THE CITADEL FACULTY COUNCIL
Minutes of the Regular Meeting of 22 April 1993
Board of Visitors Room, Jenkins Hall, 11:00 AM
(First meeting of 1993-94)
1. Professor Mailloux, 1992-93 Chair, called Faculty Council to order at
11:04 AM. The 1993-94 Chair, Professor John Coussons, was introduced.
Professor Davis moved, second by all present, that Faculty Council show
its appreciation of Professor Mailloux for his diligent work this past
year. Motion carried by applause.
Professor Mailloux expressed his thanks to his vice chair and secretary
for their service.
2. Members in attendance: Professors Anessi, Carter, Coussons, Davis,
Deutz, Francel, Hewett, McRae, Nath, Ouzts, Richardson, Tripp, Tucker,
and Woolsey.
Members Absent: Professors Adelman, O. Bowman, Epple, Milukas, Salas,
Teske, and a representative from Biology.
Professor Mailloux substituted for Professor Shields.
Professor Alford substituted for the to-be-selected representative from
Business Administration.
3. Approval of Previous Minutes: Professor Davis moved, second by Professor
Alford, to accept the minutes of the 15 Apr 93 meeting. Carried
unanimously.
4. The Chair welcomed the newly elected members to Faculty Council. A
roster was distributed with the agenda and is attached as an appendix.
[Appended roster is correct as of 16 Sep 93]
It was noted that Business Administration and Biology need to select
representatives for the coming year.
5. Election of Officers.
Professor Mailloux nominated, second by Professor McRae, Professor Tucker
to be vice chair in 1993-94 and to serve as chair in 1994-95. As there
were no further nominations, Professor Mailloux moved, second provided,
that Professor Tucker be elected by acclamation. Carried unanimously.
Professor Mailloux nominated, second provided, Professor Richardson to be
secretary in 1993-94. As there were no further nominations, Professor
Mailloux moved, second provided, that Professor Richardson be elected by
acclamation. Carried unanimously.
6. Report by the Past Chair, Professor Mailloux, on the Academic Board
meeting of 20 April 1993
a. The returned ballots-to-faculty concerning the methods of
implementing the CDF Faculty Achievement Award were counted by Dean
Metts and Professor Mailloux. The results are:
Option A: the funds should be redirected toward another cause to
be selected by the faculty. 66 NO, 45 YES
Option B: if redirected, the funds should be distributed to each
department to redirect or as a lump sum toward a common
cause. 87 DEPARTMENTS, 22 COMMON CAUSE
The choices concerning the selection of recipients for the awards
were to be ranked by decreasing preference. The following point sums
resulted:
155 points: consideration at departmental level
187 points: consideration at cluster level
218 points: college-wide consideration
Summary: The selection process will be at the departmental level
with no special ranking of departments. The pool of $60,000 is to be
divided by the 137 faculty eligible for consideration ($438 each) and
distributed to departments according to the number of eligible
faculty within the departments. The department heads have been asked
to construct a faculty-achievement-based-plan for the awarding of
these funds in their respective departments; after the plan is
approved by Vice President Meenaghan, the selection of recipients
will begin. The award is to recognize calendar year 1992
achievements.
b. CDF Faculty Fellows: Four positions will become available in
September 1993, two for teaching and two for research. These
appointments are to a three year term and may be extended, upon
reapplication, for a second continuing term. Of the three current
holders, Professors Adelman, Greim, and J. Moore, only Professor
Adelman is completing a second appointment.
A five-member committee is to be appointed by Vice President
Meenaghan to review application proposals. On behalf of Faculty
Council, Professor Mailloux has submitted ten names of faculty for
consideration; Academic Board will be submitting additional names.
The proposals, which must indicate whether the application is for a
teaching or for a research fellowship, will be due in September. The
details of eligibility, etc., are outlined in the Faculty Manual.
c. Additional policy on sabbaticals: Department heads and academic
administrators who have served for ten years or longer will be
automatically eligible for a sabbatical (as opposed to a paid leave
of absence) at the end of their term. These sabbaticals will be in
addition to the usual number granted by the college in a year.
