The sixth
regular meeting of the 2005-2006
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
6, 2005, and January
31, 2006, were approved as distributed.
Agenda
Item III. Special Order of the Day
A. Roll Call
Senators
absent were: Professors Schisler (Business), Wang (Geography), and Long (History).
Alternates
present were: Professors Wolfe for Avenarius (Anthropology),
1. The
Chancellor has approved the following resolutions from the January 31, 2006,
06-01 Curriculum matters contained in the minutes of the December 8, 2005,
and January 12, 2006, University Curriculum Committee meetings.
06-02 New
06-03 Resolution on Health Insurance.
06-04 Practical measures to reduce the class days missed due to athletic
competition.
06-05 Revision to the ECU
Undergraduate Catalog, Section 5. Academic Regulations,
relating
to Class Attendance and Participation Regulations.
2. The
annual Teaching Awards Ceremony
is scheduled for Tuesday, April 25, 2006, 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 and all faculty are welcome to
attend.
3. Letters concerning unit elections for
the 2006-2007
4. Thanks to
5. There will be a Faculty
Officers’ Candidate Forum on Tuesday, April 11, 2006, from 2:30 – 4:30
p.m. in the Mendenhall Student Center Great
Room. All faculty are invited to attend
and discuss issues of importance with the faculty officer candidates.
6. Funded 2006-07 research and teaching
grants were announced. Both lists are
available on the Committees’ websites: Research/Creative
Activity Grants Teaching
Grants
7. Additional items distributed to
Senators included a preliminary list of faculty priorities compiled from the
survey last month, process and timeline information on the Task
Force on Graduate Education, and a comparison
of ECU to its Peer Institutions.
C. Steve Ballard, Chancellor
Chancellor
Ballard detailed recent developments in the General Administration, stating
that “shared governance” is a priority of President Eskine Bowles. Chancellor
Ballard stated that our priorities have improved and listed six important items
that were not the definitive list, but areas of great importance:
-
Administrative
efficiency – All campuses must be evaluated for administrative costs.
-
K
– 12 partnerships and the teacher shortage crisis
-
Collaboration
with Community Colleges
-
Access
and affordability of higher education
-
Distance
Education
-
Retention
Chancellor
Ballard stated that ECU was the only campus mentioned by name as a leader in
many of these areas. President Bowles
wants the other 15 campuses to follow ECU’s lead. Chancellor Ballard stated
that ECU must continue to invest in distance education, noting that ECU’s
reputation is our quality.
In
connection with budget requests, the Chancellor stated that according to
President Bowles all campuses must agree and all 16 campuses must identify
their priorities. Chancellor Ballard
noted that ECU has a lot of work to do to make sure we get our fair share.
ECU’s priorities include a
The
Chancellor also said a few words about the discussions to take place today
concerning the revisions to Appendix C and D.
He stated that the Faculty Governance Committee had worked very hard and
he encouraged the debate on these important issues. He stated that he valued shared governance
and viewed this as critical. Chancellor Ballard stated that we must work
together as we lead the system. We must ensure that our lead is maintained and
collaboration is the key. We can work
out the tensions in our system with openness and collaboration. He encouraged everyone to keep our eye on
tomorrow, improve our systems, and create new doctorial degrees. We have a great reputation and we must
maintain our flexibility and capability in the future. We can all be committed to the nature of the
process.
Tovey
(English) asked about the last 3 peer institutions and them being seen as
“competitors”. The Chancellor responded that the preparation of this list took
a long time and joked that it was worse than a root canal. He stated that the
competitive peers come up as a compromise.
They had better figures in research dollars but ECU is doing better in
other areas. Competitive peers get us to
a place to do right things. Provost Smith also stated that without change this
list would not have been possible. Many judgments had to be made and that to
have these peers ahead of us and on the list will do a lot for us.
Provost Jim Smith provided the
following remarks and reiterated them at the meeting:
1. Considerations of the
Faculty Governance Recommendations on Faculty Personnel Policies (Including
Appendices C and D: Many thanks to the hard-working membership
of the Governance Committee for their long weeks (and months!) of work
preparing these recommendations. It is a tribute to our long history of
shared governance at
2. Enrollment Projections
for 2006-2207: We are predicting a student enrollment for 2005-06
that, while in contains a considerable increase in student credit hours (SCHs),
will still probable come in under our projections for the year. We have
been funded on the basis of those projections. The point is that, while
we are projecting another considerable increase for next year, the General
Administration may hold us for next year flat to our projection for this year,
since we will not achieve it. If they do, that will mean no
enrollment increase monies for next year. If that is the case, then
the additional faculty positions, operating dollars, library funding increases,
and general institutional support monies (this latter category alone was
$4.6million in 04-05 and $6.5million in 05-06) will not come our way.
