EAST CAROLINA UNIVERSITY
FACULTY SENATE
FULL MINUTES OF APRIL 23, 2002
The eighth regular meeting of the 2001-2002 Faculty Senate was held on Tuesday, April 23, 2002, in
the Mendenhall Student Center, Great Room.
Agenda Item I. Call to Order
Bob Morrison (Chemistry), Chair of the Faculty, called the meeting to order at 2:10 p.m.
Agenda Item II. Approval of Minutes
The minutes of March 19, 2002, were approved as presented.
Agenda Item III. Special Order of the Day
A. Roll Call
Senators absent were: Professors Tabrizi (Computer Science), Schumacher (Economics), Watson (English), and Engel and Wooden (Medicine).
Alternates present were: Bamberg for Albright (Allied Health Sciences), McIntyre for Gemperline (Chemistry), Tovey for Wilentz (English), Felts for Glascoff (Health and Human Performance), Said for Ries (Math), Gilliland for Kovacs (Medicine), and Pokorny for Tranbarger (Nursing).
B. Announcements
- The Chancellor approved the following resolutions from the March 19, 2002, Faculty Senate meeting:
02-09 Spring 2002 Graduation Roster, including honors program graduates, subject to the completion of degree requirements.
02-10 Curriculum matters contained in the February 14, 2002, and February 28, 2002, (excluding action on EHST 2110/2111 for Natural Sciences General Education Credit) University Curriculum Committee minutes
02-13 Revised ECU Faculty Manual, Part VI. Section VIII.
- A preliminary call for nominations for the Board of Governors Award for Excellence in Teaching, Board of Governors Distinguished Professor for Teaching Award, Alumni Award for Outstanding Teaching, and University Award for Outstanding Teaching will be distributed soon to all academic unit heads. Copies of the different award nominating procedures are available in the Center for Faculty Development (124 Ragsdale) and Faculty Senate office (140 Rawl Annex). The nomination materials will be due in September 2002, with the award winners recognized in Spring 2003.
§ Due to the expected long Senate agenda, the customary April reports on the University Athletics Committee and Academic Integrity Subcommittee was postponed until September 2002.
- The Educational Policies and Planning Committee met earlier this month and forwarded the Faculty Senate resolution stated below to the Academic Standards Committee for their action. Members of the Academic Standards Committee had expressed a willingness to review the University’s General Education Goals and Objectives. The Academic Standards Committee will provide a progress report to the Faculty Senate in January 2003, and a final report by January 2004.
Faculty Senate Resolution 02-11- Request to have the Educational Policies and Planning Committee examine the University’s general education policy before EHST 2110/2111 or any other non-natural science general education course is approved.
- 2003/2004 Research/Creative Activity Grant Applications and Teaching Grant Applications are now available in the Faculty Senate office (140 Rawl Annex) and on the Committees’ web sites as noted below. These grants will be due in September 2002, with funding to begin Summer 2003.
-
Professor Morrison stated that this past year four faculty members had passed away. They were: Edith Tibbits (Joyner Library Services), Bodo Nischan (History), William Reeves (Internal Medicine), and Henry Stone (Microbiology and Immunology). A moment of silence was held in their memory.
Professor Morrison then stated that the Educational Policies and Planning Committee had a report on a request to plan a School of Pharmacy. This report came in after the Agenda Committee had established the April agenda. He stated that without objection, this additional permission to plan proposal would be included in the Committee’s report to the Senate. There was no objection.
Chancellor William Muse stated that the complex matters on the agenda reflect the Senate committee structure and importance of faculty governance in the life of the university. These are deeply important issues and at the heart of the work we do together. Therefore, they warrant careful consideration. Chancellor Muse emphasized the importance he places on faculty committees and the Senate. Consistent with ECU’s history, he stated that we must make shared governance work effectively as we move forward. We may not always agree, but we must strive for open debate and discussion. He is both encouraged by and grateful for the hard work of the Faculty Senate and committees. Chancellor Muse added that the SACS visit was excellent, and now we have some follow-up work. The recommendations made by the SACS visitors need our careful attention. Compliance matters, including assessment, are important and will improve our effectiveness as an institution. Also, the evaluations from the consultants are important; we will study their recommendations and suggestions and integrate those with our forward planning. We will look at those during the annual administrative retreat to be held on campus. A similar cost saving strategy is to be encouraged for trustees when they hold their next retreat. Regarding the state budget, Governor Easley will reportedly call for a 5% permanent reduction in the budget in a few weeks. His budget will try to protect classroom as much as possible. However, 1) his proposals are almost never fully accepted by legislature, and 2) his proposal of a state lottery to meet some budget needs is controversial. We are wise to prepare scenarios whereby decreases move from 5 up toward 10%. That will be difficult. Chancellor Muse expressed his gratitude for the University Budget Committee and Committee Chair Niswander. He also welcomes ideas and suggestions for dealing with the budget reductions. Lastly, freshmen admissions are ahead of schedule. From here until fall, only applicants with very high qualifications will be admitted. We need to begin filling seats for the following year based on those higher standards, filling remaining seats as necessary. This is a priority for the future.
