The Citadel Faculty Council
Minutes of the Regular Meeting of March 18, 2004
Board of Visitors Room, Jenkins Hall1. Prof. Lisa Zuraw, chairperson of Faculty Council, called the meeting to order at 11:05 a.m.
2. Members attending: Profs. Allen, Andrade, Bloss, Bishop, Briggs, B. Carter, Chen, Darden, Davakos, Davis, Hewett, Knapp, Lally, Matthews, McKinney, Niksch, Snively, Woolsey, Zuraw and White for Allen.
3. Members absent: Profs. Lipscomb, Miller, Moody and Murray.
4. The minutes for the meeting of Feb. 19 were presented for approval; after two deletions of remarks not formally part of the meeting and the addition of the Financial Affairs Committee's new mandate to report to Faculty Council, Prof. Woolsey moved and Prof. Darden seconded that they be approved. This was passed unanimously.
5. Prof. Zuraw gave the Council an update on the Provost search. The search committee had recommended only one name, that of Donald Steven, to send to Gen. Grinalds as the desired candidate. Gen. Grinalds was uneasy about just one recommendation and wanted a slate of three to choose from, so the search committee will now bring in two more candidates for our and his consideration. They will be here the first week in April, and the Administration hopes the faculty will give them the same consideration as the other four. Council members demanded an explanation as to why, after all the faculty's previous work and thought and if there was such a clear favourite, it was necessary to bring in other people. Prof. Knapp pointed out that since the Provost is the chief academic officer of the school, the faculty is vitally concerned in the selection and is owed an explanation of why the outcome of the first search wasn't good enough. He moved and Prof. Bishop seconded that Faculty Council formally ask Gen. Grinalds for such an explanation. Prof. Zuraw proposed that she send a letter to Gen. Grinalds telling of our concerns and asking that he explain to all the faculty in writing. There was some debate on how explicit this letter should be: was it public knowledge that Dr. Steven was the clear favourite and should the letter reflect that? Prof. Darden pointed out that it was public knowledge, mentioned at Academic Board and reported back to at least one department. Prof. Zuraw said she would write asking what the status of the Provost search is and why two more candidates are being brought in, and request an answer to all faculty. It was decided that this did not require a formal vote.
6. Prof. Zuraw gave some other reports. As noted last month, SACS is coming for its assessment visit at the end of the month. The Public Affairs office wants more academic news to put on the website; Prof. Briggs pointed out that the student research posters displayed on Corps Day were supposed to be on the website but weren't. Finally, Gen. Grinalds and Provost Carter want Faculty Council to endorse the Quality Enhancement Plan. This would mean acknowledging and approving the parts of it that have to do with academics; thus, in future, Faculty Council should adopt a policy on midterm grades, encourage cadets to invite faculty and staff to athletic games or the mess hall, encourage faculty and staff to go when invited, and make a role for cadets in academic orientation. Prof. Davakos pointed out that PT tests will soon be transferred from the ROTC departments to the Health, Exercise and Sports Science Department, so Faculty Council should perhaps get a position on this too. A discussion of the QEP in general ensued: members talked about the factors that cut down on cadet sleep, the revision of the 24-hour schedule and the fact that juniors and seniors are ignored in the recommendations. Prof. White noted that the 27 points now in the QEP were distilled from a voluminous spate of comments about campus problems, and the situation of freshman and first-term sophomores was a convenient umbrella for most of them; the Administration's desire right now is not to have us decide specifically how every academic-related point should be implemented but to have us endorse the general concept of the QEP so it can be shown to SACS as a faculty-approved plan and help get us accredited. Profs. Briggs and Woolsey noted that we had done a lot of fine-tuning previously, there was nothing unacceptable in the plan and we should not quibble now but endorse it in general. Prof. Hewett said that faculty do endorse the general goals but want to examine specifics in detail. Prof. Briggs moved and Prof. Woolsey seconded that "Faculty Council endorses the goals of the Quality Enhancement Plan and looks forward to assisting the further development and implementation of the plan." This was passed unanimously.
7. Two revised committee charters were presented for approval. Prof. Woolsey moved and Prof. Davakos seconded that the new Committee on Committees charter be adopted; this was passed unanimously. It was noted that the new charter of the Curriculum and Instruction Committee needs to change "Vice President for Academic Affairs" to "Provost"; then it was approved unanimously.
8. Prof. Zuraw reported that Provost Carter had said he will not "take action" on the Faculty Code of Ethics until Faculty Council had examined and passed it. Prof. Bishop wanted to know what he meant by "take action", since the Code was supposed to be only a suggestion about ethics for professors. Prof. Zuraw explained that when Faculty Council had passed the ethics code it would be passed by Academic Board and put into the Faculty Manual, as well as its current location on the Citadel website. This caused alarm: Prof. Matthews brought up the new statement sent out by the Office of Human Resources stating that as of March 1, 2004, employees of The Citadel would be rated as to job performance based on their ethics as well as other factors. Therefore, if the Council passes the Ethics Code, will it be used for our evaluations? Complaints about the code were raised: that it was too long and too specific, that Citadel professors did not really need their own specific ethics code since our job is not that different from elsewhere, and that the subcommittee which worked on it had reinvented the wheel. Prof. Zuraw noted that her department felt that our ethics code was really a code of conduct; Prof. Woolsey thought there was too much in it about obeying the rules. Prof. Bishop pointed out that when the subcommittee had made up the code it was supposed to be just a suggestion, in line with Gen. Grinalds' desire to have everyone think about their own ethics; if the Administration was now moving it more and more into a gray area that would end with it being an official requirement, perhaps we should scrap it for a one-sentence code reading "Faculty will do their jobs". Prof. Briggs noted that the preamble did contain an explicit statement about the code not being a new contractual obligation, and opined that the code was a very good one and clearly not intended as official.
Prof. Davakos suggested that the Council simply adopt the ethics code put out by the AAUP, which had the advantage of being backed by the college-teaching profession's national organization. Others agreed; Prof. Knapp noted that The Citadel was not a special environment but a college, and should go with the standard code of our profession. Prof. Hewett suggested that the Council pass a resolution that we approved the concept of a faculty ethics code but wanted to keep working on the details; Prof. Zuraw said that the Administration wanted something definite soon to put on the Web and in the Faculty Handbook. Prof. Woolsey moved and Prof. Davakos seconded that Faculty Council adopt the ethics code of the AAUP instead of the one our subcommittee had written. However, he then moved and Prof. Davakos seconded that consideration of this motion be postponed till the April meeting, so that the proposal could be discussed in the departments. This was passed unanimously.
9. Prof. Briggs gave out the Campus Affairs Committee's new parking survey and asked Council members to take it to their departments and minutely survey faculty opinion on parking; people should return the completed surveys to him by early April.
10. It was noted that two members of the Committee on Committees, Profs. Thompson and Foster, will need replacing at the next meeting.
11. In new business, Prof. Knapp introduced a proposal that Faculty Council take the position that no faculty members should have to wear military uniform unless they were on active duty in the military. The question was raised whether the school's attendance policy for athletes was different than for other cadets. Prof. Zuraw asked whether the Council wished to pursue reopening the Faculty House; Prof. Lally said yes, partly because candidates for faculty positions should be taken to eat lunch somewhere nicer than the fifth floor of Bond.
12. The meeting was adjourned at 12:23 p.m.