EAST CAROLINA UNIVERSITY FACULTY SENATE
April 11, 1989

A special session of the Faculty Senate was held on Tuesday, April 11, 1989, in the
Biology Auditorium. Members absent were Vice Chancellors Laupus and Matthews;
Boyce, Chamness, and Woodside (Faculty Assembly); Hughes (Business); Powers
(Education); King (HPERS); Stangohr (Health Sciences Library); McPherson (Industry &
Technology); Dudek, Gregory, and Pories (Medicine); Bernhardt and Spickerman
(Nursing); and Donahue (Theater Arts). Alternates present were Moskop for Duckett
(Medicine) and Daugherty for Woodside (Mathematics).

Agenda Item I. Call to Order

Chair Conner Atkeson called the meeting to order at 3:00 p.m.

Agenda Item III.

Chair Atkeson explained that this special session was called to give the Faculty
Senate the opportunity to provide advice and comments to the members of the first
three work groups of ECU's strategic planning process, "Setting Directions for East
Carolina University." Atkeson then called upon Chancellor Eakin for introductory
remarks.

Chancellor Eakin stated that the planning process was going better than expected and
that the work groups were striving to get input. He indicated his pleasure with the
work of the committees and the comments to the committees received from faculty and
students in the work groups forums. Reminding those attending that the planning
process was "entirely open," Chancellor Eakin invited any faculty member with
suggestions to call him, Sue Hodges (Planning and Institutional Research), or the
Chairs of the various work groups at any time.

1. Chair Atkeson introduced Richard Edwards (Chancellor's Staff), Chair, Strengths
and Weaknesses Identification Work Group. Also present from the work group were Ms.
Cynthia Kittrell, Dr. Charles F. Schwartz, Dr. Gordon E. Trevathan, Dr. David L.
Watkins, and Dr. Tinsley E. Yarbrough. (Ms. Sue Hodges, ex-officio on all three
work groups, was present for the entire meeting.) Mr. Edwards began by underscoring
that these were draft reports. In response to questions and comments it was
elicited that there was no coordination between the three work groups by design and
that what might be considered a strength in one group's report could be perceived as
a weakness in another's. Chancellor Eakin stated that there could indeed be
"countervailing forces." In addition, it was elicited that language on academic
advising had already been added; that a stronger statement on the maintenance of
buildings be made; that campus accommodations for the handicapped be mentioned as a
strength; that, while professors can access the student “outcomes" in their courses
very well, there is a lack of follow-up on students; that some apparent ambiguities
would naturally be clarified in later stages of the planning; and that ECU's
Cooperative Education program may need to be singled out as a strength.

2. Chair Atkeson introduced Ms. Janice Faulkner, Chair, External Environmental
Analysis Work Group. Also present from the work group were Dr. Carson L. Bays, Dr.
A. Darryl Davis, and Dr. Stephen W. Thomas. Ms. Faulkner began by stating that some
amendments had already been made to the document. Some points brought out in
discussion were as follows: that the apparent emphasis on job preparation was
necessary since this group is dealing with external factors such as the job market;
that community colleges were both competing for students and serving as feeder
institutions; that the poor pre-college preparation of some regional students was
tactfully referred to as "marginal educational opportunities;" that, in

 
the opinion of one Senator, the statement of need for "political alliances" seemed

strong statement for a planning document; that the group will add some consideration

of possible changes in the state system of higher education; and that there was a
need for cultural "literacy" in the region.

3. Chair Atkeson introduced Dr. Margaret M. Capen, Chair, Institutional Values
Assessment Work Group. Also present from the group were Dr. Charles E. Garrison,
Mr. Paul J. Hartley, and Mr. Malcolm T. Simpson. Dr. Capen began by pointing out
that the "means" referred to in the appendix of the report were the "should-be
means" and the differences referred to the “should-be means" minus the "is means."
Some points brought out in discussion were as follows: that the group did not have
time to include measures of significance and that some differences would be
insignificant; that the group would include a breakdown by groups in the final
document; and that the group should be complimented in the goal statement on page
oy"

In response to a question from a Senator, Chair Atkeson agreed to see that final
copies of these reports would be generally disseminated.

There being no further business, Chair Atkeson adjourned the meeting at 4:20 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

che
\

James Joyce, Secretary Sharon Bland, Office Secretary

a