D. Vice Chancellor's Report
Bob Thompson, Interim Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs, spoke briefly about the new Office of institutional Effectiveness and the searches for positions in that office. He also called attention to the teaching awards ceremony. VCAA Thompson also announced that Academic Affairs now has a printer that can make posters. It is located in the Multimedia Center in Joyner. His final announcement was that he has stopped the chair search in Environmental Health because of low program productivity. They are now looking at whether or not to cancel the program and shift faculty. These matters will be studied more.
E. SACS Self-Study Report
Brenda Killingsworth (Business/Past Chair of the Faculty), Self-Study Director, gave her final report on the SACS self-study. She began by thanking all those who took place in this process. She stated that the final report from the Self-Study Team should be here soon and will be made available.
F. UNC Faculty Assembly Report
David Pravica (Mathematics) presented a written report on the April 19, 2002, UNC Faculty Assembly meeting. Copies of this report are available in the Faculty Senate office.
Agenda Item IV. Unfinished Business
A. Calendar Committee
Charles Calhoun (History), Vice Chair of the Committee, first presented the proposed revised 2002 Fall Semester University Calendar. There was no discussion and the revised 2002 Fall Semester University Calendar was approved as presented. RESOLUTION #02-14
Professor Calhoun then presented the proposed 2003-2004 University Calendar. There was no discussion and the proposed 2003-2004 University Calendar was approved as presented. RESOLUTION #02-15
Professor Calhoun then presented the proposed revised Guidelines for Scheduling Lecture and Discussion Classes for Fall and Spring Semesters and Summer Sessions. There was no discussion, and the revised Guidelines for Scheduling Lecture and Discussion Classes for Fall and Spring Semesters and Summer Sessions were approved as presented. RESOLUTION #02-16
B. Faculty Governance Committee
James Joyce (Physics), Vice Chair of the Committee, presented the proposed revisions to the ECU Faculty Manual, Appendix I. ECU Policy on Conflicts of Interest and Commitment. There was no discussion and the revised ECU Faculty Manual, Appendix I. ECU Policy on Conflicts of Interest and Commitment was approved as presented. RESOLUTION #02-17
Agenda Item V. Report of Committees
A. Faculty Governance Committee
James Joyce (Physics), Vice Chair of the Committee, presented the proposed revisions to the ECU Faculty Manual, Part VII. Research Information, Subsection II.G. Copyright Procedures. There was no discussion and the revised ECU Faculty Manual, Part VII. Research Information, Subsection II.G. Copyright Procedures was approved as presented. RESOLUTION #02-18
B. Educational Policies and Planning Committee
George Bailey (Philosophy), Chair of the Committee, presented first the Permissions to Plan (or add) the following programs: Ph.D. Program in Technology Management, Electronics Minor, Ph.D. Program in Technical and Professional Discourse, Ph.D. Program in Medical Family Therapy, and Ph.D. in Pharmacy. Professor Bailey stated that the University must notify General Administration by May 15, 2002, if ECU is interested in a planning a Pharmacy degree. He said that if the University waited a year, they would not be able to compete for this program. Following discussion, the Educational Policies and Planning Committee’s report on the proposed permissions to plan were presented for information. No action was taken by the Senate.
Professor Bailey then presented the report on the Proposal to Move Three Secondary Education BS Degree Programs from the College of Arts and Sciences to the School of Education.