Subsequent sabbaticals (as a faculty member) will require a minimum
of seven years of additional service.
d. Faculty Manual: Perusal has continued; there have been no changes to
the various recommendations made by Faculty Council.
7. New Business
a. Election of membership to the Committee on Committees.
Cluster A: Education, Psychology, Business Administration, Health
and Physical Education: two representatives.
Professors Linda Elksnin (Education) and Bill Woolsey (Business
Administration) were nominated and seconded. Elected by
acclamation.
Cluster B: English, History, Political Science, Modern Language,
Library: one representative; Professor Coussons (History) as Chair
of Faculty Council assumes the second positions.
Professor Woodrow Holbein (English) was nominated and seconded.
Elected by acclamation.
Cluster C: Biology, Chemistry, Physics, Mathematics and Computer
Science, Civil Engineering, Electrical Engineering: two
representatives.
Professors Margaret Francel (Mathematics and Computer Science)
and Ken Brannan (Civil Engineering) were nominated and
secconded. Elected by acclamation.
b. From Strategic Planning: revised "Vision for the Future" statement.
The statement which Faculty Council has previously reviewed has been
rewritten at the request of Academic Board. This new version places
a greater emphasis on the Evening College (which includes both the
graduate and undergraduate programs).
Professor Tucker moved, second by Professor Nath, that Faculty
Council receive the document for information purposes. Carried
unanimously.
Professor Mailloux asked that any comments from individuals be given
to him for forwarding to Vice President Meenaghan.
c. From Committee on Committees: Modifications to the charters of the
Research, Development, and Sabbaticals Committees.
During the 1992-93 year, questions were raised whether or not
untenured faculty should serve on the the Sabbaticals Committee.
Both the Sabbaticals Committee and Faculty Council have voted that
the membership of the Sabbaticals Committee should be exclusively
tenured faculty. To accomplish this, the Committee on Committees
recommends that at least one of a department's representatives to the
Research and Development Committees must be tenured.
The recommendation follows from a desire to keep the Sabbaticals
Committee a part of the Research and Development Committees and to
allow untenured faculty to serve on these two committees but at the
same time restrict the membership of the Sabbaticals Committee to
tenured faculty.
The respective committees have approved the necessary changes in
their charters.
Professor Mailloux moved, second by Professor Tucker, that the
statement in the charter of the Sabbaticals Committee, section I.A.,
which reads "The Committee . . . one representative." be followed by
the sentence "Only tenured faculty are eligible for the Sabbaticals
Committee." Carried unanimously.
Professor Mailloux moved, second by Professor Tripp, that the
following sentence be added to the end of section I.A. in the
charters of both the Research and Development Committees: "In naming
members, the Committee on Committees will also ensure that the
representatives to the Research and Development Committees from a
single department are not both tenured."
d. Meeting time. The Chair invited discussion concerning a more
appropriate meeting time for Faculty Council. For the present, the
third Thursday of the month at 11:00 AM will continue to be the
primary meeting time.
