The Citadel Faculty Council
Minutes of the Special Meeting of Sept. 30, 1999, on Post-Tenure Review
Board of Visitors Room, Jenkins Hall

1. Prof. Julie Lipovsky, Faculty Council chairperson, called the meeting to order upon achieving a quorum at 12:05 P.M.

2. Members attending: Professors Bishop, Brown, Chen, H. Ezell, Feurtado, Hurren, Lipovsky, Maynard, Pages, Silver, T. Thompson, Toubiana, B. White, G. Williams, Woo and Zuraw.

Members absent: Professors Dunlop, Emanuel, Foster, McDowell, Pilcher, Wallace and Wolf.

3. Prof. Lipovsky explained the history behind the meeting: that Faculty Council had written a draft proposal for the procedure of post-tenure review in 1998 and then the Council had reviewed it and suggested amendments on May 7, 1998. There was supposed to be a joint committee from Faculty Council and Academic Board to review the documents, but this had never materialized, and after a year and a half of inaction the post-tenure review procedure was supposed to be due tomorrow (Oct. 1). The Council's choices were therefore to do nothing and let Academic Board handle it all, to send the May 7, 1998 recommendations to Academic Board unaltered, or to examine them now.

4. The Council chose to examine each concern brought up by the committee in 1998, and did so for the rest of the meeting. Members had already noted, and it was agreed on now, that Recommendations 4 and 6 (forbidding post-tenure review from being used to revoke tenure, and not doing it to a professor within five years or less of retirement) were already in the main document, and we should simply so note. Gardel Feurtado moved and Steve Silver seconded that we amend Recommendation 8 to say a faculty member had the right to appeal the decision or the process of his or her review, and this was passed unanimously. Places were found in the document for Recommendations 2 (p. 4 Item 4), 5 (p. 3 between Points 1 and 2) and 1 (p. 3 add Item 6, but the Council agreed to delete the idea that the department head could determine when a faculty member needs the help described). Recommendation 7 was eliminated.

5. This left Recommendation 3; if adopted it would go on p. 3 Item 2 of the document, but there was a debate over whether the committee for the post-tenure review should really be picked by the faculty member him- or herself. This was recognized as too big an issue to resolve before the 1:00 classes, so the Council agreed to leave it till later.

6. Hack Ezell moved and Gardel Feurtado seconded that Faculty Council approve its document and 7 of the 8 recommendations and send it to the Academic Board, and that they should send it back to us when done to dispose of Recommendation 3. This passed unanimously.

7. The meeting was adjourned at 12:43 P.M.