MINUTES ACADEMIC BOARD MEETING
FEBRUARY 16, 1999

BGEN R. C. POOLE, LTC J. S. LEONARD, COL R. E. BALDWIN, CAPT R. C. MCDOWELL for COL W. J. MACPHERSON, COL M. A. BEBENSEE, COL R. A. MALONEY, COL J. R. BLANTON, COL I. S. METTS, JR., CAPT M. L. BOYKIN, COL W. B. MOORE, JR., COL C. E. CLEAVER, COL S. OZMENT, COL M. H. EZELL, JR., COL D. H. REILLY, COL D. J. FALLON, LTC P. J. REMBIESA, COL A. J. FINCH, COL G. B. STALEY, MAJ R. M GAY, COL J. W. TREZ, SR. for COL J. A. FOLLEY and LTC A. W. LECLERCQ

The meeting was called to order at 1520 hours by BGEN Poole.

AGENDA ITEM # 1: APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF JANUARY 19, 1999 MEETING

The minutes of the January 19th meeting were unanimously approved as written.

AGENDA ITEM # 2: XEROX COPYING COSTS

BGEN Poole asked department heads to look closely at their budgets, particularly at expenditure for photocopying. He recommended that professors prepare course packs to be quick copies by the Print Shop and then sold to students through the Cadet Store.

BGEN Poole asked that each department head send him a copy of the budget request for next year.

AGENDA ITEM # 3: FACULTY TEACHING IN COMPETITIVE PROGRAMS

BGEN Poole informed the Board that it has come to his attention that on occasion full-time permanent Citadel faculty are teaching in competitive programs at other institutions in our marketing area. The College should establish a policy for inclusion in the Faculty Manual and a procedure for obtaining administrative approval. BGEN Poole said he has contacted the Citadel’s attorneys for advice on the matter.

AGENDA ITEM # 4: MERIT PAY

BGEN Poole announced that the President approved mid-year salary adjustments for 32 faculty members. The funds ($70,000 to cover February 1 to August 31, 1999) were used to raise salaries to the newly established floors for each rank and to address inequities created by compression. BGEN Poole said that he has requested merit money for next year and alerted department heads that there must be an evaluation process for determining how merit money would be allocated. He has asked COL Metts to develop a plan.

COL Finch asked about the truthfulness of rumors that some faculty have full-time "second" jobs off campus. He asked if there are published limits. BGEN Poole replied that the only limits on salary earned elsewhere are that no more than 15% of the Citadel salary can be earned through another state agency in any given semester.

AGENDA ITEM # 5: CDF FACULTY FELLOWS COMMITTEE

BGEN Poole indicated that he will soon be appointing the Committee to assist with the selection of CDF Faculty Fellows and asked the Board for nominations of full or associate professors (not department heads) to serve on the Committee.

AGENDA ITEM # 6: COEDUCATIONAL CLASSES

COL Ozment informed the Board that occasional reports continue to come in of difficulties (students making inappropriate comments or gestures when other students speak, some students being unwilling to sit near others, etc.) in some coeducational classes. She asked the Board for suggestions on how to raise this with the faculty to determine their perception of the matter and to make possible a discussion about any problems that have occurred.

COL Ezell pointed out that many of the behaviors mentioned occur in all-male classes as well as in classes with male and female students.

CAPT Boykin and LTC Leonard suggested that faculty should discuss with students what it means to be courteous members of a class, particular one in which controversial issues will be discussed.

COL Trez reminded the Board of the need for faculty intervention whether classroom misbehavior is gender based on based on the fourth class system. If a professor witnesses hostile behavior and does nothing about it, the College can be considered liable. COL Trez also pointed out that the school has not conducted mandatory follow-up training for faculty on sexual harassment this year. We must have some kind of training; perhaps the most useful would be departmental meetings on the topic of how to intervene to correct any inappropriate behavior.

MAJ Gay suggested that professors may not witness much of the misbehavior. A survey of students might be useful to determine the extent of the problem from their perspective. COL Metts pointed out the logistical difficulties of keeping the surveys anonymous and of getting a good return. One alternative suggestion that seemed more workable was to add a question about learning environment to the student survey of instruction for each class.

