The Citadel Faculty Council
Minutes of the Regular Meeting of Feb. 20, 2003
Board of Visitors Room, Jenkins Hall

1. Prof. George Williams, chairperson of Faculty Council, called the meeting to order at 11:04 a.m.
   
   
2. Members attending: Profs. Allen, Andrade, Bishop, Bloss, Briggs, Chen, Davakos, Dunlop, Foley, Foster, Kelley, Lally, Lipscomb, Matthews, Murray, Snively, G. Williams, Woo, Woolsey, Zuraw, Heisser for B. Carter and Peeples for Dunlop.
   
   
3. Members absent: Profs. Niksch and Pilcher.
   
   
4. Prof. Briggs moved and Prof. Allen seconded that the minutes of the meeting of Nov. 7 be approved; this was passed unanimously. After a correction to distinguish Provost Carter from Prof. B. Carter, Prof. Davakos moved and Prof. Murray seconded that the minutes of the meeting of Nov. 20 be approved; this passed unanimously.
   
   
5. Prof. Williams called attention to the updated list of Faculty Council members, and led a round of applause for Prof. Matthews’ new baby daughter.
   
   
6. Prof. Williams reported the possibility raised at the latest Academic Board meeting that faculty and staff might get unpaid furloughs to help with the state budget crisis. In particular, faculty might get docked 1.5% of our salaries for the Monday through Wednesday of Thanksgiving week, when we do not teach but which we have previously been paid for. Prof. Lipscomb asked why this was only possible and not certain if all state employees are supposed to be docked and furloughed; Prof. Williams pointed out that professors are not classified employees and it is possible that Gen. Grinalds will find other funds to pay us for those days.
   
   
7. The issue was raised of the proposed state law, pending in the House of Representatives, to reaffirm the status of South Carolina as an at-will employment state: that is, that there is a presumption that employers can fire and employees can quit at will without necessarily giving a reason. Some people have been concerned that this would have the effect of abolishing tenure. Prof. Silver, as a guest speaker, noted that it does not abolish the tenure of people who have it now but it could conceivably be held to do so for future hiring after the law is passed, which would put South Carolina colleges at a great disadvantage in job searches. Prof. Woolsey said that the law was not intended to touch tenure, present or future, but was intended to reverse recent court decisions which made employee handbooks into contracts; the hiring of college professors never has been at-will and the law does not forbid employers to make contracts which are not at-will. There was a discussion on whether if tenure were abolished in South Carolina professor salaries would go up to make up for the danger; Prof. Lally noted that tenure was needed to, for instance, leave us free to flunk well-connected students. The question of whether Faculty Council should pass a resolution against the measure was raised but not resolved.
   
   
8. Prof. Zuraw reiterated her finding that Faculty Council cannot change its own charter without a vote of two-thirds of all current members, a majority vote by the faculty as a whole and the approval of the President. Therefore, the Council had not effectively changed the quorum definition in its November 20 vote. Prof. Woolsery moved and Prof. Allen seconded that the Nov. 20 motion be re-passed, now that 21 out of 23 members were here: that a quorum for a Faculty Council meeting be redefined as half the current members plus one. This was passed unanimously, and it was agreed that the Council would seek the approval of the majority of all faculty at the general faculty meeting on May 2^nd.
   
   
9. The issue of how the five members of the Faculty Tenure and Promotion Appeals Committee would be selected was raised. Should the Tenure and Promotion Committee itself choose the Appeals Committee, and should they be free to choose all five from the same department? Prof. Davakos objected to the FTP Commiittee choosing its own Appeals Committee, since they would be the ones appealed from and there might thus be conflict of interest; he proposed that Faculty Council or the Committee on Committees choose the five. Prof. Briggs noted that the Committee on Committees was the most logical body to choose the Appeals Committee, since they could do it while choosing the FTP Committee itself. Prof. Bloss moved and Prof. Davakos seconded that the Appeals Committee be chosen by the present method this year but that starting next year it be chosen by the Committee on Committees. This was passed unanimously.
   
   
10. Prof. Williams reported on his talk with Provost Carter about his proposed Academic Integrity Statement. Provost Carter had said it was not intended to put more burdens on the faculty, it would not forbid getting students to submit hard copies as well as electronic copies, it could be done by getting them to submit files on disk rather than e-mail attachments, and he was receptive to modifying and clarifying the statement. Prof. Bishop noted that he had not clafiried whether Provost Carter meant it to be compulsory on professors to require student papers to be submitted in electronic form; Prof. Williams said he thought that was perhaps what he wanted. Profs. Bishop, Briggs, Lally and Bloss described the reaction of their departments to the idea, which was almost totally negative. Prof. Snively noted that not all students know how to submit papers electronically, and Prof. Foster noted that if most students sent theirs by e-mail the system would probably crash. Prof. Williams suggested that an ad hoc committee be formed to draft a clearer version of the policy; Profs. Allen, Bishop, Davakos and Foster volunteered for this.
    
    
11. The Council elected the two new Committee on Committees members for the year. There were at first no nominations and no self-nominations, so Prof. Williams nominated himself (though he will be on sabbatical for one term of the three-year stint) and Prof. Briggs nominated Russ Hilleke. Prof. Bloss moved and Prof. Davakos seconded that the nominations be closed and these two elected; this was passed unanimously.
    
    
12. The subcommittees reported on their progress. This included weekly meetings by the Ethics Initiative subcommittee and examination of other schools’ and disciplines’ ethics codes; no action since last time by the Standing Committees, Faculty Manual and Long-Term Planning subcommittees, though Prof. Davakos noted that Dean Metts said he would give the Faculty Manual group a copy of the new Faculty Manual when he finished revising it; a new member, Prof. Bishop, on the Faculty Evaluation subcommittee and some action in contacting the AAUP and other colleges for what they thought of student evaluations of faculty; and Prof. Zuraw’s report on the Faculty Council charter. This last included the quorum issue already acted upon earlier in the meeting, and their discovery that Faculty Council meetings are supposed to be restricted to members and those others the Council deems necessary to the business of the meeting. Since the present Council has been inviting all faculty members to come and observe the meetings, it might wish to revise that statement.
    
    
13. Prof. Williams proposed that future chairs and vice-chairs of Faculty Council have two-year terms instead of one. This would help the Council’s continuity and credibility, as it takes several meetings for a new chair to get things going.
    
    
14. Prof. Williams mentioned without action being taken the possibility of getting a place on campus for Faculty Council records to be kept, and the question of whether Faculty Council wanted to take a position on General Orders being distributed only electronically.
    
    
15. Prof. Davakos raised the complaint that students bring their professors pink slips to get out of class for things like army physicals instead of trying to schedule them during parade or on Saturday. Prof. Williams commissioned him to look into this issue and report.
    
    
16. The meeting was adjourned at 12:13 p.m.