EAST CAROLINA UNIVERSITY
FACULTY SENATE MINUTES
NOVEMBER 18, 1986

The third regular meeting of the Faculty Senate for 1986-87 convened in Hendrix
Theatre, Mendenhall Student Center, on Tuesday, November 18, 1986, with
Kenneth Wilson, Chair, presiding.

Member absent was Atkeson (History). Alternates present were Shank for Jones
(Music), Stephenson for Kares (Academic Library Services), and Holt for McMillan

(English).

Agenda Item I. Call to Order

The Chair called the meeting to order at 1:35 p.m.

Agenda Item II. Approval of Minutes

The minutes of October 21, 1986, were approved.

Agenda Item III. Special Order of the Day

A. Mr. C. D. Spangler, President, University of North Carolina

Kenneth Wilson introduced President C. D. Spangler, who had been invited to
address the Senate and the East Carolina University faculty.

President Spangler spoke of his introduction to the office of President of the UNC
System, saying that while he is enjoying the job, he has had to learn to deal with
the media (reporters and television cameras) and to being asked such questions as
"What is your philosophy of life?"

While he does not have an academic background, he said that he is dedicated to
education, particularly public education and will work to preserve access to
public education. He quoted a portion of the North Carolina Constitution which
states, "Benefits of the University of North Carolina shall be extended to the
people of the state free of expense so far as practical.'' The low tuition rates
in our universities help preserve access, and the investment in the students has
long-term benefits to the state.

President Spangler remarked that even though he has a business background, he
recognizes the University is not a business and cannot be run as a business.

Diversity of thought is one of the assets of a university, he stated, and academic
freedom is not for the benefit of the faculty, but for the benefit of society.

President Spangler closed his remarks by reminding the Senate that North Carolina
is one of the most supportive states of the higher education system. He then
asked for questions from the floor.

Thomas (Allied Health) asked if there were plans for faculty input to the
President's office. Mr. Spangler replied that input is readily accepted and that
since there are 7,000 faculty in the system, most concerns are expressed through
the Chancellors and the Faculty Senates. He said that a faculty representative on
each Board of Trustees had been suggested in the past. Faculty often write
directly to the President's office.

 
Mayberry (Foreign Language) complimented President Spangler on his published
remarks supporting international studies and foreign languages in a university
education and asked if there was anything he as President could do to remedy the
lack of education in foreign language in both high schools and university
graduates.

Mr. Spangler repeated his support for foreign languages and expressed his feeling
that the economy and foreign trade of both the state and the country would benefit
if more students were literate in a foreign language. He added that a knowledge
of computers was also necessary today.

Dunn, speaking for the Faculty Welfare Committee, asked about the possibility of a
University-wide sabbatical system. Mr. Spangler replied that use of the word
"sabbatical" is a tactical error. Business realizes the need to support updating
for its executives, but universities have not done as well. He said he felt there
is more support in the General Assembly than in the past, but he does not feel the
General Assembly would address the issue now.

Simon (Political Science) asked about the financial aid problems many students
have encountered this fall, commenting he felt some students might have to leave
school because of the delays in awarding grants. Mr. Spangler quoted the axiom
from law that "Justice delayed is justice denied" and said that he has asked the
chancellors to provide him information about how delays have affected students on
their campuses. If there seems to be a purposeful attempt to circumvent the law
by delaying paperwork, then he feels the college presidents should act.

King (HPERS) asked about the relationship President Spangler has established with
the General Assembly. Mr. Spangler said that while serving as Chair of the State
Board of Education, he had spent a great deal of time with the General Assembly
and felt he had good friends there. Remembering to express thanks and to tell
what's right and what's wrong with education helps make a good relationship with
the legislators.