Chair Morrison suggested a time limit for discussion. It was decided to call for the vote at 3:50 p.m. Ferrell (History) asked if this can be changed? Morrison replied yes, with 2/3 vote. Second, Morrison asked each speaker to limit comments to 6 minutes instead of 10. Third, Morrison stated that Professor Bailey would present the report, next respond to questions from Senators, and then the discussion would be turned to guests who have speaking privileges, in alphabetical order. Finally, there would time for open debate from the floor.
Professor Bailey briefly described the process that brought the proposal to EPPC. The committee looked at a significant amount of information and heard comments from interested parties. The Committee began by studying the proposal; then solicited input from those in relevant units. The committee identified a list of questions sent to relevant parties and then evaluated by EPPC. All of this information is on the EPPC web site. Then, the committee opened the floor to presentations from VCAA Thompson, Deans Sheerer and Sparrow, then from faculty representative of the units to be moved. After this, the committee met to deliberate and vote. Prior to this, it was obvious that there was too much information for every committee member to be able to go through every individual comment. So, the items that were of particular import were then identified. The side that carried the vote is represented in the committee’s report, but not the minority opinion. The final vote was to recommend against the proposed move. There were no questions from senators about the process of designing the report at this time.
Next, speakers from various areas presented their views. Professor Bernhardt (Mathematics) was chair of Department of Mathematics from 1983-2000 and helped developed the Math Education program. He is also Director of the North Carolina Early Math Placement Testing program, which is funded by the UNC-GA and is designed to reduce mathematics remediation in the UNC system. This year they will test approximately 40,000 students throughout the state. Professor Bernhardt began by stating his strong support for the EPPC recommendation. Second, he stated that there are more Math Education programs in Math Departments than in Schools of Education: open positions during the past year in Math Educations programs in Math Department accounted for 104 positions, compared to 61 positions in Schools of Education. Third, Professor Bernhardt stated that today Math Education is basically a field of applied mathematics. Leaders in higher education have been calling for interdisciplinary programs for the last 20 years, and Math Education is a good example of this type of program. It is, according to Bernhardt, essential that Math Education be located in a Department of Mathematics so that Mathematicians control the content of the program. Fourth, many of the leading programs in Math Education nationally are in Mathematics Departments, and ECU’s current program is leading national trends – a statement supported by outside letters they have received from the former vice-president of the Mathematical Association of American, the current president of the American Mathematical Society, and a former chair of the Department of Math Education at the University of Georgia. Fifth, the faculty in Math Education came to ECU to be in a Mathematics Department; they do not want to be moved; and over half of them have stated that they will not make the move. Next, Professor Bernhardt stated that national leaders in education agree that the ideal method for producing teachers is for their training and education to involve the entire university. The segregation and quarantining of teaching education in the School of Education is a step backwards and will not produce the highest quality of teachers. We have produced evidence that the ECU Math Department has been producing teachers of high quality for many years. Based on all of these points, Bernhardt argued that ECU chose to spread the education of teachers throughout the university because this method produces the very best teachers. It is not just a vestige of the old teacher training days. Finally, Bernhardt stated that the Math Education program at ECU is one of the top programs in the nation, and with continued support it could become one of the elite programs in the nation. Deans Sheerer and Sparrow and VCAA Thompson have determined that eight faculty positions are required for this program; Bernhardt recommends that the program be left in the Department of Mathematics and given this level of support. Moving the program to the School of Education will essentially destroy it, and ECU will lose one of its finest programs.
Professor Biles (History) is Professor and former Chair of the History Department. Earlier this spring, the History Department tenured faculty voted 10-4 against the move. There were compelling reasons: 1) if program is moved, it will have a negative impact on Department of History, with the loss of about half of the undergraduate majors, and the loss of a significant number of the Masters students; 2) There is a serious issue of quality – what will this move do to students? The preparation of teachers who go out into the public schools is something we believe we’ve been doing well for a number of years; our students have done well on Praxis exams; they have good relations with area high schools, and the program as it exists now is very sound. Even more than that, we are concerned that in the attempt to fix something that really isn’t broken, we’ll make it worse. A major question is content: we believe that students must be trained in the content area first, and there is concern that the move may reduce content. There has been preliminary talk about enhancing clinical experiences and pedagogic programs. Those changes can only occur if content is deemphasized. Professor Biles called attention to 2 documents in the EPPC information on the web site. First is the recent evaluation of the graduate program in history (MAEd). The review team said they believed the move would be a serious mistake. They saw no reason to change the status quo. The second document is a petition from local high school history teachers who were graduates of the History Department; all 23 signed a petition opposed to moving the programs from history to education.
