 7, 2004, were approved as distributed.
Agenda Item III. Special Order of the Day
A. Roll Call
Senator absent was: Professor Kalmus (Biology).
Alternates present were: Professors Stapleton for Brown (Education), Bullington for Tropf (Communication), Hodge for Thomson (Education), Gilliland for Pofahl (Medicine), Kellogg for the open Senate seat in Medicine, Parker for Funaro (Theatre and Dance) and Ironsmith for Allred (Psychology).
February 24, 2005, is the last University Curriculum Committee meeting date for materials to appear in the 2005-2006 University Undergraduate Catalog. Curriculum materials must be submitted to the Committee by 5:00 on February 10, 2005.
There has been a new web site created at http://www.ecu.edu/fsonline/Speeches/Speeches.htm to include speeches given by the Chair of the Faculty. This site includes speeches given during Commencement, Board of Trustees meetings, Teaching Award Ceremonies, and Convocation.
The Chancellor has approved the following resolutions from the December 7, 2004, Faculty Senate meeting:
04-33 Curriculum matters contained in the minutes of the November 11, 2004, University Curriculum Committee meeting.
04-35 Approval of a request to merge two coded units with the newly drafted College of Technology and Computer Science unit code.
The Chancellor has elected not to approve 04-36 Resolution on Smoking at this time. He will confer with the faculty officers, students, staff, and University administrators concerning implementation of a non-smoking policy at the University. Subsequent to these discussions, he will reconsider the resolution.
Letters concerning unit elections for the 2005-2006 Faculty Senate representation were mailed to unit code administrators in January. 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.
Thanks to Faculty Senate Alternates Michelle Eble (English), Bryna Coonin (Academic Library Services), Cheryl Estes (Health and Human Performance), Charles Hodson (Medicine), and Martin Bier (Physics) for agreeing to serve as Tellers during the meeting.
The Chancellor will host a Faculty Senate reception in the Chancellor’s residence on Tuesday, March 22, 2005, from 5:30 – 7:30 p.m. to coincide with the Faculty Senate’s 40th Anniversary. Formal invitations will be forthcoming to all Faculty Senators, Alternates, past Chairs of the Faculty, and their guests.
To combat the multitude of spam and destructive viruses that wreak havoc on computers, ECU’s Information Technology and Computing Services (ITCS) department is implementing an anti-spam tool called NetIQ MailMarshal on January 2005. For more information about MailMarshal at ECU, visit www.ecu.edu/cs-itcs/act/mailmarshal.
- The MailMarshal spam filter searches incoming e-mail messages for words and phrases associated with spam. When it comes across possible spam, the messages are sent to your personal spam management Web site.
- You will receive a daily MailMarshal “digest” in your Inbox that provides a summary of your blocked messages. If you want to release any blocked messages, you can simply click a “release” link in the e-mail, and the blocked messages will pop into your Inbox within seconds.
- You can also log into your personal spam management Web site at http://spammarshal.ecu.edu using your ECU PirateID (otherwise known as your username) and passphrase to review and release other blocked messages. At this Web site, you can add alternate e-mail addresses you wish to protect from spam. Messages sent to your personal spam management Web site that you don’t release will remain for 10 days and then will be automatically deleted.
C. Chancellor’s Report
Chancellor Steve Ballard reported on faculty tenure status, legislative priorities, and institutional priorities. Data on faculty tenure status was distributed to all Senators. He stressed the national context of the issues of part time faculty, cost increases, and resulting competition. Our numbers of part time faculty were lower than most peer institutions of a similar size and we have stayed relatively stable following three years of budget constraints.
Dr. Ballard stated that ECU, while focusing on institutional priorities, also must consider federal and legislative priorities. We must have an aggressive campaign for private funds. This year, ECU’ s state legislative priorities include funding for the family practice center, taxes and rent for Brody Building for the School of Medicine, a building for academic programs, and the continuing need for funding of annual enrollment increases. These priorities are not to be confused with institutional priorities but are intended to marry opportunity with feasibility for some of our most pressing needs. Ballard also explained that limiting the number of legislative priorities focused the efforts for this legislative session.
Lamson (Child Development and Family Relations) stated that the College of Human Ecology was the 4th largest in the University yet there were no college representatives on the Strategic Planning Advisory Committee.