8. Meeting Adjourned, 12:07 PM
/s/ Thomas H. Richardson
Secretary/Faculty Council
* * * * * *
APPENDIX: Faculty Council Roster: 1993-1994
Email Department Representative Term Expires Subcom
========== ============= =================== ============ ======
kelleyj Biology Joe Kelley 1995 2nd B
simmonss Business Adm. Susan Simmons 1995 1st C
woolseyw Business Adm. Bill Woolsey 1994 1st B
richardsont Chemistry Thomas Richardson 1995 2nd EX Sec'y
anessit Civil Engin. Thomas J. Anessi 1995 2nd B
hewetts Education Stephanie Hewett 1995 1st C
ouztsd Education Dan T. Ouzts 1994 1st A
epplej Electrical Eng Joe Epple 1995 1st C
shieldsd English David Shields * 1994 2nd C
tuckert English Ted Tucker 1995 1st EX V-chair
coussonsj History John S. Coussons 1994 1st EX Chair
trippj History Joseph Tripp 1995 1st A
nathh Library/Museum Herb Nath 1995 1st B
francelm Math/CSCI Margaret Francel 1994 1st A
deutza Math/CSCI Andre Deutz 1995 1st C
mcraec Mod. Languages Christopher McRae 1994 1st B
adelmans Physics Saul J. Adelman 1994 1st A
carterj Phys Educ. John S. Carter 1994 1st B
davise Political Sci Ed B. Davis 1994 2nd A
bowmano Psychology D. Oliver Bowman 1995 2nd A
salasm Aerospace St Mark Salas 1994 1st B
milukasm Military Martin Milukas 1994 1st C
teskej Naval Science Julian Teske 1994 1st A
* replaces Peter Mailloux during 1993-94 sabbatical leave
===============================================================================
1992-93
===============================================================================
(Highlights of the 1992-93 Academic Year to be inserted here.)
The Chairs and Secretaries of the 1992-1993 Committees are invited to
forward their reports to Tom Richardson (RICHARDSONT) for inclusion.
The generic charter of the standing committees, as approved in the Spring
of 1992, states:
The committee will prepare an annual report summarizing its activities
over the previous academic year. The report must contain all
non-confidential decisions of the committee. Copies of this report,
both in hardcopy and in electronic form, will be made accessible to
all Citadel faculty, staff, and students.
This is the place to store the electronic form! It DOES NOT have to be
given to me in electronic form! THR 21 April 1993
=================================
Annual Reports are incorporated into the file in more or less
alphabetical order. Each report is separated by the "half double
line" Minor editing may be done to submitted reports, mostly to
ensure that there are appropriate margins and that "fancy format" which
works nicely on paper is eliminated (sorry, they won't work here!)
=================================
Subj: Faculty Council Annual Report -- 1992-93
From: Peter Mailloux, Chair
Note: More details on these items are available from the minutes to the
specific meetings.
Item 1: Response to termination of Veterans Program.
At a special meeting on Sept. 10, FC discussed the Board of Visitors'
decision to terminate the Veterans Program. Following lengthy discussion
and rejection of a proposed resolution by Prof. Moreland, three
resolutions were passed, to be forwarded to the President and the Board
of Visitors:
a) "Be it resolved that the Faculty Council requests that The Citadel
Board of Visitors honor the moral contract a college assumes when it
admits a student and allow current veteran students in good academic
standing to continue in the day program until they complete their
bachelor's degrees."
b) "Be it resolved that Faculty Council notes with concern the failure of
the administration (1) to consult with the faculty prior to
eliminating the veteran student day program, (2) to notify the
faculty prior to announcing the elimination of the veteran student day
program, and (3) to provide, as of the present time, the faculty with
any formal notice with respect to the elimination of the veteran
student day program."
c) "Be it resolved that Faculty Council deplores and opposes the
elimination of the veteran student day program and strongly urges the
immediate restoration of the program."
Item 2: Review of Strategic Planning Task Force Reports.
At its regularly scheduled September 17 and October 22 meetings and a
special September 24 meeting, Faculty Council reviewed reports by the
Research Task Force, the Facilities Task Force, and the Staffing Task
Force of the Strategic Planning Committee. The purpose was not to
approve the reports, but to make suggestions for their improvement.
Letters summarizing these suggestions were sent to Dr. Gary Nichols,
Chair of the Strategic Planning Committee, on October 16 and November 17,
1993.
At its February 18 meeting, Faculty Council discussed and accepted for
information purposes the Vision Statement prepared by the Strategic
Planning Committee.
Item 3: Election of members to Search Committee for Academic
Vice-President and Dean of the College.
