EAST CAROLINA UNIVERSITYFACULTY SENATE
FULL MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 22, 2005
The sixth regular meeting of the 2004-2005 Faculty Senate was held on Tuesday, February 22, 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 1:00 p.m.
Agenda Item II. Approval of Minutes
The minutes of January 25, 2005, were approved as amended.
Agenda Item III. Special Order of the Day
A. Roll Call
Senators absent were: Professors Dobbs, Gilliland, and Pofahl (Medicine), Faculty Assembly Delegate Killingsworth, and Academic Deans Representative Varner.
Alternates present were: Professors Hodson for Culbertson (Allied Health Sciences), Schmidt for Kalmus (Biology), Bullington for Tropf (Communication), Stapleton for Thomson (Education), Eble for Watson (English), McKinnon for Chen (Interior Design and Merchandising), Pokorny for Eakes (Nursing), Collins for Yalcin (Philosophy), and Parker for Funaro (Theatre and Dance).
The Chancellor has approved the following resolutions from the January 25, 2005, Faculty Senate meeting:
05-01 Curriculum matters contained in the minutes of the December 9, 2004, and January 13, 2005, University Curriculum 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.
The annual Teaching Awards Ceremony is scheduled for Tuesday, April 27, 2004, at 11:00 a.m. in the Mendenhall Student Center Great Room. A reception will follow immediately afterwards. Faculty awarded for their teaching achievements will be recognized at this event. All faculty are welcome to attend.
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 Michele Eble (English) and Martin Bier (Physics) for agreeing to serve as Tellers.
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.
The Scholar/Teacher Awards and Symposium is scheduled for Tuesday, April 5, 2005, in the Mendenhall Student Center Great Room. There will be an awards luncheon for winners and their guests and then each recipient will have a display on the second floor of Mendenhall and make a 15 minute presentation (two sessions concurrently between 1:30 and 3:30 for a total of ten presenters). Please contact Dot Muller in Academic Affairs at 328-1426 if you have any questions.
C. Steve Ballard, Chancellor
Chancellor Ballard distributed a draft copy of the federal priorities and discussed the significance of having a presence in Washington and accessibility to high level aides to representatives and senators. The federal delegation would review the priorities each year and make suggestions for the priorities. Some of these items had been a priority in the past and some will continue. We are trying to get our fair share of federal monies. Next he discussed the state budget and the ensuing problems. Salary and compensation packages remained key issues. Also, two State taxes are about to end and the Board of Governors voted to deny campus-based tuition increases, a disappointment since the increase had received support from the Student Government Association. As a result of the State financial situation, our state legislative priorities might need to change also. Plans are going forward to renovate Mendenhall Student Center and for various initiatives, but all are dependent upon fee increases, which will be decided in March. With a projected growth of 30%, enrollment growth funds are necessary to provide much needed office space and equipment as well as faculty positions. Ballard also commented on his support for a strong liberal arts foundation for our general education curriculum and pledged $100,000 to support the development of prototype courses to ensure our students get the education they need to succeed in a rapidly changing global economy. Ballard reported that he has asked Smith to evaluate methods of allocation of resources that are not dependent on student credit hours.
Ciesielski (Technology and Computer Science) asked if the $100,000 the chancellor just pledged would be limited to the development of courses in the College of Arts and Sciences or would it be open to other colleges. Ballard responded that the commitment is to the Faculty Senate to disperse in order to move the general education curriculum forward.
D. Bill Shelton, Vice Chancellor for Institutional Advancement
Vice Chancellor Shelton discussed several aspects of the fund raising activities of his division. He explained that the Pepsi contract supported Merit Scholarships with an initial contribution of 1.5 million dollars and an additional $100,000 added each year. The total available monies now equal 2 million with several hundred thousand more expected before the contract ends. These have been used in part to match other scholarship funds. While they had not yet awarded any merit scholarships, they will begin awarding those this year because the endowment fund has earned sufficient funds.
The “Culture of Giving” effort had raised, to this point, about 20 million dollars. These funds donated by various individuals from groups inside the institution show potential outside donors that the university personnel and board members were committed to ECU. The goal is 100% percent participation from university boards. Shelton’s office was aware that faculty and staff give to the university and would continue to encourage faculty and staff give to the university by formalizing a plan in which those funds could be designated for specific units or programs. Payroll deduction plans would be available. But Shelton stressed that this effort would not undermine the annual State Employee Combined Campaign nor is this request an effort to demand or require that faculty and staff donate to the university.
