The Citadel Faculty Council
Minutes of the Regular Meeting of March 20, 2003
Room 302, Capers Hall

  1. Prof. George Williams, chairperson of Faculty Council, called the meeting to order at 11:07 a.m.

  2. Members attending: Profs. Allen, Andrade, Bishop, Bloss, B. Carter, Chen, Davakos, Dunlop, Foster, Lally, Lipscomb, Murray, G. Williams, Woo, Woolsey, Zuraw, Bell for Matthews and Speelman for Pilcher.

  3. Members absent: Profs. Briggs, Foley, Kelley, Niksch and Snively.

  4. Prof. Dunlop moved and Prof. Zuraw seconded that the minutes of the meeting of Jan. 31, 2002 [sic; Prof. Bishop had just got around to writing them] be approved. The question was raised of whether Council members could legally vote to approve minutes from a time when they had not been members, but Prof. Williams suggested that the minutes from early 2002 be approved conditionally. The January 31 minutes were approved unanimously by 13 members, a new-style not-yet-legal quorum. Prof. Dunlop moved and Prof. Davakos seconded that the minutes of Feb. 28, 2002 [again, sic] be approved; this was passed unanimously by 14 members. Prof. Zuraw moved and Prof. Murray seconded that the minutes of Dec. 12, 2002 be approved; this was passed unanimously by a currently-legal quorum of 16. Prof. Zuraw moved and Prof. Bloss seconded that the minutes of Jan. 23 (2003) be approved; this was passed unanimously by 17 members, the total for this meeting.

  5. Prof. Bishop moved and Prof. Woo seconded that the Jan. 31 and Feb. 28 minutes from 2002 be repassed with a legal quorum now that one was here. This was passed unanimously.

  6. Prof. Williams announced that the Academic Board had approved Faculty Council’s motion, passed at the Feb. 20 meeting, on how to choose the Appeals Committee for the Faculty Tenure and Promotion Committee, with the addition of a provision for an alternate member. There was mention of the issue of conflict of interest, but it was reiterated that this had been solved by having the Committee on Committees appoint the Appeals Committee rather than the FTP Committee itself.

  7. Prof. Williams also announced that the newly complete Committee on Committees had met and was finishing its work for the year, and that since there were only 80 seats for faculty at graduation half of each department should stay away from it. He showed the Council the proposed Quality Enhancement Plan the Administration was working on to try to improve orientation of freshmen and new graduate students, and the list of members on the SACS Info Leadership Team.

  8. Prof. Williams shared with the Council an e-mail from Col. Tomasik announcing the membership of a new Ad Hoc Parking Committee, different from the one which sponsored the joint Council meeting and town meeting last semester. This committee would discuss issues like whether to prohibit sophomores from having cars and whether to use WLI Field for special-event parking. Council members noted that Peter Greim, who worked so hard on the parking issue last term, was not on this committee; that there was only one faculty member out of 15 members; and that campus residents needed more representation on the committee. Prof. Lally observed that there really needed to be an active Campus Residents’ Association. Prof. Williams suggested that Prof. Bishop send an e-mail to Col. Tomasik expressing Faculty Council’s concerns on this issue and asking that Prof. Greim and a faculty campus resident be added to the committee.

  9. Prof. Williams announced that the scheduled May 8th Faculty Council meeting was changed to May 1st so that the Council could, if it would, pass the new Faculty Ethics Code just in time to get it approved by the full faculty at the general faculty meeting on May 2nd. He described the further work of the Ethics Initiative subcommittee and its hope to produce a short, manageable code of suggested (not required) ethical principles.

  10. Inquiry was made into the membership of the ad hoc committee on Provost Carter’s Academic Integrity statement. It was established that the members were Profs. Allen, Bishop, Davakos and Foster, who undertook to meet and revise the policy into a motion for the next Faculty Council meeting on April 26th.