Ballard stated that this advisory committee was only the first stage of a multi-stage process and there would be additional opportunities and need for the participation of the college as the process continues. He had not chosen members of this committee on the basis of college representation. They had tried to be responsive to various groups and had added additional faculty members.
Jones (Criminal Justice) followed up stating that Bob Thompson had responded that it was just an oversight and that Professor Jones felt that it was a symbolic implication even if not a policy implication. Ballard stated that he was unable to comment on Thompson’s statements, but reiterated that all colleges were important to the quality and future of ECU and this oversight was not in any way a statement about the status of the college.
D. Vice Chancellor’s Report
John Lehman, Interim Vice Chancellor for Research and Graduate Studies stated that he was pleased to be able to offer a positive update to the Senate. Discussion surrounding the issue of research infrastructure had resulted in increased funding for research and creative activity grants, funds for supplementing start up costs, and the initiation of a new small grant program with proposals due near the end of February. In addition, research grant submissions have increased, and 3 full-time positions had been added to OSP. Money has also been earmarked for training sessions for grant seeking. Research grant funding had increased over 20% over last year, and he said that he will continue to work to increase support for research.
Preston (Education) asked Dr. Lehman how the effort reporting system could be made easier for faculty to complete. Lehman responded that this system was a major issue everywhere but he said that a solution would likelier be easier to find on east campus. These reports are required and solving the problems remains a priority.
Fallon (Foreign Languages and Literatures) asked if the $20,000 seed money was weighted toward specific projects or just seed money and why the low-end figure was 20K. Lehman stated there were 2 programs, one 20-40K per year for 2 years that was introduced today and second program of 150K per year for 2 years, which was not yet funded.
Estes (Health and Human Performance) thanked Dr. Lehman for his funding of 26 research/creative activity grants. Lehman in turn thanked all of administration for their contributions to that funding.
Sprague (Physics) asked what was being done for new faculty and faculty who want to apply for their first research grants. Lehman responded that he had already supplied additional funding for several new faculty researchers this year. Smith added that applications for the small grants program were not limited to a minimum of $20,000. Lehman agreed and stated that requests for less than 20K could mean more applications would be funded.
E. Moment in History
Henry Ferrell (History) provided some history of ECU in anticipation of our Centennial year, 2007. Rigsby added that this would be a regular item on the Agenda. ECU came out of troubled times around the turn of the 20th century. Ferrell credited the school superintendents of eastern North Carolina; they needed teachers. Superintendent Ragsdale of Pitt County organized the effort. In 1904, the institution was created as a two-year institution to certify teachers attached to a two-year preparatory school. Although this institution has often been referred to as a woman’s school, the school has always had at least one male enrolled, except in 1927. The school opened in 1909 on a hill overlooking the Tar River.
F. Jeff Passe, UNC Faculty Assembly Chair
Professor Passe [UNC-Charlotte, School of Education] spoke to the Senate on several issues related to work conditions and shared governance. He pointed out that the ECU model of shared governance was respected by the rest of the assembly and noted the considerable contributions of ECU faculty. A health care pilot project being considered would separate university system employees from the rest of the state employees in an effort to identify whether or not such a move would benefit both the employees and the state. He asked for Senators’ help in contacting legislators to make them aware of the problems with the health care and other benefits and the difficulty in recruiting as a result. We need ongoing relationships to keep our legislators informed. Passe announced a special conference, scheduled in April, on best practices for newly elected Senate chairs in the system.
Pravica (Mathematics) asked about sabbaticals and dental plans and the significance of resolutions to the process. Passe responded that resolutions were a very effective way of communicating with the system and the government.