Stated differently, what GA tells us in the next few days or weeks will have a profound
impact on the 2006-07 budget year. We will share more with you when
we know more.
3. Task Force on
Fixed Term Appointments: The Task Force met for the first time on
February 9th and will meet again this Thursday, February 23rd,
and every two weeks until the work is finished. Two fixed term appointees
will be invited to join the group this week. The Task Force will issue a
draft report at the April Senate meeting and will be finished with its work in
time to share a report with the Governance Committee at its Organizational
Meeting in the fall semester. Issues determined to be important for Task
Force discussion are as follows:
--preamble to the report underscoring the central value to
the institutional mission of tenure-track and tenured appointments at ECU
--actual categories and present uses of fixed term
appointees
--a summation of the justifications for each of these
categories and uses
--possible multi-yr contracts and associated by-out clauses
and appointee performance evaluation mechanisms
--voting rights for fixed term appointees, as well as
possible search committee membership
--annually updated academic unit staffing plans that would
include use of any fixed term appointees
--unit annual reports that include rationales for fixed term
use, fixed term staffing plan components, as well as comprehensive unit-goal
setting/ evaluation discussions.
--other topics as discussion proceeds.
Data of various kinds is being gathered to better inform the
discussion.
Provost
Smith concluded with a thanks to everyone for all they do for
There were
no questions for Provost Smith.
D. UNC Faculty Assembly Report
John Cope
(Psychology) prepared a written report on the February
17, 2006, UNC Faculty Assembly meeting.
There were no
questions posed to Professor Cope about this report.
E. 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 Louis Warren
(Education), John Cope (Psychology), Ken Wilson (Sociology), James Holloway
(Business), and Frances Eason (Nursing).
This
Committee will present a slate of 2006-2007 Faculty Officers to the
F. Catherine Rigsby, Chair of the Faculty
Professor Rigsby
discussed the work behind the process of bringing the documentation for
discussion today. She stated that there
was a lot of discussion this week aimed at the Faculty Senate office. She wanted to share her thoughts on shared
governance. What is it? It is the process where faculty and staff
participate in the business of the institution.
It is the creation and dissemination of ideas. How do we succeed with this mission? Faculty is in the best place to select
colleagues and evaluate that faculty.
They also set goals and guide student life. Our system does all those things and we do them
very well. To any system of higher
education this is important. SACS
recognizes this and looks to the faculty manual as an important document and
the importance of the Faculty Senate.
Shared governance is the system of checks and balances. It is essential to our mission, which cannot
be achieved unless there is a balance of governance. Who has the strongest voice is based on what
you debate. The principals of shared
governance state that the faculty are the experts when it comes to research,
faculty status, curriculum and student life.
Decisions in these areas should come first from the faculty. All statements of shared governance say the
primary responsibility lays with the faculty.
We must take our deliberations very seriously. The President and the Chancellor do not write
the laws (the Faculty Manual); the faculty does, because we are the
experts. A few years ago we redid our
committee structure to allow more administrative personnel to be on Senate
committees. These committees bring
resolutions to the Senate – resolutions which changes the faculty manual. With 25% administration on most of our
committees we are encoding collaboration into the system. As a faculty we want the collaboration of
everyone.
Chairperson Rigsby
was very pleased with the attendance at the forums in connection with Appendix
D. There was lots of participation from
all levels. She wants to set the tone
for the big issues of today. Everyone
who wanted to be included was and no one will ever be excluded.
G.
Question Period
Sprague
(Physics) inquired about the faculty priority survey and the preliminary
results and asked about the “error bars”.
Rigsby replied that the range was huge and that the data will be made available
and is being used to create a more formal survey with Professor Ken Wilson’s
assistance.
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
Cheryl Estes (Health and Human Performance), Secretary of
the Committee, presented the curriculum matters contained
in the minutes of the January 26, 2006, Committee meeting. There was no discussion and the curriculum
matters were approved as presented. RESOLUTION
#06-06
B. Academic Awards Committee
Charles
Boklage (Medicine), Chair of the Committee, presented the proposal to move all
teaching and research award material submission deadlines to November 1 of each
year.