In voting conducted between the Sept. 24 and Oct. 22 meetings, Faculty
Council members nominated candidates for the Search Committee for
Academic Vice-President and chose two of them to represent the faculty.
The candidates did not need to be members of the Faculty Council.
Professors William Gordon of the History Department and Peter Mailloux of
the English Department were elected.
In a related matter, at its November 19 meeting, Faculty Council
discussed the change in procedures for selecting members to the search
committee. No action was taken.
Item 4: Survey of faculty regarding admission of women.
At its October 22 meeting, Faculty Council voted to poll by secret ballot
the tenured and tenure-track members of the faculty on four questions:
1) Do you favor The Citadel becoming a private college?
2) Do you favor the State of South Carolina establishing a separate corps
of cadets for women students only?
3) Do you favor the admission of women to the now all-male The Citadel
Corps of Cadets?
4) In case a choice must be made among the following, which course of
action do you believe is most prudent?
a) The Citadel becoming a private college.
b) The state establishing a corps of cadets for women students.
c) The Citadel admitting women to The Citadel Corps of Cadets.
127 members of the faculty handed in ballots, although not all answered
all four questions. The results were as follows: To question #1, 10
answered yes, 102 answered no; to question #2, 10 voted yes, 105 answered
no; to question #3, 82 answered yes, 33 answered no; to question #4, 17
chose "a", 8 chose "b", and 99 chose "c".
At its November 19 meeting Faculty Council voted to report the results of
the survey to all faculty and to the President. The decision on whether
or not to release the results to the press was left to the President.
Item 5: Definition of duty hours.
At its November 19 meeting, Faculty Council discussed the definition of
duty hours (when faculty should be in uniform) as extending from the
beginning to the end of the class day, whether one is teaching or not. A
draft proposal redefining duty hours was distributed. No action was taken.
Item 6: Revision of Faculty Manual.
At its November 19 (two sessions, morning and afternoon), December 10,
February 18, March 18, and April 15 meetings, Faculty Council discussed a
long list of proposed revisions to the Faculty Manual. Areas in which
changes were recommended by Faculty Council included 1) policy on English
fluency for faculty, 2) selection of CDF faculty fellows, fixed-term
endowed faculty chairs, tenured endowed faculty chairs, and endowed
professorships, 3) faculty responsibility to the Honor Code, 4) student
evaluation of instruction, 5) selection and evaluation of academic deans
and department heads, 6) recruiting and selection of faculty, 7) the
class absence system, 8) naming of standing committees, and 9)
composition of the Sabbatical Committee.
Faculty Council's recommendations were all sent to Dean Metts and
included in the revised Faculty Manual.
Item 7: Involvement with Association of South Carolina Faculty
Senate Chairs.
At its January 21 meeting, Faculty Council approved having the chair and
vice-chair of Faculty Council participate in the Association of South
Carolina Faculty Senate Chairs. This newly-formed organization will meet
several times a year to discuss matters of concern to faculty of South
Carolina public colleges and universities.
Item 8: Institution of general faculty meetings to be sponsored
by Faculty Council.
At its January 21 meeting, Faculty Council approved a motion to hold each
semester a general faculty meeting, to be chaired by the chair of Faculty
Council. The first of these meetings was held on March 11. The
activities of this year's FC were summarized by the chair and then
questions and comments from faculty were heard. Salary issues were the
most prominent topic.
Item 9: Hiring of Dr. Jagdish Mehra by the Physics Department.
At a special February 1 meeting, Faculty Council met with Dr. Joel
Berlinghieri to discuss the circumstances of the Physics Department
hiring of Dr. Jagdish Mehra. A motion was approved that the Chair should
write a letter to Gen. Watts expressing concern about a lack of faculty
involvement (outside of the Physics Dept.) in the hiring.
Item 10: Faculty Achievement Awards.
At its March 18 meeting, Faculty Council discussed various plans for
distribution of CDF Faculty Achievement Awards. The chair was instructed
to discuss these plans with the three deans.