Sprague (Physics) asked if merit scholarship money could be given in the form of graduate scholarships. Shelton replied that he had no answer since the process was being organized, but he would get the information and report back to the Senate.
Morrison (Chemistry) asked how much of the Pepsi money was available for merit scholarships.
Shelton responded that $100,000 each year for 5 more years would go to the merit fund, including the 2 million that is in the fund right now.
E. Moment in History
Henry Ferrell (History) provided some history of ECU in anticipation of our Centennial year, 2007. Chair Rigsby reminded the Faculty Senators that this would be a regular item on the Agenda.
Ferrell continued his discussion of the founding of ECU. In September, 1909, two years after the chartering, students were enrolled in two programs: preparatory school and two-year teaching programs. There was an athletic tradition with various recreational activities including hiking, tennis and many other activities. Tennis courts were located where the library is now. The Dean of Students expected students to take walks in the wooded areas surrounding the campus. The goal of education was a complete person, not a specialist in one particular area. Students rose early and had a full schedule. Basketball was popular and very competitive and every Thanksgiving there was a tournament; students stayed at school during the break because it was difficult and time consuming to get home. The first reference to the school colors, old gold and royal purple, was in 1916. The campus changed when Word War I began and the American flag flew on the Austin building (now the location of Jenkins Building), where the NC flag had previously flown.
F. UNC Faculty Assembly Report
John Cope (Psychology) prepared a written report on the February 4, 2005, UNC Faculty Assembly meeting. Professor Cope then addressed the Resolution included with the agenda on Minimum Standards of Governance.
Cope reported that Brenda Killingsworth had been elected as president of the Assembly. He asked the senators to review the statement on shared governance and report on progress of the health care initiative. Robinson (Mathematics) asked about the discussion of the separate plan for university system health care and questioned why it would be a good idea. He wondered why the legislature would agree to support this move. Cope responded that in a straw poll taken, the respondents favored a system, such as a tiered system, that would make affordable health care possible for various income levels.
G. Election of Faculty Officers Nominating Committee
According to the ECU Faculty Manual, Appendix A, Section VII., the following Faculty Senators were elected by acclamation to serve on the Faculty Officers Nominating Committee: Professors Jan Tovey (English), Ralph Scott (Academic Library Services), David Long (History), Nanyoung Kim (Art and Design), and John Cope (Psychology). This Committee will present a slate of 2005-2006 Faculty Officers to the Faculty Senate on April 26, 2005.
H. Catherine Rigsby, Chair of the Faculty
Chair Rigsby discussed the progress of the Vice Chancellor Searches. The VC Search Committees have invited candidates to campus – 3 candidates for the VCR position and 4 for the Provost position. Information about the candidates and schedules for their visits was available online, with links from the ECU home page and from the faculty senate home page. The first 2 VCR Candidates have already been here (actually the 2nd candidate is still on campus). Each candidate was scheduled to meet with faculty on two occasions (once on this campus and one on the medical school campus). Rigsby reported that these open meetings had been sparsely attended so far and urged senators to attend as many as they could and also, to take advantage of the evaluation forms available at the meetings and (soon) on line. The search committees would be reviewing all feedback and need to know what senators and other faculty think. The search for a new Diversity Officer is also proceeding well. Candidates will be on campus following the Provost candidate visits. Watch for notification of the campus visit schedules.
I. Question Period
Jones (Criminal Justice) asked Professor Ferrell if there would be a written product of his ECU history. Ferrell replied that he was working on a book that covers the first hundred years, 1906-2007 entitled No Time for Ivy. It will be illustrated and also provide a text history which will be an update from a history published in 1980.
Tabrizi (Technology and Computer Science) asked if Professor Ferrell was satisfied with the preservation of history in documents, as well as in the buildings of lasting architectural value and trees on the campus. He also asked that an advisory committee be put in place to ensure these will be considered for the future. Ferrell replied that we have an excellent archive. Knowing our own history provides a way to make decisions for the future. However, growth is a problem since the campus is landlocked and difficult to grow out of our boundaries. The exception, the medical school and the new Learning Village, shows what is possible.
Scott (Academic Library Services) asked about the status of the conversion of the Frisbee golf course
into parking faculties. Ballard responded that he was not aware of these plans but did say that the recreation complex would provide facilities. Rigsby suggested we ask George Harrell with Facilities to address the status of the golf course conversion.