Professor Robert Hunting (Mathematics) joined the Math Education faculty in 1996. His research focus is on how children learn mathematics. He has been involved in teacher education for over 25 years. He stated that the Mathematics Department is an excellent place for Math Education. It is an innovative department where cutting edge work can flourish. In Schools of Education, he believes that there is a serious failure to recognize what discipline content is. There appears to be a philosophy that generic teaching skills are all that’s needed. Mathematics teachers do need pedagogy: Content without pedagogy is no better than pedagogy without content. Defending, promoting and securing support for Mathematics Education is more difficult in Schools of Education because there is less understanding of the need for content. He wants to stay in Mathematics. At least 5 of his colleagues have indicated that they will not move. The Mathematics Department will be gutted. There is currently a high demand for math education faculty, so it may be very difficult to fill these positions. Four of the six have substantial research grants. Opportunities for funding, especially from NSF, are greater when Mathematics Education is included in the Mathematics Department. He ended by asking for support of the EPPC recommendation.
Dean Marilyn Sheerer (Education) chose to speak to only one item: the conclusion of the EPPC report: She stated that these programs are successful, both in terms of student success and grant funding. However, she stated that program success must include recruitment, alternate routes to licensure, close collaboration with distance education and community colleges, to name a few. There has been no support from the College of Arts and Sciences in those areas. We must examine why it is so difficult to retain teachers in local schools. They can’t always transfer research from campus to the classroom. She has had the opportunity to meet with 7 focus groups of seniors leaving teacher education programs and has heard several recurring themes. . First, secondary education students have very limited field experiences or contact with students; Second, the secondary education students say that the programs don’t show them how to take the content and show it to students of different school levels; Third, elementary education students say they have not been taught to teach young children. In the School of Education, those skills are taught. They do not propose removing content but will add experiences that will allow students to transfer the content to students in real world settings.
Professor Michael Spurr (Mathematics) began by stating that the fundamental questions are how we prepare the very best teachers of mathematics and how we provide the highest quality programs and learning experiences. The answer is simple: keep teacher education programs and faculty in the content departments. At present, Mathematics Education students receive a degree in Mathematics. This provides the highest quality learning experience and leads to a degree with greater versatility, flexibility, salary options, and range of opportunities. Our Math Education students graduate from ECU as leaders in content-based teaching of mathematics. Keeping Math Education programs and faculty in the Mathematics Department provides this quality by 1) insuring content oversight by content experts and 2) fostering optimal collaboration between content faculty and content education faculty. This is highest when both work in the same department and share common goals and missions. Professor Spurr then quoted Denise Thompson, NCATE Reviewer for ECU in the Fall of 2000, “It seems that because math ed is in a math department that you have the types of links with arts and sciences faculty that are often not found in other places but that NCATE wants to see occur.” Spurr continued by stating that both Dean Sheerer and NCATE Director of Program Reviews Wendy Wiggins have verified that numerous schools have education programs in content departments. Wiggins indicated that in the eyes of NCATE, “It does not matter where programs are housed”. In addition, the Mathematics Department has led the university in initiating and offering field experiences and internships, as was observed during the NCATE review. ECU passed the NCATE review with flying colors and no cited weaknesses: there were no NCATE issues associated with locating education programs in content departments. If there were NCATE issues, there would be no other schools with Math Ed in the Math Department, contrary to Dean Sheerer’s own findings. Indeed there are many such schools. Our quality program is supported by Math Educators with a much higher background in pure mathematics than usually seen in Math Education doctorates. They were attracted to a mathematics department as the best place to pursue their research and to participate in the kind of collaborative efforts currently underway in the Math Department. These efforts have led to major NSF funding that would not have been available if located in the School of Education. This funding and the collaboration it supported led to the U.S. Department of Education National Award for Effective Teacher Preparation for the middle grades mathematics programs (housed in the School of Education with the concentration overseen by the Mathematics Department). Professor Spurr continued by stating that moving the Math Education program would result in 1) loss of oversight of content by content experts, 2) reduction in optimal collaboration and synergy, 3) dismantling of the math education group (5 of 8 will not make the move), devastation of the Math Department graduate program, and 5) lessening of the degree value and options for our students. These are defining issues for the Mathematics Department, and the Math Education faculty have voted unanimously to oppose movement of the program. The movement of such a large number of faculty against their will is unprecedented here at ECU. Given the decision by ECU’s administration not to pursue an outside review of Mathematics Education, ECU should depend on the recommendations of content experts in the field and EPPC, who have overwhelmingly voted to retain these programs in their content departments.