Item 11: Change in Membership of Faculty Council.
At its April 15 meeting, Faculty Council discussed expanding the
membership of Faculty Council to include three at-large members, one from
each cluster, and the extension of the term of the chair of Faculty
Council. No action was taken, but it was recommended that these
questions be further studied by the 1993-94 Faculty Council.
Item 12: Faculty Salaries.
At its April 15 meeting, Faculty Council heard a report from the
Employment Committee on faculty salaries. The committee requested a
general faculty meeting, sponsored by Faculty Council, to report the
results of its study of salaries at cohort institutions. The motion
failed, and the committee was requested to report its findings to faculty
council as soon as possible.
Item 13: Election of Vice-chair and Secretary for 1993-94 Faculty
Council and members of 1993-94 Committee on Committees.
At its April 22 meeting, the first of the new Faculty Council, Prof. Ted
Tucker was elected Vice-chair and Prof. Tom Richardson was re-elected
Secretary. Members were also elected to the Committee on Committees.
=================================
Subj: Faculty Development Committee -- 1992-93
From: Jim May, Chair
Earlier this year the Faculty Development Committee was asked to respond to
proposals from the dean of graduate studies for changes in the methods of
funding CDF faculty development requests. The proposals were:
1. That departmental applications for funding departmental requests for
faculty development should go through a review process;
2. That a system for formal, yearly discussions between individual
faculty and department heads be established for the purpose of planning
one's faculty development,
3. That a portion of the CDF funds presently budgeted for faculty
development be allocated to department heads for faculty development
purposes.
A copy of the Committee's recommendations to Dean Reilly is attached.
Members of the Research Committee wish to emphasize their strong, unanimous
support for their recommendations, particularly that there be no changes
from the present procedures for allocating funds for faculty development.
+++++
To: Dave Reilly, Dean of Graduate Studies
From: Jim May, Chair, Faculty Development Committee
Subj: Faculty Development Activities
Date: 1993 April 19
On April 15, 1993, the Faculty Development Committee unanimously approved
(vote was 10-0 on all 3 issues) the following recommendations regarding CDF
faculty development funding.
1. That departmental applications for funding departmental requests for
faculty development be submitted directly to the office of the dean of
graduate studies, and that the dean then solicit the recommendation of the
Faculty Development Committee. The proposal format should follow that
currently used by faculty in submitting requests for faculty development
funds.
2. That the proposal for a system of formal, yearly discussions between
faculty and department heads for the purpose of faculty development
planning not be adopted.
3. That the present system of allocating CDF funds for faculty development
and faculty research be retained and that the proposal for allocating a
portion allocating a portion of the funds to department heads not be
adopted.
A thorough discussion of the questions preceded the Committee vote.
Among both faculty and in the Committee there is a strong and widespread
reluctance among faculty to processes which place department heads in
positions of power over faculty development or research funding or to give
heads the power to allocate money for faculty development within departments.
The Committee had available the results of an email survey of faculty
opinion, to which faculty replied by both email and paper ballots.
Recommendation 1, above, was supported by 67.6% of the faculty,
recommendation 2 by 73% of the faculty, and recommendation 3 by 77% of the
faculty. Slightly more than half (53%) of faculty feel that the proposed
system of yearly meetings with the head would inevitably become part of the
merit review process. In this regard, the Committee took cognizance of the
fact that, at present, there is no formal system for assessing faculty
performance or for appealing ratings, despite the strong support from faculty
(73%) in the 1987 strategic planning study for the development of such a
system; faculty responses to the 1992 SACS reaccreditation self-study
survey which show that, while 65% of faculty agree that research and
publication contribute to better teaching, barely half the faculty (52.2%)
say their department head strongly supports research; and responses in
the same survey that less than half the faculty (43.5%) feel the College
has an adequate system for allowing them to make concerns and grievances
known to the top level of the administration.
