MINUTES FACULTY SENATE OF EAST CAROLINA UNIVERSITY FIFTH REGULAR MEETING OF 1980/81 ACADEMIC YEAR 27 January 1981 The Faculty Senate met on Tuesday, 27 January 1981, at 2:10 p.m. in Mendenhall Student Center, Room 221. The meeting was called to order by the Chair, Thomas Johnson. Upon the calling of the roll, the follow- ing members were absent: McGee”(Continuing Education), Levey (Education) , Bolt (Foreign Languages), Baker* (Geography), Duff" (Home Economics), Brinn” (Medicine), Schmidt (Music), Sammons* (Nursing), Dough (Science Education) and ex officio: Laupus, Maier, and Brewer. Alternates present were: Bellis for Allen (Biology), Longhill for Hamblen (Business) and Neal for Spruill (Geology). * fens : Denotes Senators who joined session later. Three items were added to the Agenda: Item SA 3: Dissolution of Campus Facilities, Planning and Development Committee (Second. Reading); Item 6A: Resolution Regarding Reorganization (Bob Woodside); Item 6B: Reading of memo addressed to Vice Chancellor Robert Maier from the Department of Industrial and Technical Education concerning reorganization of depart- ments on campus (Jerry Tester). Agenda Item 2: The minutes of 9 December 1980 were approved. SPECIAL ORDER OF THE DAY Agenda Item 3A: Announcements Chair made the following remarks and announcements: 1. The Chancellor approved Resolutions 80-50, 80-51, 80-52, 80-53, 80-54, and 80-55 passed at the December 9, 1980, Faculty Senate meeting. Vice Chancellor Elmer Meyer provided Senators with copies of a anual entitled, "Using Parliamentary Procedure," prepared by the Office of the Vice Chancellor for Student Life. The Chair made appointments to fill positions on the following committees during the leave of absence of Janice Faulkner: Bodo Nischan to the Agenda Committee, Robert Hursey to the Committee on Committees, and Walter Calhoun to the Athletic Committee. The Chair read a copy of a letter written to Dr. Robert Maier, Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs, from Chancellor Brewer, dated January 26, 1981, concerning University reorganization. (see attached letter) Rays: Agenda Item 3B: Planning Commission Report Professor Henry Ferrell, Coordinator of the Planning Commission, updated the planning process since the last report to the Senate in January, 1980. He reported that the Planning Commission met on several occasions last fall, the most recent meeting being on January 26. The Commission gave preliminary approval to the Student Service Recommendations with the exception of Inter- collegiate Athletics. Public Service Recommendations should be concluded in similar fashion on February 12. During February the Commission will receive recommendations from the Subcommission on Academic Programs (SOAP) regarding recommended planning priorities for the academic units. In the summer, Ferrell said that the three remaining Subcommissions will receive the first approval by the Planning Commission, after which a document will be prepared and circulated for a third, and final, reading in October. Two additional Subcommissions have been composed by the Planning Commission: (1) Subcommission on Academic Support, chaired by Professor Marie Farr (English) and (2) Subcommission on Institutional Support by Professor William Bloodworth (English). Some 26 task forces have also been assembled under these Subcommissions. Members of the Senate were given membership lists. The last Subcommission scheduled for assembly in February or early March will be the Subcommission On Organization. Its charge will be more focused and have fewer task forces in that most areas would have been studied by that time. Ferrell noted that there will be three. task forces on General Faculty administrative and academic committees organization. Furthermore, the Subcommission on Organization will be reviewing a set of proposals for J a ten-year facility assignment plan and developing alternative plans. Ferrell then answered questions concerning the Planning Commission. Professor Sadler. (Library Science) questioned how membership on Subcommissions and task forces is determined. Dr. Ferrell replied that membership is put together in part by the Planning Commission and in part by administrators who are concerned about the particular function. He cited an example in the case of Institutional Support: the Planning Commission Office asked the Vice Chancellor for Business Affairs to suggest persons for membership; the suggested persons were contacted concerning their willingness to serve. Nominations were then passed on to the Chancellor who often made additional suggestions and then approved the nominees. Ferrell reported that members of the Board of Trustees were asked to submit, in priority order, sub- commissions on which they would like to serve. Representatives from the Planning Commission also serve on each Subcommission. Furthermore, membership is composed of alumni representatives and students, who are nominated through the Vice Chancellor