Mr. Ed Tyer, High School Social Studies Teacher (Ayden Grifton High School) holds undergraduate and graduate degrees from ECU. He was one of first social studies teachers in the nation to achieve national board certification. Mr. Tyre stated that the petition they signed expressed their honest opinions about how they feel. If academic rigor and educational leadership count, they should be in History. He gave three reasons: 1) ECU’s track record; The ECU program is seen as one of the premier programs; interns have a solid background and continue strong interactions with the University. 2) Teacher recruitment is a problem: the teacher shortage is critical. Keeping the program in History will assure better student recruitment. High School teachers become interested in the topic first, then decide to teach it. 3) In Secondary Education, the curriculum is driven by the discipline. We can use classes in Education, but pedagogy should not drive the program here any more than it does for those who teach college. Interns always wish they had had more content, none ever wishes they had had more pedagogy. The choice, for him, is political expediency versus what is best for the students. The ECU program is seen as one of premier programs where its interns will have strong and solid backgrounds.
No other visitors asked to speak.
Professor Morrison then reminded senators that the report on the floor is to recommend not moving the programs.
L’Esperance (Education) spoke about content issues: he stated that a survey of Pitt County teachers doesn’t outweigh the fact that the US history exam has very low passing rate, here and across the state. He also stated that the biggest concerns have to do with making history relevant to the students. Prospective teachers may graduate knowing the content, but they can’t put content forward because they haven’t been taught how to do it. The passing rate is embarrassing. Teacher certification is pedagogically based; content is irrelevant if it can’t be put forth in the classroom. In Math Education, the discussion of national awards and grants is interesting, but the flood of secondary Math Education students going to Middle Grade Mathematics suggests a problem. If the students are what count the most, why are so many students under grade level in mathematics? He asked if the rift might have something to do with teaching loads: 12 sh in the School of Education vs. 9 sh in Arts and Sciences. He said the comparison was especially disturbing when you recognize that faculty in the School of Education work 50-60 hours per week trying to teach and spend time in schools with students learning to be teachers.
Ferrell (History) spoke to two items: First, the History Department does have education courses in its BS curriculum. These are like a minor, but both degrees must take a foreign language. Students ask how to become a teacher because someone there inspires them. Second, Ferrell mentioned program assessment. This whole scenario has been an obsessive, intrusive process, but there are no studies, no real data. There is anecdotal material, but nothing that really faces the issues. Ferrell also warned that each of us now needs to wonder if someone will move us
Ciesielski (Industry and Technology) stated that he doesn’t know a lot about the background, but that it seems to him that if the person wants to teach in the schools, they should take the knowledge from that department and the pedagogy from the School of Education. Why move the programs if not to control content? Why would Education want to commandeer the content of a math or history or English course? It seems to him that the best situation would be to learn math from math and (methods) pedagogy from education.
VCAA Thompson stated that he had provided comments at the senators’ seats. (Copies of his comments are available from the Faculty Senate Office. He began by thanking everyone for the seriousness with which they have addressed the proposal. One issue that he has become convinced of is that the process is not working. We don’t have cooperation between content and methods. So, the big question is what must we do to facilitate that collaboration. He has supported the move in order to facilitate that collaboration. He stated that there is also an issue with regard to protecting faculty: A&S faculty have not been given the same consideration for promotion and tenure in some cases that they would have gotten in the School of Education. There is at least one case in which this was an issue, and it will likely become a problem in other cases. He urged senators to read his comments. The real issue is not about the location of programs, but how we can produce the best teachers.
Taggart (Music) asked how moving the programs would improve teaching. He has read VCAA Thompson’s comments, but doesn’t see a clear statement of how the move will improve teacher training. He has a simple philosophy: everyone rides the train. If one method doesn’t work, try another. There are issues of cooperation between unit administrators. The faculty affected by these moves represent hundreds of years devoted to improving teaching. He suggested that administrators: do their jobs to facilitate the communication.