In their discussion, Committee members expressed deep reservations as
to whether funds allocated to department heads to support faculty development
would actually be used for that purpose and would be available on an
equitable basis. The feelings of Committee members mirror the opinion
expressed by 83% of faculty in the email survey that a faculty member is
the best judge of his or her own scholarly and professional
development, that faculty and department heads already are free to discuss
relevant issues, and that, while aimed at providing resources to assist
in the faculty development process, as presently conceived, the proposed
discussion and resource allocation systems may raise fairness or
academic freedom questions.
==============================
Subj: Faculty Employment Committee -- 1992-93
From: Saul J. Adelman, Chair
This academic year our committee
1) reviewed the status of The Citadel's life insurance started by Mark Clark
when he was President of The Citadel. We decided to review financial
status of the reserve fund next fall. We plan to continue the program in
its present form until the reserve fund disappears at which time we will
propose a replacement as appropriate.
2) looked at problems involved with the Faculty's course load. We believe
that reduced loads have to be carefully justified and that the benefits to
the Citadel need to be made clear. Further the normal load should be
reduced to 9 contact hours per semester when finances permit. This
subject needs to be looked at carefully again after the Strategic Planning
Committee makes its recommendations.
3) began a study of Faculty salaries. The administration has provided a
consultant Dr. Yvonne Michel to help with the analysis. We hope to be
able to present some preliminary results to the faculty at the beginning
of May. Additional study especially of the salaries within departments
will be conducted next academic year.
=================================
==============================================================================
1992-1993
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE CITADEL FACULTY COUNCIL
Minutes of the Regular Meeting of 15 April 1993
Board of Visitors Room, Jenkins Hall, 11:00 AM
1. The Chair called Faculty Council to order at 11:01 AM.
2. Members in attendance: Professors Adelman, Anessi, O. Bowman, Carter,
Coussons, Davis, Francel, Holbein, Kelley, Mailloux, Mcrae, W. Moore,
Ouzts, Richardson, Teske, Woolsey, and Zahid.
Members Absent: Professors Alford, Clees, Dornetto, Milukas, Pyatt and
Salas.
3. Approval of Previous Minutes.
Professor Bowman moved, second by Professor Anessi, to accept the minutes
of the 18 March 1993 meeting. Carried unanimously.
4. Announcements from the Chair.
The Chair met with the Board of Visitors on 19 Mar 93 to discuss the role
of faculty, and Faculty Council in particular, in college governance. A
question and answer period followed. The response to the meeting was
cordial; there was agreement that there should be similar meetings in the
future and that attempts should be made to improve communication.
The Chair received several suggestions concerning the proposal for the
CDF Faculty Achievement Awards. These have been discussed the deans.
Academic Board has also discussed this issue. A questionaire has been
distributed to faculty through the department heads; the results will be
reviewed by the Chair and the Deans.
General Meenaghan has consulted with the Chair concerning the selection
of CDF Faculty Fellows. There will be two research and two teaching
appointments. The VP/DoC will appoint a committee of five to devise a
selection and review process; the Chair has recommended some candidates
for this committee.
Due to the President's Faculty Meeting on 29 April 93, the first meeting
of the new Faculty Council will be on 22 April 93. The Chair asked that
the names of newly elected members be forwarded to him as soon as
possible.
5. Reports
The Vice President search is proceeding. Five finalists have been
invited to campus; brief vitae have been distributed via E-mail.
Faculty are encouraged to attend the general faculty meetings and to
forward reactions and impressions to the Chair.
Graduate Council met on 18 and 22 March 1993 to continue discussion of
the "Graduate Development Plan." Sixteen specific recommendations were
discussed ranging from the name of the program through funds allocation.
Academic Board met on 23 and 30 March 1993 to continue approval of the
recommendations from the Curriculum Committee. The "Visions" statement
from Strategic Planning was discussed but not approved. Also: the Life-
Long Learning policy manual was approved; the issue of requiring
computers for all students was revived and sent to the Computer Services
Committee for study.