Estes
(Health and Human Performance) stated that in her unit faculty were not being
nominated and informed until the Fall. Boklage
explained the process and that Spring and early Fall announcements were
distributed via email to all faculty and administrators. Hodge (Education) stated the same occurred in
her unit and asked how many members were on the subcommittees. Boklage replied from 5-7 members.
Stapleton
(Education) stated that is was ok with her as long as faculty are notified in
time to compile their materials.
Brown
(Psychology) noted a point of clarification in that solicitation goes out in
the Spring and early Fall and that only one of the teaching awards being
discussed included nomination from the unit level. All others can be self-nominated.
Following
discussion, the proposal to move all teaching and research award material
submission deadlines to November 1 of each year was approved as presented. RESOLUTION
#06-07
C. Faculty Governance Committee
Puri
Taggart
(Music) moved to add “in narrative form” following “A cumulative evaluation” to
Section C.2.f. and g. in Part XII. The
amendment was accepted.
Ciechalski
(Technology and Computer Science) asked for clarification about what “criteria”
meant in Section C.1., 2. and 3. He
stated that “criteria” meant exact – that once a criterion is met it is always
met. Whereas ”consideration” meant
things to consider, which meant that the policy needs to specify a number of
publications, etc. At this time,
Professor Ciechalski offered no amendments to the document. Sprague (Physics) offered a definition of
both words.
Brown (Psychology)
asked if the candidate collects the records of evaluation as noted in Section
C. of the document. Professor Martinez
responded that unit administrators do not have the responsibility of collecting
these materials.
Eason
(Nusing) noted concerns with the Cumulative Report Format B and noted that it
should be designed for more than the
Ciechalski
(Technology and Computer Science) was still concerned with the use of the word
criteria and moved to add “and/or considerations” following “Copies of the
criteria” to Sections C.1.a, 2.a., and 3.a.
Tovey (English) and Estes (Health and Human Performance) spoke against
the motion stating that the definition is clear and allows the latitude
necessary. McMillen (Medicine) spoke against the motion and noted that
“criteria” is used throughout other University documents. Sprague (Physics) spoke against the motion as
the word criteria is in his unit code.
Changing the wording would create confusion. Ciechalski (Technology and Computer Science)
speaking for his motion stated that criteria in his unit code may be used
differently. After the discussion the
motion failed.
Glascoff
(Health and Human Performance) offered an editorial change to the Cumulative
Report Format B, Subsection Teaching Activities substituting reference to the
Given
(Foreign Language and Literatures) noted that on the Cumulative Report Format
A, Section I.C. reads “ Citzenship status if born outside of
Niswander (Business)
moved to delete Section C.2.f. and g.
Decker (Health and Human Performance) spoke in favor of the motion. Sprague (Physics) spoke against the motion
stating that deletion could hurt the process and perhaps the problem was with
the word cumulative. After discussion,
Niswander (Business) moved to change his motion to move Section C.2.f. and g.
to a new Section B.3.a. and b. and delete “at least two weeks prior to their
vote”. Decker (Health and Human
Performance) spoke against the motion as amended. Glascoff (Health and Human Performance) spoke
against the motion stating that most committees would not like to see a
consensus report. And that this could create a nightmare when there is a
grievance. She noted that she would
rather see it deleted. Brown (Psychology)
asked why delete “at least two weeks prior to their vote”. Robertson (Math) stated that Dr. Glascoff
comments were clear.
Boklage (Medicine)
asked how this would work with a timeline.
Justiniano (Physics) feels Dr. Niswander’s motion will fix this
concern. He agrees the word evaluation
sounds strange but again feels the amendment will solve the problem. Hodge (Education) noted that the timeline was
not for the faculty committees but for the Dean, Provost, and Chancellor when
considering action.
McMillen
(Medicine) spoke against the motion to move both to a new Section B.3.a. and b.
noting that he thought it would be hard to get a faculty committee to write a
consensus report. Brown (Psychology) spoke in favor of the motion noting that
it would now be a recommendation.
Glascoff (Health and
Human Performance) stated that everybody needed to see the same thing and that
if the Tenure Committee and administrator wrote cumulative letters then the Provost
and Chancellor should; that the faculty shouldn’t be required to validate their
evaluation alone. The personnel action
dossiers should stand alone. Ceichalski (Technology and Computer Science) spoke
for the amendment saying that the tenure committee’s voice should be stronger
than the voice of the Unit Administrator.