Agenda Item IV. Unfinished Business
There were two items of business that were tabled at the last meeting. To be considered at this meeting, Taggart (Music) made a motion to remove both items from the table.
A. Academic Standards Committee
George Bailey (Philosophy), Chair of the Committee, presented revised Goals of the Liberal Arts Foundations Curriculum. Chair Rigsby summarized the actions that had been taken at the last meeting and amendments not approved, If this is approved, it will replace the current document, and if not, the current document would remain, and we would continue to operate under current guidelines.
Decker (Health and Human Performance) stated that the Goals should not designate specific disciplines and made a motion to remove the designation and identification of “core disciplines in the humanities, arts, basic sciences, and basic social sciences.” Sprague (Physics) objected to proposing revisions throughout the document when each should be specific within itself.
Bailey stated that he felt we should not debate technicalities, but issues, and he will accept any revisions approved by the senate in the spirit in which they are intended. Sprague then withdrew his objection to Professor Decker’s motion.
Decker (Health & Human Performance) reviewed the history of the discussion of this document, and while he agreed that this document before the senate is an improvement, the chief objection now seemed to center on the use of the term “core disciplines” with the identification of departments of the College of Arts and Sciences. Rigsby asked for further clarification of the motion. Decker replied that his motion is to remove designation and identification of core disciplines from humanities, arts, basic science, and social sciences. Upon further discussion with the chair, Decker agreed that his motion should be to amend first two lines under Humanities, for example, to read “Core disciplines in the Humanities critically examine our diverse . . .” and eliminate the specific naming of “Classical Studies, English,” etc. Each section of the document would be amended in a similar way if this motion were approved.
Zoller (Art and Design) requested clarification. Decker reiterated that the document should not designate departments as core disciplines to the exclusion of others.
Robinson (Math) stated that the motion did not address what humanities were and a list of specific disciplines was necessary. Allred (Psychology) spoke against the motion stating that a humanities definition was needed. Taggart (Music) spoke against the motion stating that the list would be helpful to faculty and students. He commended the committee and stated his support for the document as it was presented.
Ciesielski (Technology and Computer Science) stated that he was more interested in what kind of course constitutes a general education course and objected to the exclusionary part.
Long (History) asked for further clarification. Rigsby restated the motion and added that the list of disciplines would be removed in various places in the document.
Scott (Academic Library Services) asked if the intent was to go through the document and change it each time the core disciplines were designated. Decker replied that his motion took nothing away, but was intended to eliminate the specific disciplines under all the goals. Pravica (Math) spoke against the motion stating that humanities would then be too broad.
Yarbrough (Political Science) asked how the motion matched the various goals and how students and advisors will know what a humanities discipline is. Decker replied that it would be important to meet the goals, and the appropriate courses in a specific discipline would be determined by committee.
McGhee (Health and Human Performance) stated courses not part of the designated discipline have an uphill battle to win approval. If these courses were evaluated on bases of content, then the hill would be smaller. Ulffers (Music) spoke against the motion stating that the key word was “core” and that these were core disciplines, even though they correspond to the name of departments.
McMillan (Medicine) spoke in favor of the motion and asked if the intent was to exclude courses outside of Arts and Sciences. Bailey responded that the question was whether or not it would be in the best interest of our undergraduate students to restrict their general education to disciplines for which general education instruction was the department’s primary mission.
Sprague (Physics) stated that people should have training, experience, do research, have knowledge of research methodology, etc. in teaching core general education courses. Deena (English) stated “core is core,” and specifics would be more useful to students. Jones (Criminal Justice) stated that there was a process already in place to get a course considered for general education credit.
Estes (Health and Human Performance) spoke in favor of the motion stating that he did not like seeing issues divide the faculty and that there is a process for general education course approval. Tabrizi (Technology and Computer Science) spoke in favor of the motion stating that students should have choices and that the list should be deleted. Fallon (Foreign Languages) spoke against the motion and called the question. Following a standing vote, Professor Decker’s motion to remove the designation and identification of “core disciplines in the humanities, arts, basic sciences, and basic social sciences” failed.
Scott (Academic Library Services) then called the question on the full report to end the debate, which requires a 2/3rd vote by the body. By a standing vote, the motion to end debate failed.
