MINUTES
ACADEMIC BOARD MEETING
OCTOBER 19, 1999

BGEN H. S. CARTER, LTC J. A. LIPOVSKY, COL H. W. ASKINS, JR., COL R. A. MALONEY, COL R. E. BALDWIN, COL I. S. METTS, JR., COL M. A. BEBENSEE, COL W. B. MOORE, JR., COL J. R. BLANTON, COL L. W. MORELAND, COL C. E. CLEAVER, COL S. OZMENT, COL D. J. FALLON, COL D. H. REILLY, COL A. J. FINCH, CPT S. GOODWIN for COL F. W. SHEALY, COL B. MCMILLAN, COL G. B. STALEY, LTC A. W. LeCLERCQ, COL G. L. WILSON, LTC J. S. LEONARD

The meeting was called to order at 1515 hours by BG H. S. Carter.

AGENDA ITEM # 1: APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF 21 SEPTEMBER 1999

The minutes were unanimously approved.

AGENDA ITEM # 2: NCATE UPDATE

COL Reilly provided an update on the upcoming NCATE review. The visit will be February 19-23, 2000. Dr. David Kinman, Interim Executive Director of the Indiana Professional Standards Board, will be chairing the review team. He is an experienced NCATE team chair.

On November 8th from 9:00-3:00, the Education Department will conduct a retreat to review the self-study to be presented to NCATE and to discuss learner centered education as it is applied in professional education courses and in the teaching fields. The State chair has not yet been designated.

AGENDA ITEM # 3: GRADUATE COUNCIL REPORT

COL Reilly reported that the draft guidelines for distance education courses have been approved by the Graduate Council. The College has received a request from the Mathematics Education Hub to offer a distance education course aimed at improving the skills of calculus teachers. This course would carry graduate credit that could be used to meet professional development expectations but not graduate degree requirements. COL Reilly recommended that the College offer professional development courses through distance education. Board members unanimously endorsed the recommendation.

AGENDA ITEM # 4: AACSB UPDATE

COL Bebensee explained to the Board that the Business Administration program was accredited by AACSB in 1996. While typically a program is reviewed every ten years, the Commission on Higher Education has decided that all accreditation reviews at state-supported institutions should be conducted concurrently. Therefore, The Citadel will be reviewed again this spring along with business administration programs across the state. Our visit will be an abbreviated one with a smaller team.

AGENDA ITEM # 5: STUDY ABROAD PROGRAMS

COL Bebensee asked why the College was insisting that courses taken overseas have an international component.

COL Ozment explained that BG Poole had felt strongly, and she agreed, that students benefited most from taking courses different from those they would have at The Citadel or at another United States institution. She called on CPT Bedenbaugh, Director of International Studies, who had been invited to attend the meeting. CPT Bedenbaugh indicated that contrary to the stand The Citadel has taken, other institutions (such as the College of Charleston, GTI, and USC) do not limit what students can take at overseas institutions. CPT Bedenbaugh said that ideally students will take courses with an international component but spoke in favor of having no limitations.

BG Carter asked the academic programs sub-committee of the Academic Board to study the issue and present a recommendation to the full Board.

AGENDA ITEM # 6: ORGANIZATION AND SEARCHES

BG Carter distributed copies of the report on graduate education in the Lowcountry submitted by The Citadel, the University of Charleston, and the Medical University to the Hallman Committee. The issue of consolidating graduate programs was not supported; however, there is support for a plan to establish a Graduate Center in the region with area colleges retaining control of their own programs.

A Lowcountry Graduate Center would administer degrees in teacher education, business administration, engineering, information science, etc and offer a physical space where classes could be held. Area institutions have also expressed their interest in developing practitioner oriented doctoral programs, such as one in educational administration to be offered by The Citadel and one in curriculum and instruction to be offered by the University of Charleston.

BG Carter stated that plans for the expansion of our graduate programs must be taken into consideration as we examine the academic organization of the college and determine the searches that should be initiated. He distributed a copy of a memo from Faculty Council articulating concerns about a movement toward a school structure.

BG Carter presented a plan for addressing the current needs of the college while we study the issue of organization by schools. He proposed the following:

  1. Search for a head of the Department of Health and Physical Education to begin in fall 2000;
  2. Search for a Dean of Education to begin in fall 2000-this position would be an extension of the current designated dean concept, one that particularly makes sense in light of planned expansion;
  3. Search for a Dean of Business Administration to begin in fall 2001.
By the fall of 2001, that would mean there would be four deans responsible for administering academic departments: a Dean of Education, a Dean of Business Administration, a Dean of Humanities and Social Sciences, and a Dean of Science and Engineering. These deans would have external responsibilities (such as program expansion, fundraising, etc.) in addition to those the designated deans currently have.

LTC Leonard expressed the concern that departments other than Education and Business Administration will be at a disadvantage. COL Finch stated that this structure will give Education and Business Administration greater access to the VPAA than other departments have. BG Carter pointed out that with any structure, the VPAA is responsible for ensuring that preferential treatment does not occur.