Ferrell (History) spoke of the perception among ECU faculty that there is
prejudice against the schools that were not part of the "old" university system.
ECU is no longer a four-year school but is also not a Ph.D. granting institution.
He asked if there was an explanation why we at ECU seem to work more and be paid
less. Mr. Spangler said that resources are allocated over a long period of time
to benefit the whole state, with some schools faring better than others in any
given year. He stated he was not "pro" any one school and felt his responsibility
was to support ways that would help us grow as a university.

Maiola (Sociology/Anthropology) asked for Mr. Spangler's suggestions of how the
faculty might feed back to him our thoughts about the candidates for Chancellor.
President Spangler replied that the process for selecting a chancellor is
stipulated by the University Code. The Trustees recommend to the President at
least two candidates and he recommends to the Board of Governors. Faculty are
represented on the Search Committee.

Farr (English) noted that over 50% of the students in U.S. universities are women
and asked Mr. Spangler if he had any special plans for mentoring women and
minorities in his administration. President Spangler replied that he is aware of
the problems in administrative appointments for women and minorities and knows
there is room for improvement. He noted he has appointed the first woman to serve
as a Vice President in the UNC General Administration, Wyndham Robertson, Acting
Vice President for Communications.

After the question-and-answer session, the Senate recessed briefly and re-convened
at. 2239p am.

 
B. Announcements

ee Kenneth Wilson reminded the Senators they had received the resumes and the
schedules of the two candidates for Chancellor who would be visiting on campus.
The faculty representatives. on the Search Committee feel either of the candidates
would be a good chancellor. The schedule for the on-campus visits is not the one
suggested by the Faculty Senate Committee and argued for by the faculty
representatives on the Search Committee.

As the Chair opened the floor for discussion, James L. Smith (Faculty Assembly)
presented a resolution concerning the on-campus visits. He said that we seemed to
have stepped backward in the process of faculty input into the selection of the
chancellor. The resolution had multiple seconds (See Attachment 1).

Ryan (Administrative Council) moved to amend ‘the resolution to add to (b) that
"the data from these surveys be given to the members of the Chancellor Search
Committee and to the members of the Board of Trustees". After second, much
discussion ensued. Hough (Faculty Assembly), speaking in behalf of both the
resolution and the amendment, said that we have the opportunity to "look upon" the
candidates, but there is not a process in place to gather opinion. We seem to
have regressed since the last two chancellor searches.

Rees (Theatre Arts) asked why we are doing it this way this time. Kenneth Wilson
said the argument in tavor of the system being used is that it is more consistent
with the way higher-level administrators are being selected now. The Association
of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges recommends this type of interview
process. Interviews are less intensive than in the past so that candidates can
better evaluate the University and its strengths. Smith (Faculty Assembly)
remarked that serious candidates should be capable of fielding some hard questions
and that public relations should not be that big a consideration.

South (English) remarked there was a lot of secrecy and a breakdown in confidence
in the whole process and suggested we need more freedom in the interviewing
process.

Ryan (Administrative Council) asked about the Chair's personal feeling and Wilson
replied that he and the other faculty representatives argued for the process as
suggested by the Faculty Senate. Ryan asked if the faculty representatives on the
Committee support the present system. Wilson replied he would have preferred
another structure and argued for another structure.

Duckett (Medicine) said that the faculty representatives presented the plan and

supported it but that the scheduling of on-campus visits was not controlled by the
Search Committee, but by the Board of Trustees.

Schellenberger (Business) suggested that the Senate set up an evaluation method to
be used if one is not approved.

Hough (Faculty Assembly) asked about the process once the campus visits are over.

Duckett (Medicine) said that after campus visits, the Search Committee will meet
and discuss the candidates and if no others surface, then a ranking of the two
will be given to the Board of Trustees. He reminded the Senate that the comment
had been made that the search will not be closed until the Chancellor is selected.

 
Wilson said lots of candidates were visited on their own campuses, and the two who
have been invited to visit ECU surfaced as clear leaders. Bringing others to
campus in order to have more than two would not have been fair to the others.