for Student Life and solicited for their will- ingness to serve. In the case of the faculty membership, an effort has been made to place persons representing those faculty academic committees who deal with those areas of concern. For example, in the case of the Curric- ulum Review and Development, persons from the University Curriculum Committee serve the task forces. The same policy partially is true at the Subcommission level. taff persons and secretaries nave been placed on the Institutional Support Subcommission. ee Professor Bodo Nischan (History) expressed concern that there is no correlation between the recommendations coming from the History Department and the preliminary recommendations coming from SOAP. He wondered how "a need for deadline perspective and the time element in global perspective" might be combined. Ferrell responded by saying that times have changed since the curriculum of the History Department was organized in the 1960's. Those disciplines that can modify and absorb those technologies and make them benefit their students and faculty are the disciplines that will survive. Ferrell said that departments must take advantage of the imminent technological advances or the advances will bypass them. He noted that instruction by computer and audiovisual aids are a fact of the future, principally because they are cheaper over a long run for the institution and the State. In light of the economic changes, SOAP has placed as many programs under the same disciplines as possible. For example, it has been suggested that many of the departments in Arts and Sciences which have teacher certification programs be put in the BA professional track. The same recommendation has been made at the Master's level. Professor Gantt (HPERS) inquired about the accuracy of data compiled by the Planning Commission. Professor Ferrell answered that there are four checks used in compiling accurate data: (1) inaccurate information can be corrected in the preliminary report, (2} revised set of proposals will be available in the units, (3) preliminary recommendations are approved by the Planning Commission, and (4) additional corrections can be made by the units before the final reading by the Planning Commission. He further pointed out that the statistical base has been generated through the Plan- ning Office, Institutional Research, and the individual departments. Ferrell commented on Wednesday, January 28, that SOAP will review the History Department's response to the first reading and then make available a second reading. Each faculty member should have anopportunity to respond in person or in writing to the second reading. Professor Woodside (Math) questioned the reaction of the Planning Com- mission to the previously announced reorganization. Ferrell replied that the Commission did not take up the matter formally. He pointed out that from a standpoint of preliminary recommendations Science Education knew that their department had been recommended to become a free-standing department in the School of Education, that Library Science knew about their recommendations in the first reading in relation to the School of Education, that HPERS received recommendations the next day concerning the transfer of Health, Physical Education and Driver Safety Education to the School of Education, and that Parks, Recreation and Conservation would be aligned with the School of Allied Health. In the case of the School of Technology, Ferrell said that the first set of recommendations from SOAP did not deal specifically with the continuing existence of Technology but did make the recommendation that BUED be made more independent in the structure of the School of Technclogy--the Department of Administrative Systems--and that the Industrial Department curriculum be placed in the Department of Industrial Systems. Ferrell stated that those are the only recommendations made by SOAP concerning the School of Industrial and Tech- nical Education and that the School of Technology was the only issue not dealt with in the preliminary recommendations of SOAP. Ferrell closed his report by commending the faculty for the courtesies that he had received as coordinator of the Planning Process and stated that the faculty is to be admired as professionals for their commitment to planning. “Sz Agenda Item 3C: Chancellor Brewer was scheduled to address the Senate concerning the pro- posed reorganization but he was attending a meeting of the Chancellors of the constituent institutions in Chapel Hill and could not be present. Agenda Item 4A: Final Revision of the East Carolina University Code Professors Kane, Lao, and Muzzarelli of the School of Allied Health and Social Professions presented amendments to the revised East Carolina University Code.. Kane moved to approve eight amendments and Muzzarelli seconded the motion. The following amendments were approved by a majority vote of the Senate; page and line references are made to the January 8, 1981, version