Most department heads felt that dealing with the matter at the departmental level would be preferable to having a meeting of the entire faculty. Department heads agreed to raise the issue either in a special departmental meeting or as an agenda item at a regular meeting. COL Trez said he could provide department heads with a short survey and with some topics for discussion. COL Ozment requested some follow up on the outcome of these meetings.

AGENDA ITEM # 7: DEFINITION OF FACULTY COMMUNITY AND PUBLIC SERVICE.

COL Metts circulated prior to the meeting a draft definition of faculty community and public service to be submitted to CHE. CHE is requiring that along with its definition, each institution indicate the date when it was approved and the body that approved it. CAPT Boykin and LTC Rembiesa suggested adding a couple of words to the definition COL Metts had drafted. The definition that was unanimously approved by the Board reads as follows:

AGENDA ITEM # 8: DECISION MAKING PROCESS

The Faculty Council is still reviewing this issue. COL Metts raised a question about where the Graduate Council fits in. He recommended that another change to the process be considered as we are refining the policy, namely that issues be presented to both the Faculty Council and the Academic Board but not separately to the Graduate Council as well. COL Reilly spoke in favor of retaining review of issues by the Graduate Council. He said he had called several other institutions that have comparable councils—UNC-Greensboro, Winthrop, UNC, and USC—and learned that at these schools the Graduate Councils function in a manner equivalent to a Curriculum Committee for undergraduate programs. COL Reilly maintained that matters involving decisions about graduate programs should continue to come before the Academic Board but should not go to the Faculty Council since the Chair of Faculty Council sits on the Graduate Council and can take issues back to that body. The Graduate Council should also continue to make recommendations about graduate faculty appointments, according to COL Reilly. COL Metts pointed out the inconsistency that Academic Board votes on curricular issues at the undergraduate but not at the graduate level and noted that Graduate Council routinely bypasses both the Academic Board and Faculty Council. COL Reilly said this was not unusual for Graduate Councils at other institutions as well. He volunteered to publish the agenda for Graduate Council meetings earlier. COL Reilly contended that Graduate Council should have an opportunity to discuss the subject of its role in the decision making process before Academic Board votes. He agreed to put it on the agenda for the March 4th meeting. COL Reilly moved and LTC LeClercq seconded the motion that the matter be tabled until the regular March meeting of the Academic Board. The Board unanimously approved the motion.

AGENDA ITEM # 9: PERFORMANCE FUNDING NEEDS

COL Metts reported that The Citadel will be audited to confirm allocations through performance funding. The College will have to provide documentation for all performance funding benchmarks (we will have to have personal data sheets on file, for instance and will have to begin maintaining statistics on gender and race of adjunct faculty, etc.) He urged department heads to make sure they keep their files current and complete.

AGENDA ITEM # 10: FACULTY AND DEPARTMENT HEAD EVALUATIONS

COL Metts informed the Board that merit evaluations should once again become part of the annual evaluation of faculty and department heads. In the past when we conducted merit evaluations we used four ratings comparable to those used in evaluating classified employees: does not meet, meets, exceeds, substantially exceeds. COL Metts is preparing a draft of a process to be followed. In order for the process to be reviewed by Academic Board and Faculty Council, we will not be ready to use it until next year. The draft will be submitted to Academic Board in the next few weeks. Board members will be asked to make suggestions for revision, and then the document will be passed along to Faculty Council. BGEN Poole predicted that merit funds will be forthcoming if the faculty can develop a workable process for allocating the funds.

Personal data sheets will be distributed to faculty by the end of February.

AGENDA ITEM # 11: REPORT FROM FACULTY COUNCIL

COL Ezell indicated that on February 19th there will be a meeting in Columbia of college and university Faculty Council chairs. The next meeting of The Citadel Faculty Council has been delayed one week.

AGENDA ITEM # 12: GRADUATE COUNCIL MEETING

No report.

AGENDA ITEM # 13: MISCELLANEOUS

BGEN Poole reminded Board members that departments are to consider core requirements and distribution of free electives for MECEP/ECEP students.

BGEN Poole distributed copies of a January 26th memo from BGEN Mace on the morning physical training program.

The meeting was adjourned at 1715.

Submitted by

Suzanne Ozment
Dean of Undergraduate Studies and Dean of Women