G. Catherine Rigsby, Chair of the Faculty
Professor Rigsby stated that in the interest of time and a long agenda, she would update the Senators on only two items: 1) Vice Chancellor Searches and 2) Serious Illness and Disability Policy. The search committees for Provost/VCAA and VC for Research and Graduate Studies will start the hard work of reviewing applications next week, when the search consultant comes to campus with the final set of applications. This will be hard work, but it is very important and the committees are dedicated to doing a good job. In case some of you are unaware, all of the finalist will come to campus and the faculty will have an opportunity to meet with them. Once in the final stages, these will be completely open searches. In reference to the Serious Illness and Disability Policy, the Faculty Welfare Committee has completed its revision of the Serious Illness and Disability Policy. The policy has been distributed to all faculty and the committee is soliciting feedback. The committee has done an excellent job of drafting a policy that is as generous as possible to faculty. Chair Rigsby stated that she thought that everyone was very aware of the urgent need to get the policy finalized as soon as possible. Because of this urgency, the Faculty Welfare Committee will be asking for feedback via e-mail. The committee will review feedback at their January meeting and, if all goes well, they will present the policy to the Senate in March. The committee will review any comments received, make necessary changes and present the policy to the Senate in March for final approval.
H. Ad Hoc Strategic Planning Committee for International Affairs
Professor Seodial Deena (English) presented a report on the Internationalization Goals for 2009 and a plan for achieving them. The full report on the Internationalization Goals for 2009 is available electronically. Deena stressed the 5 major goals and asked for the support of the Faculty Senate.
Reisch (Business) asked if funding to increase international students would lower the assistance for in-state students and wondered if this would undercut North Carolina residents paying taxes. Lyons responded that, while this concern was often expressed, international students pay out-of-state tuition rates and having these students were an educational benefit to North Carolina students, many of whom had not had contact with individuals from other countries and cultures.
Given (Foreign Languages and Literatures) stated that he was excited about the spirit of the document and asked about the exact implementation period. He also asked what authority this planning document carries. Niswander (Past Chair of the Faculty/Business) replied that faculty have full authority and control of their own curriculum and that this document was only to serve as a blueprint for future planning. Curriculum matters were not mandated by the planning committee.
Interim VC Smith took a moment to thank Charles Lyons for serving as Director of International Affairs the past 2 years. He noted that this is a planning document that are on hold until there is sufficient funds for divisional consideration.
Painter (Allied Health Sciences) stated a real lack of money for graduate assistants and tuition waivers for out-of-state students. Deena responded that various departments are using creative ways to fund international students. Lyons agreed that we needed to find the resources to encourage international students to attend.
Tabrizi (Technology and Computer Science) stated that international students were making real contributions to ECU.
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. There were no questions posed at this time.
Tabrizi (Technology and Computer Science) asked about the reallocation of Faculty Senators. Rigsby replied that the allocation was dictated by the Faculty Constitution, Appendix A of the Faculty Manual, which states that the Senate would have 52-58 Senators with proportional representation. Each code unit is guaranteed one Senator but limited to no more than 8 [the School of Medicine currently has 8 Senators]. A series of formulas has been used by the faculty senate officers, so it is a proportional representation. For 2005-06, the multiple is 34; i.e. for each 34 faculty members, the unit has one Senator. She reminded Professor Tabrizi that Technology and Computer Science was now working under one code. Any changes to the number of Senators must be done through an amendment voted on by the entire faculty. Fall convocation would be the likeliest time for such a vote to occur. She acknowledged that other units would also lose representation.
Jones (Criminal Justice) noted that the faculty manual uses the terms “college” and “professional school” in ways that no longer apply since the reorganization. Chair Rigsby explained that the manual does use the term “code unit” and that term guides the faculty officers for allocation of Senate seats. She also stated that the Faculty Governance Committee is working on changing Appendix A to accommodate the university’s reorganization and the changes in nomenclature. If the Faculty Senate approves the changes this academic year, the faculty will vote at convocation.
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
Tim Hudson (Mathematics), Chair of the Committee, presented the curriculum matters contained in the minutes of the December 9, 2004, and January 13, 2005, Committee meetings. There was no discussion and the curriculum matters were approved as presented. RESOLUTION #05-01
B. Committee on Committees
Henry Ferrell (History), Chair of the Committee, first presented the nominees for two delegates and two alternates to the UNC Faculty Assembly Delegation. The following (noted in bold print) were elected to serve as the University’s Delegation with terms expiring in 2007.
UNC Faculty Assembly Delegates
Allied Health Sciences
Academic Library Services
Health and Human Performance
UNC Faculty Assembly Alternates
Allied Health Sciences
Academic Library Services
Professor Ferrell then presented Professor Mark Taggart (Music) as the nominee for the alternate vacancy on the Faculty Grievance Committee. Professor Taggart was appointed to the appellate committee by acclamation.