of the revision: page line 3: insert "except the Dean of the School of Medicine ,"' page line 11: ..delete "Unit" page 2, line 20: substitute "department": for "Unit" page 3, line 24: substitute "Chairpersons" for "Officials" page 5, line 21: delete the word “'shall" following the word, ~ "Members" (Resolution 81-1) page 3, line 6: insert the following sentence after the word "sciences" "The electorate of the deans of the professional schools shall be the voting faculty of the professional schools." Professor Ferrell felt that this amendment was a result of misreading the revised Code and spoke against the amendment. He explained his opposition by referring to page 2, paragraph B, line 1, in which the appointment of the Dean of the Graduate School, the Dean of the College of Arts & Sciences, the Deans of the Professional Schools, and other academic administrative officials is outlined. Ferrell pointed out that subsequent paragraphs deal with the process of how the Committee is composed, such as paragraph 5, page 3, which reserves itself distinctly for the electorate of the Graduate Schcol Dean and the Arts and Sciences Dean. The procedure then follows on the first page of the Code. Ferrell concluded that the change would be incoherent if placed on page 3, line 6, after the word "Sciences." Speaking in favor of the amendment, Professor Kane felt that reference to the electorate of the Professional Schools on page 3, paragraph 5, was unnecessarily omitted. Ferrell cited page 2, line 16, "Election shall be by secret ballot from a list of permanently tenured voting faculty members of the School or its. divisions....'' Ferrell also referred to footnote 1 on page 1 which defines a voting faculty member, Kane again questioned the exclusion of the professional schools on page 3, line 5. Ferrell explained that because of the nature of selecting a Dean of the Graduate School and a Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences reference was specifically included. Kane, Lao and Muzzarelli agreed to accept Professor Ferrell's interpretation and withdraw the fourth amendment. The seventh amendment (page 5, line 24) which would add following the word "tenure" "and evaluation of department chairperson in the professional schools, except in the School of Medicine."' Sexauer, chair of the Faculty Governance Committee, spoke against the amendment. He stated that faculty members would be dealing with a procedure by which unit faculty can participate in recommendations on personnel matters, and that such a procedure is already covered on page 7 of the Code. In effect, this amendment would put a burden on all professional schools in saying that they must provide for an evalua- tion of their department chairpersons who are really department chairpersons for instructional purposes only. Sexauer also stated that if individual units wanted to evaluate procedures of the departments in the Professional Schools, they should be allowed to do so within their own individual codes rather than using the ECU Code as a means of evaluation. Sexauer noted that this issue is well covered in individual uit codes. The motion failed. Professor Pories (Medicine) made a motion to insert in the appropriate places in the ECU Code the word "chairman" for the word "chair’' or '"'Chair- persons.'' Discussion followed concerning the correct usage of this term. The motion failed. Professor Hursey (Mathematics) made a motion to adopt the revised East Carolina University Code; Ferrell seconded and the Senate adopted the Code by a majority vote. (Resolution 81-2) The Chair commended Professor Sexauer for his work on the revision of the Code. Agenda Item 5A 1, 2, and 3: Committee on Committees Professor Ayers presented three items from the Committee. Campus Facilities Planning and Development Ayers reported that the Committee had recommended to the Senate on December 9, 1980, that the Campus Facilities, Planning and Development Committee be dissolved. The recommendation was approved. (Resolution 81-3) Student Scholarships, Fellowships and Financial Aid Committee Ayers then presented the revised charge of the SSFFA Committee for its first reading. The vote on the revised charge will take place at the next Faculty Senate meeting on February 17. In commenting on the ex officio membership of all academic committees, Ayers noted that the Committee on Committees intends to review all of the committees' ex officio membership and recommend to those committees, where appropriate, that the administrator having the most immediate responsibility concerning the function of that committee be made an ex officio member without vote. University Libraries Committee Professor Ayers further indicated that in keeping with the recommendation concerning ex officio membership that the following ex officio menbers should serve without vote on the University Libraries Committee: the Director of Library Services and the Director of the Health Sciences Library. Ayers also presented