Mayberry (Foreign Languages) said the way the on-campus interview process is set
up is not an interviewing situation. The whole process reminds one of how
visitors are ushered through Russia.

Simon (Political Science) said the Chairs in Arts and Sciences need an opportunity
for serious discussion with the candidates and have compiled seven or so questions
they think would be of interest to candidates as communicating concerns. The
meetings as scheduled seem mostly social and not substantive. What can happen on
campus now is only a ranking and not a selection process. If one candidate should
withdraw, the other is automatically put forward as Chancellor.

Ferrell (History) stated he had served on one Chancellor Search Committee and
thought the agenda put forward this time by the Senate is more complex than that
used the past two times. The opinions of faculty were taken to heart by Ferrell,
Daugherty and Davis when they served as faculty representatives. A survey
instrument should be used to gather faculty opinion.

Johnson (HPERS) stated he had served on a previous Chancellor Search Committee and
feels faculty input into the process has eroded. Four faculty members served on
the last Search Committee; three serve this time. The last time faculty
controlled the on-campus visits.

Ryan (Administrative Council) moved to amend the resolution further by adding ''Be
it also resolved that the Chair present this resolution to the Chancellor as soon
as possible and request the Chancellor to forward the resolution to the members of
the Board of Trustees, and that the resolution be transmitted immediately to the
faculty members of the Chancellor Search Committee requesting that they share it
with the other members of the Chancellor Search Committee."' Upon second, general
discussion continued.

Kledaras (Social Work) called the question.

The amendments and the resolution passed on a voice vote with no dissenting votes.
(Resolution #86-24)

Agenda Item IV. Unfinished Business

There was none.
Agenda Item V. Report of Committees
A. Curriculum Committee

Committee Chair Grossnickle referred Senators to Curriculum Committee minutes of

October 9, 1986. The motion to accept the report was carried on a voice vote.
(Resolution #86-25)

 
B. Committee on Committees

& Chair Holly Mathews presented the recommendations of the Committee on Committees
for changes in the charge of the Faculty Governance Committee and for the
formation of a new Unit Code Screening Committee. An enabling resolution was
included. Mathews referred Senators to a revised copy of the proposed change to
the charge tor the Faculty Governance Committee. In discussion, the phrase "and
passed by the Faculty Senate" was added after "Faculty Governance Committee" in
Section 4.A. Committee Functions of the Proposed Charge for the Unit Code
Screening Committee.

Laupus (Medicine) moved the membership of the Faculty Governance Committee be
expanded to include the Vice Chancellor for the School of Medicine or appointed
representative as an ex-officio member. Upon second, the motion carried, 26 in
favor, 12 against.

This being the first reading of the Committee on Committee's recommendations, a
vote was postponed until the next Senate meeting. (See Attachment 2)

Agenda Item VI. New Business

There was no new business.

Kenneth Wilson reiterated that the faculty representatives on the Search Committee
want faculty input in the selection process. Grossnickle (Psychology) suggested a
boycott of the on-campus visits if Senate suggestions are not taken. South
(English) said he was strongly against boycott and that as much input as possible
was needed from faculty. Rodabaugh (Continuing Education) moved the Senate recess
rather than adjourn until such time as the Chair could report on the resolution.
The motion was seconded and Smith (Faculty Assembly) spoke in support. Morrison
(Chemistry) spoke in opposition and moved the meeting adjourn.

The Senate voted 20 in favor, 13 opposed, and the meeting was adjourned.