The subcommittee of the Task Force on Revenue and Expenditure studying
academic matters (General Meenaghan, Deans Metts and Reilly, and the
Chair) has met and will be making recommendations to the whole committee.
The subcommittee has determined that the majority of frozen faculty
positions are justified and are therefore to be filled.
6. Old Business -- Faculty Manual revisions
A. Institutional Research: description of the office.
Professor Holbein moved, second by Professor Bowman, to accept the
recommendation.
The question was raised that this name does not properly describe
its function. Is it a duplication of Strategic Planning or the Self-
Study Office? The Chair stated that this office is the research arm
for these two college functions.
Carried by a vote of 15-1.
B. CDF Faculty Fellows -- addition of the screening committee (see also
announcements above)
Professor Anessi moved, second by Professor Bowman, to accept the
recommendation.
Professor Adelman asked about the possibility of reapplication by
current holders; a second consecutive appointment is possible, a
third appointment must be nonconsecutive.
The Chair noted that that holders of endowed chairs and department
heads are ineligible to apply or be considered for these
appointments.
Carried unanimously.
C. Use of Adjunct Faculty -- clarification of justification for hiring
Professor Bowman moved, second provided, to accept the
recommendation.
Discussion centered on the various situations and desirability which
lead to teaching overloads, additional full-time faculty, and
adjuncts.
Professor McRae moved, second by Professor Adelman, that the Chair
and Vice Chair prepare a statement addressing these concerns.
Carried unanimously.
D. Grievance Procedures -- statement of state policy
Professor Holbein moved, second by Professor Bowman, to accept the
recommendation. Carried unanimously.
E. Faculty Leave -- clarification of policy
Professor Holbein moved, second by Professor Bowman, to accept the
recommendation. Carried unanimously.
F. Planning, Assessment, and Budget Process.
Professor Holbein moved, second by Professor Bowman, to accept the
recommendation.
The Chair noted that Professor Nichols is rewriting the Strategic
Planning portion so as to agree with the actual situation. Also that
the Assessment Committee is, at the present time, ad hoc.
Carried unanimously.
G. Overload Teaching -- this policy may change as a result of actions by
the Revenue and Expenditure Task Force and will come back to Faculty
Council for review.
H. Independent Studies and Directed Research -- this describes the
present policy and situation.
Professor Bowman moved, second by Professor Holbein, to accept the
recommendation. Carried unanimously.
I. Teaching Internships -- this describes the present policy
Professor Holbein moved, second by Professor Oliver, to accept the
recommendation. Carried unanimously.
J. Non-Academic Advising -- this describes the current policy of for
the advising of students for other than course selection and the
assurance of graduation requirements in the selected major.
Professor Bowman moved, second by Professor Holbein, to accept the
recommendation.
Discussion reflected the sentiment that the advising process needs to
be studied and perhaps revised. The action was recommended to the
next Faculty Council.
The motion failed by a vote of 0-16.
K. Cross Registration (Charleston Area Colleges) -- describes current
practice; this is to be revised to reflect the latest policy changes
as described in a recent letter from the deans.
Professor Bowman moved, second by Professor Holbein, to accept the
recommendation. Carried unanimously.
L. Two + Two Evening Program -- describes current practice.
Professor Bowman moved, second by Professor Holbein, to accept the
recommendation.
The comment was made that this process shifts the completion of the
academic core requirements away from The Citadel; further study is
needed on this program.
Motion failed by a vote of 3-8.
Old Business -- Change in Membership, etc., of Faculty Council.
Comments from the Chair: It has been proposed that additional
members to councils be elected to represent clusters as opposed to
departments. The additional members would increase the strength of
Council and perhaps shift attention away from strict adherence to
departmental priorities. To enact this change, the Faculty Council
constitution would need to be amended. This might be perceived as a
shift towards establishment of a Faculty Senate to replace both
Faculty Council and Academic Board.
