FULL MINUTES OF 7 APRIL 1998
The special called meeting of the 1997-98 Faculty Senate
was held on Tuesday, 7 April 1998, in the Mendenhall
Student Center Social Room.
Agenda Item I. Call to Order
Chair Don Sexauer called the meeting to order at 2:10 p.m.
Senators absent were: Professors Singhas (Biology),
Parker (Economics), Gabbard and Joyner (Education),
Dixon (Geography), Winstead (Health Sciences Library),
Metzger and Reinhart (Medicine), Wilson (Sociology), and
Vice Chancellors Hallock and Feldbush.
Alternates present were: Cotter for Munde (Academic
Library Services), Albright for Dickerson (Allied Health
Sciences), Ehlbeck for Satterfield (Art), Schisler for Schadler
(Business), Greene for Krcmar (Communication), and Knight
for Decker (Health and Human Performance).
Announcements
1. Faculty Senators are reminded of the Faculty Senate
Reception, hosted by Dr. and Mrs. Richard Eakin in
their home, on Friday, April 24, 1998, from 6:30 p.m. to
8:30 p.m.
2. The Inaugural Proceedings for President Molly Broad
is scheduled for Wednesday, April 29, 1998. Dinner,
sponsored by NC State, will be provided for all faculty
members who attend. Transportation will be provided
for any faculty member wanting to attend this special
event. The van (or bus, depending on the number of
participants) will leave ECU at 2:00 p.m. All faculty
interested in traveling to this event in the reserved van
(or bus) are asked to call the Faculty Senate office at
ext. 6537 no later than Monday, 13 April 1998.
Unfinished Business
Faculty Governance Committee
Patricia Anderson (Education), Chair of the Committee,
continued with the Committee's presentation of the
proposed Policy for the Cumulative Review of Permanently
Tenured Faculty of East Carolina University. The Faculty
Senate resumed discussion of the document by section.
Cumulative Review Committee (CRC)
Farr (English) moved that the cumulative review committee
be composed of a minimum of three members. Motion
passed.
Miller (Philosophy) spoke about departments with
ideological rifts and the potential use of this committee to
attack faculty who do not agree with the philosophy of the
majority. He moved to insert "elect by a three quarters
majority". Motion failed.
Rosenberg (Faculty Assembly) asked about the need for the
CRC. Vice Chancellor Ringeisen spoke to the fact that this
is not a re-tenuring process therefore the tenure committee
should not conduct the review. Dolezal (Medicine) asked if
the entire faculty of a unit could elect the CRC rather than
the tenure committee. Anderson stated that the tenured
faculty should elect the committee. Worthington (Medicine)
spoke in favor of retaining a small committee. Reaves
(Faculty Assembly) spoke about the need for small
committees and presented various anecdotal comments in
favor of the small committee. Ferrell (History) asked how
long the committee should serve. Anderson responded that
a term is not currently in the report. Ferrell also asked what
was meant by "a conflict of interest" and pointed out that this
is a possible point for grievances. Anderson stated that
conflicts of interest will be determined by the tenure
committee. Ferrell moved to include "shall serve for one
academic year." Motion passed. Simon (Political Science)
moved insertion of "but not more than five members" Ferrell
(History) spoke against the motion asking that this be left to
the unit. Everett (Nursing) addressed the concerns of the
body regarding fairness of evaluations and spoke against
the motion. Motion failed. Everett (Nursing) moved insertion
of "by a two-thirds majority" . Rosenberg asked if any vote
would be by the entire tenure committee or only those in
attendance at a meeting? Anderson responded that the
vote would be by the entire faculty. Rosenberg moved to
amend the motion by inserting "of those willing to serve."
The motion failed for lack of a second. Motion failed.
Simon (Political Science) moved to insert "not holding
administrative appointment". Fiordalisi (Medicine) asked if
this would include "unit heads" in the School of Medicine.
She was referred to a statement at the end of the document
relating to the question. Anderson asked to include 'voting"
as in Appendix L. Taggart (Music) queried the intent of the
motion. Motion passed. Ferrell (History) moved to strike "or
is deemed...a conflict of interest." Simon (Political Science)
asked about coverage of this matter in the ECU Faculty
Manual. Anderson responded that it is covered in Appendix
Y. Ferrell stated that this is covered by Robert's Rules.
Motion passed.
Rosenberg (Faculty Assembly) moved to strike "and
probationary-term faculty of the unit." Anderson spoke
against the motion especially in the case of small units.
Motion failed. Ferrell (History) suggested an editorial
change "voting faculty not holding administrative status" be
added. This editorial change was accepted.
Review Process
Farr (English) moved inclusion in last paragraph of
"...disagree, the entire tenure committee will seek to resolve
the differences within the unit." Rosenberg (Medicine)
asked about the majority needed to disagree. It was noted
that a simple majority is needed. Motion failed. Holloway
(Business) asked about the record to be reviewed by the
committee. Anderson noted that only the annual reviews
and administrators evaluation would be used, not a dossier.
Taggart (Music) asked about the CRC response, should the
CRC, if they disagree, provide a paragraph of justification. It
was noted that that was already stipulated by the process.