Wall (Philosophy) also responded to VCAA Thompson. He stated that the EPPC report conflicts with some of VCAA Thompson’s comments about student success and grant money. Based on the strength of the EPPC report, the fact that we’re concerned with content of courses, and the fact that the move goes against the will of the faculty, he stated his opposition to the move
Tovey (English) stated that they have only 4 English Education faculty, but 75 English Education majors, so this is not just a small part of the English Department. Three are tenured, one is approaching tenure. The English Department is very aware of differences in areas within the department, so they don’t anticipate a tenure problem.
Pravica (Math) questioned why some of the information presented by Professor L’Esperance does not appear in the reports. He also commented that maybe some of the Mathematics Education grants aren’t as big as some of those in Education, but that most of the granting agencies require that the programs be in Mathematics Departments in order to apply.
McIntyre (Chemistry) noted that just about every senator went through specialization and wound up in education at the college level. We do need to pay attention to skills that must be learned, regardless of where the programs end up.
Sugar (Education) stated that how we prepare teachers is an issue for all of us. What is the best way to promote collaboration? We are all here at ECU; we don’t need these kinds of divisions. These are quality programs that must involve content and method. He also questioned the “doom and gloom” about the potential move and invited everyone to collaborate with the School of Education. He challenged all of us to be the leaders in this collaboration.
Palumbo (English) stated that the English Department did discuss the proposed move, and that the overwhelming feeling was that they needed to oppose this move. Out of 75 faculty members, only 3 or 4 were in favor of the move.
Clark (Theater and Dance) noted that one of the key words is “partnership” – especially our partnership with public schools systems. We need to look at partnerships here at ECU. We must share in the responsibility for education.
Ferrell (History) noted that we have cooperated well for a long time. This issue has exacerbated things. It’s not really an “either” “or” question. The problem has occurred because decisions were made at a high level without consultation with faculty
L’Esperance (Education) stated that the state is accountable for education. We will be held accountable for the teachers we produce. Outside of the School of Education, if standardized math scores don’t rise, who will be accountable? We need to be proactive, not reactive, and the proposed move is the best way to accomplish that.
Professor Morrison asked if the Senate was ready to vote.
Toppen (Industry and Technology) requested secret ballot.
Following this lengthy discussion, the Faculty Senate voted 47 to 8 by secret ballot to keep the three
secondary education BS degree programs in the College of Arts and Sciences and not move them to the School of Education. RESOLUTION #02-19
C. Faculty Information Technology Committee
Catherine Rigsby (Geology) Faculty Senate representative on the committee, presented the report on the proposed Student Computer Requirement. She stated that the two main issues that the Committee had against the requirement were financial impact on students and lack of impact on academics. Interim VCAA Thompson stated that these were serious issues, but questioned the validity of the survey (60 out of 1200); this really can’t be generalized to all faculty. Rigsby responded that this wasn’t a scientific survey.
Following discussion, the Faculty Senate endorsed the Committee’s report to oppose the proposed Student Computer Requirement until various issues could be addressed by administration. RESOLUTION #02-20 (A listing of the Committee’s concerns adopted by the Senate are included in the Committee’s report to the Senate, attachment 7.)
D. University Curriculum Committee
Dale Knickerbocker (Foreign Languages) Chair of the Committee, addressed two issues raised at the last meeting of the Faculty Senate. First, chairs of natural sciences departments were notified about the EHST proposal, and responded before either the UCC or the Academic Standards Committee met. Also, Professor Knickerbocker acknowledged that sometimes all affected units haven’t been notified. For example, a recent ethics in communication course didn’t trigger members of the committee to think “philosophy” but it should have. Since every single academic unit isn’t represented on the committee, this is going to happen. The solution is to have every single academic unit represented. Also, the unit has the responsibility to notify affected departments. UCC needs to be more careful in the future. Professor Knickerbocker also strongly recommended that units look at the UCC agenda carefully when it is posted. While there isn’t a lot of lag time between posting and the committee meeting, they can contact the UCC and have agenda items delayed. Following these comments, the curriculum matters contained in the April 11, 2002, University Curriculum Committee minutes were approved as presented. RESOLUTION #02-21
E. Academic Awards Committee
Karl Wuensch (Psychology), Chair of the Committee, presented the proposed Selection Procedures for the Max Ray Joyner Award for Faculty Service Through Continuing Education. He stated that the procedures were modeled after those for Teaching Awards. There was no discussion, and the proposed Selection Procedures for the Max Ray Joyner Award for Faculty Service Through Continuing Education was approved as presented. RESOLUTION #02-22
F. Committee on Committees
Henry Ferrell (History), Chair of the Committee, presented the proposed revisions to the Student Scholarships, Fellowships, and Financial Aid Committee’s Charge.