Christian (Business) made a motion to change “core disciplines in liberal arts (humanities, arts, basic sciences, and basic social sciences)” to “instruction in basic arts and sciences, social sciences, and a broad range of professional disciplines”.
Allred (Psychology) pointed out that courses in the professional schools are not part of the liberal arts curriculum. Reisch (Business) spoke in favor of the motion stating that liberal arts is only a component of general education. General education is not the same thing as liberal arts. Zoller (Art and Design) spoke against the motion pointing out that this issue had already been discussed.
Taggart (Music) also spoke against the motion, stating that the document did not divide us, and we must provide students with the strategies for adapting to an ever-changing society and economy. He also reminded senators that we have a process in place and we elect the committees that interpret the policies and vote on the courses. We need to support the work of the committees and volunteer to serve on them, taking responsibility for the work.
Robinson (Math) spoke against the motion stating that the document does not limit the possibilities and the amendment would make no distinction between general education and other courses and would defeat the purpose for having general education coursework. Ciesielski (Technology and Computer Science) spoke in favor of the motion since it broadens the document to include courses and disciplines beyond Arts and Sciences.
Holloway (Business) spoke in favor of the motion asking that the document be open to other departments. Sprague (Physics) spoke against the motion stating that he had nothing against the professional colleges and schools but that this motion would weaken general education.
Tabrizi (Technology and Computer Science) stated that problem-solving strategies were important to all disciplines and courses and were not restricted to certain departments. Collins (Philosophy) called the question to end debate. By a standing vote, the question was called.
By a standing vote, the motion to change “core disciplines in liberal arts (humanities, arts, basic sciences, and basic social sciences)” to “instruction in basic arts and sciences, social sciences, and a broad range of professional disciplines” failed.
Preston (Education) commented that the important aspect of general education courses were not the content or the professor of a course but the prefix, and he expressed our responsibility to make certain that the goals of the general education courses were clearly stated and courses met the objectives since this document will govern over the next several years. Sprague (Physics) called the question to end debate. By a standing vote, the question was called.
By a standing vote, the revised general education goals and objectives, entitled Goals of the Liberal Arts Foundations Curriculum were approved as presented, with no amendments. RESOLUTION 05-04
B. Resolution on Graduation with Distinction
Mohammad Tabrizi (Technology and Computer Science) presented a resolution on graduation with distinction, asking for the senate to ask the Admissions and Retention Policies committee to review the policy that requires that grades from all courses be considered in determining Graduation with Distinction. He stated that this precluded returning students who were unsuccessful in their first courses to achieve distinction after returning to college.
Rigsby reminded senators that the resolution is to ask the Admissions and Retention Policies committee to review the policy. Allred (Psychology) asked, if a student doesn’t bring courses forward to count in the total credits, do those grades still count toward their GPA. She also asked if the committee had asked previously to rule on this policy. Rigsby responded that they had, but the resolution would ask them to do so again.
Morrison (Chemistry) stated that the Committee had looked at this issue before. Taggart (Music) reminded that committee meetings were open and was it necessary to ask for an open meeting
Rigsby replied that while meetings were open, reminders for the meeting dates were not usually publicized.
Pravica (Math) asked about the appropriateness of the issue going to a senate committee. Rigsby replied that it is an academic issue and our responsibility. Jones (Criminal Justice) cautioned that the committee may perceive the resolution as a mandate. Avernarius (Anthropology), speaking as a member of the Admissions and Retention Policies Committee, reported that they had discussed the distinction between students coming at earlier ages and doing well and those older students that do better when they return after being out of school.
Sprague (Physics) stated that students who do well in the past can use the courses for graduation. with distinction. Brown (Education) spoke in favor of the resolution stating that as an advisor she sees older students with a lot of transcripts. She thought the issue should be examined again.
Tabrizi (Technology and Computer Science) stated that he thought perhaps the Admissions and Retention Policies Committee should consider different classifications for older students in this situation. Allred (Psychology) stated that the current policy doesn’t stop a student from getting honors in their coursework. Jones (Criminal Justice) thought it would be bad precedent to micromanage committees by asking them to consider different classifications. Decker (Health and Human Performance) spoke in favor of the resolution to ask the Committee to look at the various issues involved in this policy.