the revised charge of the University Libraries Committee for its first reading. Pories made a motion to include the Dean of the School of Medicine or an appointed representative in the ex officio membership of the Committee in- mediately after the Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs or an appointed representative. The motion was seconded and passed by 17 to 16. (Resolution 81-4) Discussion followed as to what constitutes major policies for reporting to the Senate by the University Libraries Committee. Ayers reported that the Committee has a mechanism at the present time in deciding which are major policies and cited as examples the approval of library budgets and the development of library collections. She also said that certain matters dealing with library services need not come before the Senate. Professor Ryan (Philosophy) added that he did not feel the revised charge would cripple the Committee and that if doubt should arise in deciding which issue should be reported to the Senate, the University Libraries Committee would make the decision. Ryan commented that it is a point of goodwill on the part of the Senate to delegate the responsibility to the Committee of deciding when, where and what they should report. The Senate will vote on the amended charge at its next meeting on February 17. Agenda Item 5B. 1-10: University Curriculum Committee All resolutions listed in the January 27 Faculty Senate Agenda passed the Senate without opposition. Grossnickle stated that each unit involved in the items recommended for approval to Chancellor Brewer should notify the Registrar's Office. The Chair noted that these curriculum changes have passed the Senate and are contingent upon the Chancellor's approval. (Resolution 81-5) Agenda Item 6: New Business Professor Woodside (Math) made a motion to approve the resolution concerning the proposed reorganization changes. Sadler seconded the motion. Pories' suggestion to delete “those recently announced" in the last paragraph was incorporated as an editorial change into the presented resolution. E. Ryan (Philosophy) moved to amend the resolution by omitting the entire third paragraph. Professor James Smith (Philosophy) seconded. A voice vote was taken. A division of the house was called. The motion to strike the third paragraph carried by a show of hands 18 to 15. (Resolution 81-6) ae The amended resolution was: WHEREAS, one of the functions of the Planning Commission of East Carolina University is to consider carefully long-range planning for the University in the light of recommendations from all segments of the University community; and WHEREAS, various subcommissions of the Planning Commission have not completed their preliminary deliberations and have, therefore, not submitted their recommendations to the Planning Commission, the faculty, or the various units; THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that, prior to implementing reorgani zational changes, the administration provide for their full debate by the Planning Commission, appropriate subcommissions, the Education- al Policies and Planning Committee, and the affected wits. The amended resolution passed by a voice vote of the Senate with no Senators opposed. (Resolution 81-7) Woodside moved, Jo Ann Jones (English) seconded the motion to send the approved resolution to Chancellor Brewer and requested that he forward a copy to each member of the Board of Trustees and to President Friday. The motion passed 23 to 14. (Resolution 81-8) Agenda Item 6B: Continued New Business Jerry Tester (Technology) read a memo addressed to Vice Chancellor Robert Maier from Dr. Thomas J. Haigwood, Dean of the School of Technology and Dr. Lemer E. Erbert, Acting Chairperson of Industrial and Technical Educa- tion. He wished to inform fellow faculty members of the department's feelings regarding the proposed reorganization. He reported that the faculty members of INDT were pleased to have undergone self appraisal and felt that their future looks bright through constructive change. (The entire memorandum is attached.) The Senate adjourned at 4:40 p.m. Rosalie Haritun Secretary of the Faculty Helen Broaddus Secretary of the Faculty Senate Office A veon rig VT & om A Se carne? Agenda Item 3A: 4: Attachuanit EAST CAROLINA UNIVERSITY GREENVILLE, NORTE TM TT & OFFICE OF THE CHANCELLOR January 26, 1931 Received Dr. Robert H. Maier . JAN Z 71981 Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs JAN @ 719% East Carolina University FROGATY SEMAE Dear Dr. Maier: This office has received your most thoughtful recommendations concerning th transfer of Science Education, Library Science, Health and Physical Education, Business Education, and Technology to the School of Education, which would take on an expanded role in the educational process of East Carolina University. The reasoning which resulted in the recommendation is to be applauded. I agree that the administrative orcanization of the University should be based