The Citadel Faculty Council
Minutes of the Regular Meeting of Oct. 23, 2003
Board of Visitors Room, Jenkins Hall1. Prof. Lisa Zuraw, chairperson of Faculty Council, called the meeting to order at 11:04 a.m.
2. Members attending: Profs. Allen, Andrade, Bloss, Bishop, Briggs, B. Carter, Darden, Davakos, Lally, Matthews, McKinney, Miller, Moody, Niksch, Snively, Woolsey, Zuraw, Trautman for Chen, Woo for Davis and Neulander for Knapp. Prof. Tom Thompson was present for most of the meeting as an observer from the Committee on Committees.
3. Members absent: Profs. Hewett, Lipscomb and Murray.
4. Prof. Zuraw called the Council’s attention to several handouts and announcements. The SACS accreditation process had produced nine areas where SACS could not determine whether The Citadel met its criteria for accreditation or (in two cases) found the school non-compliant, and these things will be further dealt with. The eleven suggestions for improving the quality of freshman and sophomore education need to be ranked in order of importance by faculty members, and the Quality Enhancement Plan committee will work on its report after it gets these rankings. Twenty-nine staff members have started a lawsuit against the school for salary discrimination on the basis of race or sex; Provost Carter assures the faculty that while looking into this issue he will not forget faculty salaries, but a commission will compare our salary structure with that of ten comparable colleges. Prof. Davakos pointed out that there are not ten colleges anywhere comparable to The Citadel, and Prof. Zuraw indicated that Provost. Carter had meant ten other small state colleges. The search for a Dean for the School of Math and Science has not started yet and will not take place this school year. Finally, Prof. Zuraw attended the meeting of the American Association of University Professors in Indiananpolis, and came away with the conviction that the faculty, and Faculty Council as its representative, really needs to fulfil our role in overseeing the governance of the college and speaking up on campus issues. "We are not always right when we speak, but it is never right not to speak." This is especially true on this campus where the military chain of command is so respected (there was some dubiety about this by ROTC-department Council members) and there seems to be a much faster turnover in the Administration than in the faculty.
5. The approval of the minutes for the meeting of Sept. 25 was postponed till the November meeting because the minutes had not been available to the Council members to read before the meeting started.
6. The Council looked at the first four revised charters of the standing committees for approval. First was the Computer Services Committee. It was noted that department names were used in the document instead of school names because the school structure was not yet complete—for instance, the Library had not yet been assigned to a school—and that when it was the names could easily be updated. Prof. Briggs made the general remark that the standing committees used to be appointed and run by the Administration, but were now autonomous, and that there should be language in the mission statements establishing that the committees could be proactive and expand their sphere of activity. Prof. Darden pointed out that Computer Services had done so in the past year, and Prof. Zuraw noted that Section III of this charter, especially D:3, explicitly provided for the committee’s branching out into new tasks. A change was made in section IA to say that the Provost would appoint both student members rather than the obsolete Dean of Undergraduate Studies appointing one. This charter was then approved by unanimous vote.
Next was the Library Services Committee. Prof. Lally noted that the introductory mission statement contained redundant language, and it was shortened to leave out dubious specifics. The part about the committee supporting the library in its mission, however, was retained after Prof. Carter noted that the library had been underfunded until faculty spoke out about needing more books. Prof. Trautman wanted to know whether the committee was now necessary; Prof. Neulander pointed out that it was active and there was a consensus it was needed. With the addition of a hyphen to "three-year term", this charter was approved unanimously.
Next was the Core Curriculum Oversight Committee. Prof. Lally inquired about its charter’s Section IV on committee autonomy, which was different in wording and procedures from the others. Profs. Thompson and Zuraw noted that this charter was written from scratch, and that its wording on autonomy could be changed to match the template for the others. The Department of Business was added in section IA to the list of departments which, not having a course in the core curriculum, would have a member on the committee. The words "will count" in section IB, about whether substituting for a committee member would count toward a member’s maximum six consecutive years on the committee, were changed to "will not count". This charter was then approved unanimously.
Prof. Thompson, who had to leave, noted that these minor changes the Council was making would be fine with the Committee on Committees.
Last was the Awards Committee. It was noted that section III.2.1 of its charter, about developing and nominating candidates for national scholarships, duplicated the language in the Scholarship Committee’s charter, and that the language would be removed in the Scholarship Committee’s charter rather than here. The date of approval was added to this and to the other three charters, and this one too was approved unanimously.
7. Prof. Zuraw noted that other charters which had come in would be held over until the November meeting. She pointed out that one committee, Campus Affairs, did not yet even have a chair for this year; Prof. Bishop volunteered to do this and Prof. Briggs, also on that committee, announced that he appointed her.
8. Prof. Zuraw announced that it had been found that to clear the asbestos out of the Faculty House and reopen it would take $120,000.
9. On the issue of campus parking, Prof. Zuraw publicized Col. Tomasik’s proposal to put a gate with entrance by electronic card on the Capers lot and charge everyone who parks there the $120 of the reserved parking fee. There was a suggestion that Faculty Council vote to oppose this; Prof. Matthews asked what the difference would be from the previous situation of overselling the permits. Prof. Zuraw proposed delaying a vote on our position until we had ascertained exactly what the school’s parking mission was: is the primary purpose of their parking policy to make money or some other? Prof. Bishop proposed that the Campus Affairs Committee take a survey of faculty and staff to ascertain campus attitudes toward the current parking policies: how many people really wanted or really opposed the new reserved spaces? It was noted by some that the previous survey had been fairly futile and people would tend to delete it unread if it came in e-mail. Issues of whether the Citadel faculty is a bunch of cry-babies whose parking fees are actually low, whether staff members unjustly take up Capers lot and other issues were discussed. Prof. Briggs moved and Prof. Niksch seconded that Prof. Zuraw be authorized to ask the Administration what their mission and goals are as to the parking policy; this was passed unanimously.
10. Prof. Zuraw called for volunteers for a subcommittee to write a survey about parking issues: attitudes toward the current policy and suggestions for alternatives. Profs. Bishop, Briggs and Woolsey volunteered for this, with the understanding that the Campus Affairs Committee could also be involved..
11. Prof. Zuraw asked if the Council wanted to do anything at this time to further develop the faculty ethics code. The Council did not.
12. The meeting was adjourned at 12:07 p.m.