Yarbrough (Political Science) called the question to end debate. By a voice vote, the question was called. By a standing vote, the resolution on graduation with distinction was approved. RESOLUTION #05-05
Agenda Item V. Report of Committees
A. University Curriculum Committee
Cheryl Estes (Health and Human Performance), Co-Chair of the Committee, presented the curriculum matters contained in the minutes of the January 27, 2005, and February 10, 2005, Committee meetings. There was no discussion and the curriculum matters were approved as presented. RESOLUTION #05-06
B. Committee on Committees
Ralph Scott (Academic Library Services), Vice Chair of the Committee, presented the first reading of a proposed addition to the charges of all Faculty Senate Academic Committees. No one in the group stated their intention to propose revisions to the addition. The Faculty Senate will act on the proposed addition to the charges at the March 22, 2005, Faculty Senate meeting.
Professor Scott then presented the first reading of the new Academic University Athletics Committee charge. Morrison (Chemistry) noted a change to the quorum that should read “5 faculty members exclusive of ex-officio”. Chair Rigsby ruled this an editorial change that would be made prior to the March 22, 2005, vote on this new committee charge.
C. Educational Policies and Planning Committee
Charles Hodson (Medicine), Chair of the Committee, presented for information only the Committee’s approval of the Notification of Intent to Plan a MS in Software Engineering, Request for Authorization to Establish a BS in Sports Studies, and Request for Authorization to Establish a New Interdisciplinary Minor in Russian Studies. There was no discussion on this report.
D. Faculty Governance Committee
Dee Dee Glascoff (Health and Human Performance), Chair of the Committee, presented first an interpretation to the ECU Faculty Manual, Appendix L. relating to code unit changes. There was no discussion and the interpretation was approved as presented. RESOLUTION #05-07
Professor Glascoff then presented the proposed revision to the ECU Faculty Manual, Appendix L. relating to procedures for developing criteria for salary increases. There was no discussion and the revision to Appendix L. was approved as presented. RESOLUTION #05-08
Professor Glascoff presented the proposed revision to the ECU Faculty Manual, Appendix C. relating to personnel policies and procedures. Niswander (Business) asked if people without an ABD or terminal degree would be considered a lecturer? Glascoff responded yes. There was no further discussion and the revision to Appendix C. was approved as presented. RESOLUTION #05-09
Professor Glascoff then presented the first reading of proposed revisions to the ECU Faculty Manual, Appendix A. No one in the group stated their intention to propose revisions to the appendix. The Faculty Senate will act on the proposed appendix at the March 22, 2005, Faculty Senate meeting.
Professor Glascoff presented the first reading of proposed revisions to the ECU Faculty Manual, Appendix A. By-Laws. No one in the group stated their intention to propose revisions to the by-laws. The Faculty Senate will act on the proposed by-laws at the March 22, 2005, Faculty Senate meeting.
E. Unit Code Screening Committee
Christine Zoller (Art and Design), a member of the Committee, presented first the new Department of Nutrition and Hospitality Management Unit Code of Operation. There was no discussion and the new unit code was approved as presented. RESOLUTION #05-10
Professor Zoller then presented the revised Department of Mathematics Unit Code of Operation. There was no discussion and the revised unit code was approved as presented. RESOLUTION #05-11 It was noted that all approved unit codes of operation are available on the Committee’s website at http://www.ecu.edu/fsonline/AcademicCommittees/uc/codes/unitcodes.htm.
Agenda Item VI. New Business
There was no further new business to come before the Faculty Senate at this time.
The meeting adjourned at 5:05 p.m.
Jan Tovey Lori Lee
Secretary of the Faculty Administrative Officer
Department of English Faculty Senate
FACULTY SENATE RESOLUTIONS APPROVED AT THE FEBRUARY 22, 2005, MEETING
05-04 Revised general education goals and objectives, entitled Goals of the Liberal Arts Foundations
05-05 Resolution that directs the Academic Standards Committee to review the current policy on graduation with distinction.
Disposition: Academic Standards Committee
05-06 Curriculum matters contained in the University Curriculum Committee minutes of the
January 27, 2005, and February 10, 2005, Committee meetings.
05-07 Interpretation to the ECU Faculty Manual, Appendix L. relating to code unit changes
05-08 Revision to the ECU Faculty Manual, Appendix L. relating to procedures for developing criteria for salary increases.
05-09 Revision to the ECU Faculty Manual, Appendix C. relating to personnel policies and procedures.
05-10 New Department of Nutrition and Hospitality Management Unit Code of Operation.
05-11 Revised Department of Mathematics Unit Code of Operation.