ANNUAL REPORT OF THE FACULTY SENATE OF EAST CAROLINA UNIVERSITY FOR 1982-83

An atmosphere of cooperation between faculty and administration during
this year has provided the background for advancement of the University in many
areas. The most notable example of this cooperation has been in the efforts of
the administration and faculty to work together to address the concerns of
NCATE and SDPI relative to teacher education. Since early fall the Faculty,
Faculty Senate, Academic Committess and the Faculty Senate Officers have held
continuing dialog and have worked cooperatively with the administration to
answer the concerns of these accrediting agencies. Because it was perceived
tha the composition of the Teacher Education Committee as specified in the
charge to the Committee might be problematic to the accrediting agencies, the
Committee on Committees recommended that the membership of the Teacher
Education Committee include five members of the Teacher Education Faculty.

This recommendation (82-75) was adopted by the Faculty Senate in the meeting of
December 7, 1982. Following the NCATE and SDPI visits, the Chairs of the
Teacher Education Committee and Curriculum Committee and the Chair of the
Faculty were included in the committee preparing the response to these agen-
cies. These committees presented an interim proposal (83-2) to the Faculty
Senate addressing some of the curriculum concerns raised by these agencies. At
this time an ad hoc committee was established by the administration to study
teacher education curricula throughout the University and to present a proposal
for changes in the professional education requirements for teacher education
programs which would address the concerns of the accrediting agencies. This ad
hoc committee was chaired by Hugh Wease, secretary of the Teacher Education
Committee, and included the Chair of the Teacher Education Committee. At the
conclusion of their work the ad hoc committee met with the Academic Committees
involved in the curriculum process for teacher education and presented their
proposals which were adopted by the Academic Committees and forwarded to the
Faculty Senate for approval (83-13). Throughout this process the administra-

- tion and faculty worked closely to insure that all concerned had an opportunity
.,6o have input into the proposed curriculum revisions. When it became apparent
. that the existing committee structure would not satisfy the governance struc-~
ture required by the accrediting agencies, the administration involved the
Faculty Senate officers and the appropriate Academic Committees in discussion
concerning a new governance structure for teacher education. In an unprece-
dented June meeting, the Faculty Senate endorsed the establishment of the

Teacher Education Council (83-35) and held the first reading of the proposal
from the Committee on Committees to dissolve the Teacher Education Committes .

Another significant instance of cooperative joint effort between the
faculty and administration is delaying action on the report of the Ad Hoc
Grievance Committee until President Friday had answered the resolution of the
Faculty Assembly concerning grievance procedures. Since President Friday's
response was not delivered until late April, 1983, this has delayed action on
the Committee's report to the Faculty Senate until the fall of 1983.

On several occasions the ,Chancellor has forwarded matters to the Faculty
Senate for faculty recommendation. Among these is the granting of second
undergraduate degrees with distinction. This matter was studied by the
Curriculum Committee and presented to the Faculty Senate on two occasions. The
Faculty Senate, after recommitting the first report (82-84), established an ad
hoc committee to study the issue (83-14). The ad hoc committee has begun study
on the issue and will report to the Senate during the 1983-84 academic year.

The development of the Academic Integrity Policy by the Educational

 
Policies and Planning Committee was the result of cooperative efforts between
the faculty, students,-and the Division of Student Life. The Committee met
with the Associate Dean of Orientation and Judiciary and student representa-
tives of the Academic Honor Board to prepare the document. The Academic
Integrity Policy as prepared by the Committee was adopted by the Student
Legislature and presented to the Faculty Senate at the April meeting. In order
to have the document approved so that the policy (83-34) could be effective in
the fall of 1983, the Faculty Senate met in special session on April 26, 1983.

During this year, the Continuing Education Committee surveyed units con-
cerning interest in offering degree programs during the evening hours. Upon
the recommendation of this Committee, the administration will establish a task
force to study the feasibility and assess the need for degree programs to be
offered during evening hours.

Two academic committees presented resolutions to the Senate relative to
personnel matters. The Faculty Welfare Committee recommended that merit salary
increments be awarded on the basis of faculty activity during the period since
the last merit raise (83-24). The Faculty Affairs Committee recommended that
grievance files be maintained separately from other personnel files (83-24).
Both resolutions were approved by the Senate and the Chancellor and instruc-
tions relative to their implementation forwarded to the appropriate
administrators.

There has been a cooperative effort among all members of the University
family in promoting effective functioning of the faculty governance bodies. A
program to communicate to those outside the faculty the function of the
Academic Committees and the Faculty Senate was iriitiated during this year. The
Chair addressed a meeting of the Institutional Advancement and Planning
Division and described the faculty governance structure and the interaction of
the Academic Committees and Faculty Senate with other units- in the University.
This program will be continued during the coming year as Dr. James LeRoy Smith,
Chair of the Faculty for 1983-84, meets with the Board of Trustees in August,
1983, to discuss the role of the faculty governance bodies within the
University.