Kane (Allied Health) suggested an editorial comment-
resolve the disagreement. The editorial amendment was
accepted. Farr stated that the tenure committee should be
involved, and what does disagreement mean? Miller
(Philosophy) moved to strike the final clause of the last
sentence and substitute "the faculty member's evaluation
will be deemed satisfactory and the unit administrator shall
report the results of the cumulative review in writing to the
faculty member and place a copy of the written evaluation in
the faculty member's personnel file." Taylor (English) asked
about differences between satisfactory and exemplary? A
suggestion was made to modify the statement editorially to
"shall at least be deemed satisfactory". The modification to
the original motion was accepted. The motion failed. Ferrell
(History) moved inclusion of "Should a subsequent
academic unit administrator disagree with the annual
reviews and annual reports of an individual faculty member
composed before the term of office of the incumbent
administrator, the administrator shall not dismiss alter or
argue against the body and conclusions of the earlier
annual reviews and reports." Motion passed.
Reconsideration
Spickerman (Mathematics) moved to strike most of the
second paragraph and include of "...Committee reconfirm
their finding of deficiency, the affected faculty may appeal to
the unit's Cumulative Review Appeal Committee, a
committee consisting of all the unit's tenured faculty, absent
the appellant. The Cumulative Review Appeal Committee
shall in its deliberations consider, and base its decisions on,
those materials and data which the CRC earlier considered
in its original and reconsideration reviews. If the Cumulative
Review Appeals Committee agrees that the faculty
member's performance is deficient, then this decision shall
be communicated in writing to the affected faculty member
and to the unit administrator who shall place a copy of the
Cumulative Review Appeal Committee findings in the faculty
member's personnel file. If, however, the Cumulative
Review Appeal Committee disagrees with the
reconsideration finding, then the finding of the Cumulative
Review Appeal Committee shall supersede all prior
decisions of the CRC. If the unit administrator concurs in
the judgment of the Cumulative Review Appeal Committee,
then no further action is required. If not, then the
Cumulative Review Appeal Committee and the unit
administrator shall meet and attempt to resolve the conflict.
If this proves impossible, the next higher administrator,
considering all the evidence of the earlier reviews, shall
make the final decision." Jones (Social Work) asked if a
unit's code could enact this type of appeal. Sexauer stated
that if the document is approved at all levels, it would
supersede all unit codes. Allred (Psychology) asked about
the appeal process. Motion failed. Holloway (Business)
asked about the report of the decision and what will be
included. Anderson stated that the process requires a
statement. Kane (Allied Health) asked about replacement of
"differences within the unit" by "disagreement" in this section
and in the previous section, "resolve disagreements".
Accepted.
Faculty Development Plan
Ferrell (History) asked to replace throughout the document
the term "weaknesses" with "deficiencies". Accepted.
Rosenberg (Faculty Assembly) questioned "adequate
resources"--who decides? and the wisdom behind "self-
directed by faculty member". Anderson responded that
"adequate" was from the mandate from the General
Administration. As to a "self-directed" plan, the faculty
member must be involved. Ferrell asked to substitute
"amendment" for "alteration" and add the statement that
"Such amendment shall follow the same process as the
development of the original plan." Passed.
Subsequent Development Plan
Ulffers (Music) asked about which CRC would be involved in
subsequent years and the evaluation of progress on a
development plan. Anderson responded that whatever CRC
that is in office in subsequent years will have that
responsibility.
Farr (English) moved insertion in the last sentence of "in
concurrence with the entire tenure committee" after "the unit
administrator". Anderson stated that currently it is the right
of administrators to impose sanctions given cause. Motion
failed. Allred (Psychology) asked about the timing of
subsequent evaluation.
Review Process
Ferrell (History) moved insertion of "Permanently tenured
full-time faculty members who have received university
approved leaves of absence shall not have such leave time
counted as part of the cumulative review period." Fiordalisi
(Medicine) asked about the inclusion of creative activity
products accomplished during said leave of absence. Vice
Chancellor Ringeisen asked if faculty on leave should make
an annual report? Ferrell made a distinction between
research assignment vs. leave. Allred (Psychology) asked
about personal leave vs. professional leave. Motion passed.
Dolezal (Medicine) moved to postpone the vote on the final
document until the April 21st. Faculty Senate meeting.
Motion failed. Reaves (Faculty Assembly) reminded the
senate that they were not voting on post tenure review-
ECU has it--but they were voting on the process that is best
for ECU and within the mandate from the General
Administration. Motion to approve the entire document as
revised passed. RESOLUTION #98-13 (A copy of the full
policy may be obtained from the Faculty Senate office, 140
Rawl Annex.)
Joyce (Physics) moved acceptance of the following
resolution:
"The Faculty Senate of East Carolina University
recommends that the Board of Governors initiate a review
process to take place at least every five years. The review
will consider the organization of the University of North
Carolina and the effectiveness of the Board of Governors
and the UNC General Administration. It further recommends
that this review will be conducted by a committee whose
majority consists of permanently tenured faculty members
without administrative appointment." Ferrell (History) asked
if this is to be presented at the Faculty Assembly meeting.
The response was in the affirmative. Motion passed.
RESOLUTION #98-14
New Business
There was no new business to come before the Faculty
Senate at this time.
The meeting adjourned at 5:07 p.m.