C. Educational Policies and Planning Committee
Charles Hodson (Medicine) Chair of the Committee, presented a request to change the name of the Department of Industrial Technology to the Department of Technology Systems within the College of Technology and Computer Science. There was no discussion and the proposed department name change was approved. RESOLUTION #05-02
D. Academic Standards Committee
George Bailey (Philosophy), Chair of the Committee first presented the proposed revised Peer Review Instrument to include Review of Distance Education Courses. Rigsby noted that this report had been endorsed by Academic Standards and Continuing and Career Education committees. The revised instrument was approved as presented. RESOLUTION #05-03
Professor Bailey then presented the proposed revised Goals of the Liberal Arts Foundations Curriculum. Bailey provided a brief history of the process for review and revision of the general education goals. In 2002 a course proposed by a unit outside the College of Arts and Science came before the Senate. Because the course would be available for general education credit, the Senate did not pass the report and asked the Educational Planning and Policies Committee to review general education. The request for review was routed to the Academic Standards Committee. The committee chose to first review and revise the goals of general education before determining what courses should be part of the curriculum. A draft was presented to the faculty in September and the draft presented today incorporates feedback that the committee received from the faculty on that draft.
Ciesielski (Technology and Computer Science) stated that the liberal arts had a role in general education but we might argue about how much. He added that all of the disciplines mentioned were in the College of Arts and Sciences and questioned if these would be the only ones permitted to have general education courses. Bailey responded that yes, these were the disciplines whose purpose was to provide basic information.
Professor Cheryl Estes (Health and Human Performance) stated that she had been involved with the design and delivery of a general education course, Leisure in Society, for the past four years at ECU and have been following the debate on General Education closely. She stated that there was a significant disconnect between the proposed language “Liberal Arts Foundations Curriculum” and the UNC Statement of Mission, the UNC Strategic Directions and Strategies, and the General Statement of Education Mission, East Carolina University (see pages 1 and 2 of the committee’s report). All of these statements refer to “General Education, not “Liberal Arts” and they refer specifically to instruction in basic arts and sciences, social sciences and a broad range of professional disciplines. Further, they call for ensuring educational quality, which is in part determined, and I quote “by the breadth and coherence of the general education, or core curriculum.”
The Committee of Academic Standards held public hearings on the proposed changes to the liberal arts curriculum. There were a number of dissenting voices that she stated she did not see accounted for in the committee’s current report. In speaking with another faculty member, she was informed that the 1990 revision of General Education Goals at ECU, which was re-affirmed in 1994, was to address problems with assessment for SACS and to move away from a prefix driven model. She suggested that the report received today would return ECU General Education to the same problems it faced prior to 1990. Departments of the current recommended prefixes have approved courses at the 4000-level for general education.
Professor Estes urged the Faculty Senate not to accept this report as the goals for the Liberal Arts Curriculum at ECU without significant modification, such as:
• Replace the phrase Liberal Arts Foundation Curriculum with General Education
• Include language from the UNC mission statement in ECUs General Education standards
• Strike references to the phrase “Core Disciplines in the Liberal Arts” and specified department prefixes in the four areas, Humanities, Arts, Basic Sciences & Social Sciences.
• Change the goals in the same areas (Humanities, Arts, Basic Sciences & Social Sciences).
Bailey stated that the Senators had the committee’s recommendation and he would refrain from participating in the debate. Scott (Academic Library Services) moved to add “how to conduct a literature review” under Goal 2 of the Curriculum Goals for the basic Social Sciences. Sprague (Physics) commented that this was important for his discipline also. Scott added that he had no objection to its being added as a goal in other sections of the document. Hanrahan (Medicine) spoke against the amendment because it is redundant. By a standing vote, the motion failed.
Yalcin (Philosophy) asked if there would be duplication when two different courses taught the same core information.
Bailey responded that consideration of course materials and possible duplication would be addressed by the curriculum committee. Ciesielski (Technology and Computer Science) supported the points made by Dr. Estes and felt they should be made part of the document.