Respectfully submitted,

Lhormy Blow d

Madge Chamness Sharon Bland
Secretary of the Faculty Senate Secretary to the Faculty Senate

.,

Resolution 86-24 Regarding the Chancellor Selection Process

86-25 Curriculum Committee Minutes of October 9, 1986

 
Whereas,

Whereas,

Whereas,

Therefore

Attachment 1

EAST CAROLINA UNIVERSITY
FACULTY SENATE RESOLUTION 86-24

the rendering of advice by all of the valid constituencies of
a University loved by so many is a vital and important part of
the trust that must pervade the University, and

the advice of the faculty and of the other constituencies of
the University cannot be seriously considered unless it is
solicited, gathered, and summarized in a thorough and
comprehensive manner, and

mechanisms have been utilized in the past whereby such a goal
has been accomplished, such that the faculty and other
constituencies have had both the possibility of direct
interview and the consequent opinion survey form to fill out,
and

it is understood that no meeting has been scheduled with the
Faculty Senate and no plans for formal survey of the opinion
of constituencies are in place,

be it resolved that the Faculty Senate urgently request that
its representatives convey to the Chancellor Search Committee
the faculty's dismay and the requests that

(a) a meeting with the Faculty Senate, open to all faculty,
be scheduled for each candidate, and that

(b) such polling surveys as have been used in the past be
made available at all meetings that the faculty and
other constituencies have with the candidates, and that
the data from these surveys be given to the members of
the Chancellor Search Committee and the members of the
Board of Trustees.

Be it also resolved that the Faculty Senate recommend that the Chair

present this resolution to the Chancellor as soon as possible
and request the Chancellor to forward the resolution to the
members of the Board of Trustees, and that the resolution

be transmitted immediately to the faculty members of the
Chancellor Search Committee requesting that they share it
with the other members of the Chancellor Search Committee.

 
Attachment 2
Revised Nov. 19, 1986

PROPOSED CHARGE FOR THE UNIT CODE SCREENING COMMITTEE
Name: Unit Code Screening Committee

Membership: 7 faculty members, plus ex-officio: The Vice Chancellor for
Academic Affairs or an appointed representative and the Chair of the Faculty
Governance Committee or an appointed representative from that Committee.

Quorum: 5 elected faculty exclusive of ex-officio.

A. Committee Function: The Committee insures that unit codes conform to
the East Carolina University Code and the guidelines for unit codes
recommended by the Faculty Governance Committee and passed by the Faculty
Senate. All new codes and changes to existing academic unit codes are
submitted to the Committee, for its review, before submission to the
Faculty Senate.

To Whom the Committee Reports: The Committee shall inform each
petitioning unit of its decision on the proposed code or changes to
the existing code for the unit and allow the unit an opportunity

to answer any objections to the Code's acceptance. The Committee
recommends approval of new codes and changes in existing codes to
the Faculty Senate.

C. How Often the Committee Reports: The Committee reports to the Faculty
Senate as often as necessary, but at least once a year.

Power of the Committee to Act: The Committee is empowered to screen
all new unit codes and changes in existing unit codes and make its
recommendations to the Faculty Senate.

PROPOSED CHANGES IN THE CHARGE OF THE FACULTY GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE

Membership: 7 faculty members, plus ex-officio: The Vice Chancellor for
Academic Affairs or an appointed representative, the Vice Chancellor and Dean
for the School of Medicine or an appointed representative, the Chair of the
Unit Code Screening Committee or an appointed representative from that
Committee, and the immediate Past Chair of the Faculty in residence.

A. Committee Function: The Faculty Governance Committee considers matters
relating to the Constitution & By-Laws of the Faculty Senate; the Faculty
Manual, where there is no conflict with the functions of the Committee on
Committees; Unit re-evaluations; and the ECU Code; and recommends overall
guidelines for unit codes. The Committee considers additions and deletions
to the East Carolina University Code and hears appeals by any faculty member
concerning the application of governance procedures of both the East Carolina
University Code and the Unit Code within his or her unit.

B. To Whom the Committee Reports: The Committee recommends to the Faculty
Senate changes in the Constitution & By-Laws of the Faculty Senate, the

Faculty Manual, and the East Carolina University Code. When evaluating the
implementation of governance procedures, the Committee makes recommendations
to the unit and to appropriate administrative officials.