  11. The other Council subcommittees reported on their work. Prof. Carter produced such a concise statement of the work of the Standing Committees Subcommittee that Prof. Williams asked that it be included in the meeting’s minutes in toto. It accordingly follows:

    The subcommittee met Tuesday, March 17. Attending were Profs. Lisa Zuraw, Darin Matthews, and Betsey Carter. The members reviewed the subcommittee charge to review/consider standing committee charters and membership.

    1. Prof. Zuraw reported that she spoke with Tom Thompson (Committee on Committees chair) about the status of the committee charters. He said that ConC is still gathering them and will have them in place next fall for SACS.
    2. Prof. Zuraw recommended that Faculty Council establish a comprehensive calendar of deadlines for submitting proposals/reports. For example:
      • Research Committee
      • Development Committee
      • Sabbaticals Committee
      • Computer Services Committee
      • FTPC
        * Post Tenure Review
        * Personal Data Sheets
        * Third Year Review
      • Other?

      The chairs of these committees would be asked to supply deadline dates for 2003-2004.

    3. Committee structure.
      The move to a school structure will necessitate a change in committee structure and representation.
      • Is this the role of Committee on Committees or Faculty Council?
      • What is the relationship between ConC and FC? Does ConC report to FC? ConC charter unclear on this.
      • Should this restructuring be done in conjunction with the Deans?
      • Is there a formula to designate committee makeup (e.g., # of faculty, # of majors, highest degree, core curriculum?)
      • Where does the Library fit in the new organization? Its own dean? With another school?
      • The subcommittee needs direction on how to proceed.
  12. Continuing with the subcommittee reports, Prof. Lally summarized the meetings of the Faculty Evaluation (by students) Subcommittee: it recommended that a standing college committee be formed to address ongoing evaluation issues. Prof. Lally had also contacted the AAUP, which strongly advises that faculty be involved in student evaluation of faculty.
    Prof. Davakos reported that the Faculty Manual Subcommittee had still been unable to find a hard copy of the Manual currently being revised by Dean Metts, and noted that if one was not produced by next month it would be too late for the subcommittee to look at it and there was a chance it would just be finished in mid-summer and presented to the faculty in the fall as a fait accompli. Profs. Lipscomb, Woolsey and others noted that in the mid-1990s Faculty Council had spent a whole year going through every change in the Faculty Manual; the changes to it were supposed to pass both Faculty Council and Academic Board, so why had the last two versions been rewritten unilaterally by the Administration?
    Prof. Woo reported no action by the Long-Term Planning Subcommittee.
    Prof. Zuraw, chair of the Faculty Council Charter Subcommittee, asked whether Prof. Williams would handle the vote on the new quorum of half plus one at the general faculty meeting; he said he would.

  13. Prof. Williams again raised the possibility of a two-year term for future Faculty Council chairpersons in aid of better continuity of the Council’s work. Prof. Woolsey suggested that the logistics of this be worked out by the FC Charter Subcommittee. On the issue of a chair who was not re-elected as FC representative by his department in the second year of his term, Prof. Woolsey thought the chair should then just step down, but Prof. Lally thought it should be written into the charter that once elected the chair was the chair for the two years. Prof. Williams suggested a group of former Faculty Council chairs be formed as consultants to give the Council institutional memory.

  14. At Prof. Bishop’s suggestion, Prof. Woolsey moved and Prof. Bloss seconded that the motion from the Jan. 23 meeting—the motion that the Faculty Council secretary should take minutes of all general faculty meetings, which had been passed by a not-yet-legal new-style quorum of 14—be repassed. It was, unanimously.

  15. Prof. Woolsey brought up the issue of the at-will employment bill now in the legislature. He got the text of it and it seemed to him that it did have the effect of abolishing tenure; but a State Representative sent him a letter saying there was an amendment exempting tenured employees. Prof. Williams asked that this letter be produced and included in the minutes in toto. [But this was rendered moot when the at-will employment bill died in committee.]

  16. Prof. Lally urged that the Council carry out its desire to get a room on campus to store its records.

  17. The meeting was adjourned at 12:05 p.m.