as far as possible on the grouping of programs whose philosophies and missions are & the same or similar. In this case, all the departments are concerned primarily with aspects of professional education. The approach is pedagogically sound and, at the same time, efficient in making the best use of the University's scarce resources. It is my understanding that the transfer of the three departments presently tn Arts and Sciences is in the preliminary recommendations of the Subcommission on Academic Programs. The abolition. of the School of Technology, along with the Arts and Sciences’ department transfer, would be considered by the Subcommission on Organization. While 1 realize that these reconmendations resulted at this time because of the upcoming retirement of Dean Haigwood, I believe that the planning process would be best served by examining the recommendations of the subconmisstons. A final decision will be delayed until that time. In light of this decisfon, you will select an acting dean for Technology until the completior of the planning process. ab oe At the same time, let me emphasize that planning is not an event, it is a process. Events and needs dictate that certain decisions must be made before th official adoption of the planning document. The same will be true after the com- pletion of the document, when adjustments will have to be made to best respond to the times. The decade of the 80s will be the most challenging and frustrating ever experienced by higher education. Creative thinking resulting in constructiv change will be required to meet these challenges. East Carolina University isa constituent institution of - Hi ' uy iy ete bid Mi hin 5 ey January 26, 1981 1 deeply admire your global understanding of higher education, your leadership in academic programs at East Carolina, and your creative ideas. 1-will do all I can to support these recommendations 4s they move through the process. Sincgrely. Yi? N Mae oth. fAAVin I} & Thomas B. Brewer TBS/ra cc: Vice Chancellors Deans Chairmen Faculty Senate Planning Comnisston Dr. Ferrell Agenda Item 68: Attachment EAST CAROLINA UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF TECHNCLOGY GREENVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA 27834 “RR TMENT QF INDUSTRIAL POST OFFICE BOX 27% ww CERCHNICAL EDUCATION De. Robert H. Maier, Chancellor for Academic Affairs De. Thomas J. Haigwood, Dean 47 School of Technology ey De. Elmer E. Exber, Acting Chairperson Industrial and Technical Education Department ATE: January 26, 1981 SUBJECT: Proposed Reorganization - School of Technology The faculty of the Department of Industrial and Technical Education at a January 21, 1981 meeting voted that a letter be drafted concerning the reorgan- ization plen you described to the School of Technology faculty on January 13, 1991. Although we believe your plea to dissolve the School of Technology and subsequently merge its departments with the School of Education was proposed in good faith, we express strong concern for the detrimental effects that such a marger may have on the present and future contributions of the Department to the evyerell wission of the University. Several major points supporting our. concern and unanimous objection to your proposal sre outlined below: 1. Your reorganization proposal is not in accord with the firmly established management practice of organizing in such a way that major homogeneous ' activities are grouped together under the leadership of an upper-level administrator who represents them to top-level administration. Although the primary mission of this Department was once the pre- paration of industrial-vocational-technical education teachers, it has stesdily shifted during the past 10-15 years to the preparation of graduates capable of assuming technical-managerial, supervisory, technical and related types of leadership positions in broad fields of industry. This shift in mission has been in response to student and industrial dewand and is currently reflected by an enrollment of approximately 75 percent (300+) non-teaching majore and 25 percent (100+) teaching majors. Projections tend to indicate that future non-teaching enrollments will steadily increase while teaching enrollment will remain fairly constant. This in no way infers that industrial~vocational-technical teacher pre- paration should be de-emphasized; there is an increasing unmet demand for % technology educators at all levels including industry. Consequently, such programs should be expanded and strengthened, but it must be realized that technology (mot education) is the subject matter for both types of programs and that both programs are strongly interrelated. Bact Corolina University is s conetituent institution of si Fg oe aaah ii cd oa | Tee etgntficent pofat wade here fe thet the mission of technology Programs is not Mighly compatible with the wiseion of a School of Education. Enrollment has increased steadily over the past several years indicating a