Decker (Health and Human Performance) stated that general education should not be discipline- or prefix-driven and should be the goals of the liberal arts. He then made a motion to send the report back to the Academic Standards Committee, stating that disciplines and departments constructed at ECU should not be the focus of a general education curriculum, but should address the basics necessary for the students’ education. Estes (Health and Human Performance) spoke in favor of the motion. Rigsby (Geology) pointed out that the document had already been in the committee for over 2 years.
Long (History) expressed the view that nothing would be gained by sending this back to committee; they had weighed these issues and this document represented their best effort. Bailey stated that these same views being heard today had been considered by the committee. He reiterated that the old goals do not provide measurable outcomes and these types of statements were being criticized and revised in universities across the country.
Reisch (Business) supported the motion and stated that if courses were similar and met general education requirements, they shouldn’t have a specific discipline or departmental title. Ulffers (Music) reported that a music course with elements of social science (using music as part of therapy) would not be acceptable under these new curriculum goals and stringent guidelines because of the discipline-specific criteria. Sprague (Physics) pointed out that the question of the music course was not whether or not music could have such a course, but whether it could count for general education credit in the social sciences.
Robinson (Math) stated that, as an Academic Standards Committee member present at the meeting in question, the Academic Standards Committee did indeed approve the request by Music, yet during the discussion, committee members stated that the presentation of the course materials by Music was far from clearly written. Professor Robinson then spoke in support of the Academic Standards Committee's proposed GE Goals document, stating that it was very clearly written, would give good and needed definition to ECU's GE program, and opposed the motion to send it back to committee. Morrison (Chemistry) also spoke against the motion to send the document back to committee.
McGhee (Health and Human Performance) spoke in favor of sending the report back to the committee stating that some courses like ethnic studies and women studies are not in core disciplines and that implementation was needed. She stated that the critical analysis and thinking skills in the current GE goals were clear and understandable.
Rigsby (Geology) clarified that the charge to the committee was to review and revise the goals. An implementation document would come once the goals were established. Sending the report back to committee would not address the issue of implementation. Fallon (Foreign Languages and Literatures) spoke against sending the report back to the committee stating that we need to recognize that we are all motivated by our particular departments/units. Ciesielski (Technology and Computer Science) spoke in favor of the motion and stated that we needed a good document no matter how long it takes.
Hanrahan (Medicine) called the question. By a standing vote of 21 to 26, the motion to send the report back to the committee failed. Glascoff (Health and Human Performance) reminded the Senators that the document could be amended on the Senate floor.
Preston (Education) offered an amendment to change the words “liberal arts foundation” to “general education” throughout the document, stating that this amendment would broaden the focus of general education courses. Fallon (Foreign Languages and Literatures) suggested that before agreeing to such a change we needed to check the document to ascertain that this change would be appropriate. Bailey stated that he understood the spirit of the motion and would act accordingly if passed. Robinson (Math) spoke against the amendment and against the definition being broader.
Morrison (Chemistry) stated that the word change would weaken the liberal arts education. Ciesielski (Technology and Computer Science) agreed that the use of the term “Liberal Arts Foundation” weakens the general education goals.
Estes (Health and Human Performance) spoke in favor of the amendment. Allen (Chemistry) spoke against the amendment stating that a chemistry course should be taught by a chemist, a physics course by a physicist. Liberal arts is not the same as a general education. Given (Foreign Languages and Literatures) spoke against the amendment stating that liberal arts is the correct name for what the University actually does. Sugar (Education) spoke in favor of the amendment and the openness with using the term “general education”. Sprague (Physics) called the question. By a standing vote of 18 to 23, the motion to amend the committee’s report failed.
Scott (Academic Library Services) moved to table the discussion on this issue and the new business until the next meeting. The motion passed by a clear majority of the body.
The meeting adjourned at 5:10 p.m.
Jan Tovey Lori Lee
Secretary of the Faculty Administrative Officer
Department of English Faculty Senate office
FACULTY SENATE RESOLUTIONS APPROVED AT THE JANUARY 25, 2005, MEETING
05-01 Curriculum matters contained in the minutes of the December 9, 2004, and January 13, 2005, Committee meetings.
05-02 Request to change the name of the Department of Industrial Technology to the Department of Technology
Systems, within the College of Technology and Computer Science.
05-03 Revised Peer Review Instrument to include Review of Distance Education Courses.