Decker (Health and
Human Performance) still does not see how the timeline will work and noted
their inability to achieve this requirement in their large tenure groups. Justiniano (Physics) noted that Appendix D
will address some of this issue. It will
not be necessary to have the entire body of the faculty participate. Yalcin (Philosophy) stated that the motion
was not seen as a check and balance. The
motion to move Section C.2.f. and g. to a new Section B.3.a. and b. and delete
“at least two weeks prior to their vote” was approved.
Glascoff (Health and
Human Performance) moved to delete the new Section B.3.a. and b. and stated
having this document could not portray the mood of the faculty, could cause
problems in grievances, and may not reflect the true evaluation of the
faculty. Morrison (Chemistry-Science
& Technology) stated that this was in the faculty manual in the 90’s, that
there is a time gap between the time the PAD is submitted and the decision is
made, and that the cumulative report provides an opportunity for candidates to
do more work that can be included. Justiniano
(Physics) stated it is the job of the peers to evaluate the candidate and a
document such as this will go a long way in places where unit administration is
not enough. McMillen (Medicine) spoke
against the motion statoing that faculty who can’t give justification for a
vote shouldn’t vote.
Tovey
(English) spoke in favor of the motion.
Dobbs (Medicine)
moved to have the deleted Section F. Patient Care Portfolio moved to the
Cumulative Report Format B as a new Section following “Teaching
Activities”. Deena (English) asked if
faculty representatives from Health Sciences served on the Faculty Governance
Committee because there was more work to be done to Form B. Lisa Sutton, Assistant Vice Chancellor for
Health Sciences, noted her involvement with the Committee and stated her
history with Form B. Chair Rigsby noted that Professor Mary Gilliland was a
voting member of the committee and has attended the committee’s meetings once
appointed late last year.
Schenarts
(Medicine) stated that critical care was important so he supported the motion
to include Patient Care Portfolio in the form.
Anderson (Parliamentarian) offered a friendly amendment to the motion
for consideration. Professor Dobbs
declined the friendly amendment.
Sprague (Physics)
moved to have the Cumulative Report Format B returned to the Faculty Governance
Committee to make appropriate revisions in relation to the Division of Health
Sciences.
Glascoff (Health and
Human Performance) asked if this stopped all of the discussion on this
document. Anderson (Parliamentarian)
noted that only this portion would be sent back and the rest would continue to
be discussed. Chair Rigsby noted that,
yes, the discussion would continue.
Glascoff then moved to separate the Format B from the rest of the
document being sent back to the Faculty Governance Committee. The motion to separate was approved.
Holloway (Business)
moved to strike the new sentence under Section F that reads “The candidate is
allowed to review and include a response to the cumulative evaluations (see
section C.2.f. and g. above).”
Robinson
(Mathematics) spoke against the motion stating that the decision is not made
until the end so faculty should have an opportunity to address any factual
errors. The motion to strike “The candidate is allowed to review and include a
response to the cumulative evaluations (see section C.2.f. and g. above)”
failed.
Following
a lengthy discussion, Part XII of the ECU
Faculty Manual, excluding the Cumulative Report Format B, was approved as
amended. RESOLUTION
#06-08 The
Faculty Governance Committee was asked to make appropriate revisions to Format
B in relation to the Division of Health Sciences. Provost Smith agreed to also
validate the need for the citizenship status notation on Format A Section I.C.
Puri
Following
action on this report, the meeting adjourned at 5:20 p.m. The additional items of business from today’s
agenda will be carried over and discussed on March 21, 2006.
Respectfully
submitted,
Christine
Zoller Lori
Lee
Secretary
of the Faculty Administrative
Officer
FACULTY SENATE RESOLUTIONS APPROVED AT THE
FEBRUARY 21, 2006, MEETING
06-06 Curriculum
matters contained in the University Curriculum Committee minutes of the
January
26, 2006, Committee meeting.
Disposition: Chancellor
06-07 Move all teaching and
research award material submission deadlines to November 1 of each
year.
Disposition: Chancellor
06-08 Revised ECU Faculty Manual, Part
XII. Personnel Action Dossier.
Disposition: Chancellor
06-09 New ECU Faculty Manual, Part
XIII. Promotion and Tenure Timeline.
Disposition: Chancellor