growing student demand for technology programe. Growth during 1978-79 8 £ 35 percent for 1980-81 has already been exceeded. : proj fons indicate that within the next five years the Deper L have over 900 declared majors. Student demand would likely be increased by the addition of proposed new program tracks which have been supported by the Subcommission on Academic Programe (SOAP). In ites ember 17, 1980 response to the School of Technology Task Force & *% which outlined the School's growth and service potential, SOAP < that, “The School of Teche nology has an outstanding opportunity f , the SOs," . In order to realize ita potential, technology must be identity and high visibility. t ore autonomous status equal to other professinal schools within the Univers- ity. This will require the imaginative leadership of a Unit (School) administrator who ia experienced with and comprehends the needs and pro~ blems peculiar to a wide range of technology and technology education programs. Technology programa not only have their unique mission and objectives, but their success is dependent upon unique and specialized equipment, facilities, faculty and support services which cannot be effectively shared or integrated with other units. The lack of adequate resources has long limited the effectiveness of technology programs at East Carolina University. This is especially true in terms of laboratory equipment reflective of modern industrial practice. As suggested in the SOAP response to the unit's Task Forc Report, additional effort needs to be devoted to securing financial support for innovative new programs and incrgased grantmanship will be a necessity for the Department to accomplish its stated objectives. All of thie demands the technical expertise of an experienced unit (School) head who can intelligently represent the unit and convey its needs to top- level University administration és well as to the industrial community. North Carolina is becoming increasingly industrialized and technologi- cally oriented, and for some time there has been a drive st State Government levels to attract more high-technology industry to all parts of the estate. Governor Hunt has recognized the dependence of high- technology industry upon sa work force trained in applied science and technology areas. He has addressed this issue many times and has recommended expanded industrial-vocstional-technical programs to legis- lators and education officials. hr, Robert H. Mafer Much of the unmet demand for expanded technology programs in this region can be filled by East Carolina University, and the University can best foster growth in this direction by supporting the prograns recommended by the INDY Task Force Report and the report of the Sub- commission on Academic Programs. Eoth of these reports recommend autonomous status for technology programs. There is strong student demand for technology programs across the nation which is expected to continue in the forseeable future. Many universities are responding to the demand by expanding their technology offerings, not only to provide the kind of technical education needed in the decade of the 80s, but to place themselves in @ stronger posi- tion to attract students in today's competetive market. Also, there is a natfonal trend te provide autonomous status for technology programs in institutions similar in mission to East Carolina University. Obvi- ously, this trend has developed in recognition of the expanded role and importance of such programs at the university level and to provide the organizational structure needed for effective operation and management. & In view of the increased student demand for the technology programs at East Carolina University as well as the national trends outlined above, it appears that the University would better serve its constituents by committing itself to expanded and more sophisticated technology programs headed by a technically educated and experienced full-time eduinistrator who can give the leadership required. For additional data which clarifies and supports the unanimous objection of the INDT faculty to your reorganization proposal, we refer you to the following documents. INDT Task Force Report, March 19, 1980. Clarification Response to the INDT Section of the School of ee creamer OE mee ee ONLI Technology logy Task Force Report, October 1, 1980. Working Copy of SOAP Preliminary Recommendations for the Unit, me ene nen November 17, 1980. aR rage Pa UINDT Reorganization Proposal, October 1, 1980, INDT Response to the SOAP Recommendations, December 1, 1980. All of these documents lend support to autonomous technology programs. In view of the information presented above, the faculty of the Department of Industrial and Technical Education request that you reconsider your recommendation to dissolve the School of Technology and merge its program areas into the School of Education. We further request that you give favorable consideration to the Tacrisrew 26 @ JOUnUGTY