LTC Leonard asked whether there will continue to be a graduate dean. BG Carter explained that COL Reilly will be on sabbatical next year and then will return to the classroom. Some of the duties currently assigned to the graduate dean (grade changes, student grievances, policy exceptions, evening programs, etc.) may well be transferred to the deans of each discipline. COL Reilly voiced the opinion that there should be a graduate dean to promote research and market programs.

COL Baldwin asked how the broader administrative responsibilities that Dean Ozment and Dean Metts now have (planning and assessment, academic support programs, ITS, etc.) would be handled. BG Carter said that one option would be to distribute them among the four deans.

In response to the issue that the different deans would not have equivalent work loads, COL Metts pointed out that that is the case now. Different departments have different shares of the core curriculum, have degree programs that vary in size, etc.

COL Moore suggested hiring a head of the Education Department now and considering a move to a deanship later after the issue has received further study. BG Carter responded that if we advertise for a department head we will not have as strong a pool of candidates from which to choose.

LTC Leonard asked how decision will be made. BG Carter replied that he would welcome a vote from Academic Board but stated that he is not necessarily bound by it. COL Metts informed the Board that according to College Regulations, the VPAA hires department heads and academic deans. The Regulations do not restrict the VPAA's authority to make decisions about the organization of the academic unit.

In response to questions from COL Moreland, BG Carter indicated that a candidate for the position to head the education unit will be told that he or she will be dean of education programs on a twelve month contract and will report to the VPAA.

COL Bebensee spoke in favor of using the title of "dean," saying that whether the College moves to schools or not, the title makes a difference in the community and with accrediting agencies.

COL Moreland moved and COL Wilson seconded the motion that Academic Board recommend making the head of the Education unit a dean and advising candidates that the College is studying the issue of organization by schools.

LTC Leonard stressed that he is not opposed to the dean concept but to how the College is proceeding. He expressed concern about moving precipitously. COL Moore agreed.

COL Reilly noted that the faculty should have confidence in the academic administration to solicit input from the Academic Board, the Faculty Council, and the faculty at large. He recommended approval of COL Moreland's motion. LTC LeClercq expressed support for the motion as well.

The motion passed with 11 in favor, 3 opposed, and 4 abstaining.

AGENDA ITEM # 7: POST-TENURE REVIEW PROCESS

COL Lipovsky summarized what has happened thus far. A subcommittee of the Faculty Council drafted a document last year. The Faculty Council recently reviewed the document and made some revisions. However, two major issues remain unresolved: who will review post tenure review materials and what will be the outcome of the process (i.e., will there be merit pay for those who are deemed exemplary). LTC Lipovsky said that some useful information had been acquired from other institutions. The Faculty Council will finish discussing the issue and then send final recommendations to the Academic Board.

AGENDA ITEM # 8: FACULTY INFORMATION FOR PERFORMANCE FUNDING

COL Metts urged department heads to send him information right away about the credentials of the faculty teaching in their departments. This information must be submitted to CHE.

He reported general statistics for the faculty as a whole:

AGENDA ITEM # 9: ANNUAL PLANS

COL Metts reminded department heads to submit their Annual Plans by e-mail or on disk.

AGENDA ITEM # 10: MISCELLANEOUS

BG Carter offered an update on salary increases. He explained that the state made the decision to give classified employees pay raises on July 1, 1999 but to wait until October 1, 1999 to give pay raises to faculty. The state mandated a 3% pay raise (though it only funded a portion of this), and MG Grinalds authorized another 1% for merit. Employees who were determined to be "meeting" their performance objectives would receive a % merit increase, those who were determined to be "exceeding" their objectives would receive a 1% merit increase, and those who were determined to be "substantially exceeding" their objectives would receive a 1 % merit increase.

BG Carter stated that there has been some discussion-but no decision-about using "extra" CDF funds to help make up the difference between what the state allocated for faculty pay increases and the percentage they mandated that must be awarded.

COL Finch asked about the rumor that CDF money will be used to settle lawsuits brought against the College by faculty. BG Carter stated that he would not ask CDF to support those costs and explained further that the State Budget and Control Board would have to approve the expenditure of any college funds to settle a lawsuit. Funds will come from the insurance reserve fund.

LTC Lipovsky reported that Faculty Council has expressed concern over the lack of available parking in the "A" Lot and have questioned the appropriateness of reserving some spaces for department heads. BG Carter indicated that a study should be conducted to determine who is being allowed to park in that lot, how oversold it is, etc.

COL Ozment announced that she had received positive feedback from most department heads about the change to Open Houses on Parents' Day this year. She offered to share all comments received with the entire Board.

The meeting was adjourned at 1730 hours.

Submittted by

Suzanne Ozment
Dean of Undergraduate Studies and Dean of Women