VCAA Thompson asked how b and c differ? Then, he expressed disagreement about item F in the charge. Gilliland (Medicine) noted that scholarships don’t always carry money, so it might be necessary to have both b and c. It was suggested that item b be slightly modified and item c be dropped. This was accepted by Professor Farrell as an editorial change. Following discussion, the Student Scholarships, Fellowships, and Financial Aid Committee’s Charge was approved as editorially revised. RESOLUTION #02-23
G. Faculty Welfare Committee
Beth Winstead (Health Sciences Library), Chair of the Committee, presented a resolution on Health Insurance (see end of the minutes for full text of resolution). Pravica (Math) stated that the Faculty Assembly had passed a similar resolution at their last meeting. Following discussion, the resolution on Health Insurance was approved as presented. RESOLUTION #02-24
Agenda Item VI. New Business
David Pravica (Mathematics) presented the resolution on Mathematics Education at ECU.
Niswander (Business) raised a point of order: Morrison replied that the motion to approve was made in October, but the Senate voted to postpone that until after EPPC had reviewed the proposed move and reported back to the Senate. Pravica (Math) stated that one of the original reasons for the resolution was concern over the process for moving the programs and that the process is now on track. However, he believes that the resolution still serves a purpose. Palumbo (English) said that the resolution still protects faculty. VCAA Thompson noted that the resolution is unenforceable, especially resolution 3 dealing with resource allocation. Toppen (INDT) asked what in the resolution could be binding? Ciecielski (INDT) added that it seems dangerous to pass this type of resolution about the Mathematics Department only. Godbold (Communication & Broadcasting) stated that the resolution is too specific to be supported by the Senate, especially # 3. Administrators must be able to put resources where the need is greatest. Ferrell (History) moved to postpone the resolution indefinitely. The motion was seconded. The motion passed.
There being no further business to come before the Faculty Senate, the meeting was adjourned at 4:22 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Linda Allred Lori Lee
Secretary of the Faculty Faculty Senate office
Department of Psychology
FACULTY SENATE RESOLUTIONS APPROVED AT THE APRIL 23, 2002, MEETING
02-14 Revised 2002 Fall Semester University Calendar.
Disposition: Chancellor
02-15 2003-2004 University Calendar.
Disposition: Chancellor
02-16 Revised Guidelines for Scheduling Lecture and Discussion Classes for Fall and Spring Semesters and Summer Sessions
Disposition: Chancellor
02-17 Revised ECU Faculty Manual, Appendix I. ECU Policy on Conflicts of Interest and Commitment
Disposition: Chancellor, Board of Trustees, Office of the President
02-18 Revised ECU Faculty Manual, Part VII. Research Information, Subsection III. Copyright
Procedures
Disposition: Chancellor, Office of the President
02-19 Vote to keep the three secondary education BS degree programs in the College of Arts and Sciences and not move them to the School of Education
Disposition: Chancellor
02-20 Endorsed the Committee’s report to oppose the proposed Student Computer Requirement until various issues could be addressed by administration. (A listing of the Committee’s concerns adopted by the Senate are included in the Committee’s report to the Senate, attachment 7.)
Disposition: Chancellor
02-21 Curriculum matters contained in the April 11, 2002, University Curriculum Committee minutes
Disposition: Chancellor
02-22 Selection Procedures for the Max Ray Joyner Award for Faculty Service Through Continuing Education
Disposition: Chancellor
02-23 Revised Student Scholarships, Fellowships, and Financial Aid Committee’s Charge
Disposition: Faculty Senate
02-24 Resolution on Health Insurance stating:
Therefore, be it resolved, that the Faculty Senate Welfare Committee recommends that East Carolina University investigate changes in coverage to reflect fair, equitable, and affordable family health care coverage; Be it further resolved, that the Faculty Welfare Committee recommends that East Carolina University develop and implement strategies to improve faculty health care benefits and that the Chancellor’s office educate the Board of Trustees and legislators about the impact that the lack of competitive health care benefits has on recruiting and retaining quality faculty.
Disposition: Chancellor