Professor W. Moore suggested that the position of chair of Faculty
Council should be a longer term appointment and should be elected by
the faculty at large. The Chair noted that such a change would
entail some changes in operation.
Professor Holbein asked what are the necessary steps that would need
to be taken to work towards the establishment of a Faculty Senate.
Further study of these changes was recommended to the next Faculty
Council.
7. New Business
A. From the Employment Committee: Professor Adelman reported that the
committee's consultant has a preliminary comparison of gross Citadel
salaries and that a cohort comparison will be forthcoming.
The committee requests a general faculty meeting, to be sponsored by
Faculty Council, to report these results to the faculty as a whole.
Second by Professor Moore. Failed by a vote of 6-7.
The committee was directed to reports its findings to Faculty Council
as soon as possible.
B. Question to the Employment Committee: the proposal for tuition
reduction and/or remission for families has been recommended to the
Administration but to date there has been no response.
C. From the Curriculum Committee: Evaluation of Faculty Instruction by
Students. [the report from the subcommittee is attached as an
appendix in the electronic version]
The ad hoc committee form used in the 1992 trial evaluations has been
found inadequate. A subcommittee has reviewed this situation and has
found a evaluation form from Eastern Michigan University which
appears to be credible; the use of this form, under the supervision
of the Curriculum Committee and subject to the same qualifications
and restrictions as used in previous pilots (results to individual
faculty members only, an "evaluation of the evaluation").
Professor Coussons moved, second by Professor Holbein, the adoption
of the subcommittee's recommendation for trial use in the Spring
semester and that this subcommittee would replace the existing ad hoc
on evaluation. Carried unanimously.
8. Meeting adjourned 12:40 PM.
/s/ Thomas H. Richardson
Secretary, Faculty Council
APPENDIX: The text of a report from a Subcommittee of the Curriculum and
Instruction Committee to the full committee, 25 March 1993
"Our findings regarding Student Evaluation of Instructors"
In preparing our report to you we considered information compiled from
a variety of sources including a literature review of existing published
studies, as well as a look at general evaluation forms used by other school
and a review of the guidelines set down by AAUP regarding student evaluation.
We are particularly grateful to Robert Williams, Professor of Business
Administration, for sharing with us several student evaluation forms as well
as knowledge and information he has gained in this area.
We will try to organize our report to you in three areas. The first
section will review problems identified with the existing literature base, the
second section will address issues related to our current questionnaire and
the third section will include guidelines for future assessment based upon our
understanding of the information we have reviewed. Lastly we will include an
alternate scale for your examination.
I. Review of the existing published literature
As might be expected, much of the published work in this area has
addressed the same issues of reliability and validity that we are struggling
with as well as concern regarding bias in the evaluation of women and other
minorities. One concern that is apparent in the literature is one that we
discussed as out last meeting. That is, the correlation between course
ratings and students' grades (ie, good grade = good ratings). Our reading of
the literature suggests this, combined with other issues that have been raised
regarding the validity of student evaluations, has resulted in researchers
recommending a composite approach to teacher evaluation, in which multiple
indices of an instructor's effectiveness are reviewed. We will address this
issue further in our guidelines for future assessment section.
The existing data on reliability is mixed; with some studies finding
students' evaluations to be unreliable (the same student rating the same
professor differently at different times) and other studies finding that
student evaluations are consistent (eg, the student forms an impression of the
instructor early in the semester and holds to it).
The information regarding student evaluation of women faculty members
suggests that bias is clearly a factor. As just one example of this, the data
suggest that students may expect more lenient behavior from women faculty (eg,
extending deadlines, making exceptions to class rules) and hence may be
angrier at a female professor who refuses them, than at a male counterpart.
It is easy to see how this might translate into lower student evaluations.
In fact, one study that was reviewed found that bias evident in the
evaluation of women was greatest when women constituted less than 20% of the
group. This has clear implications for The Citadel, given the percentage of
female faculty members.
II. Problems with the existing questionnaire.
a. Difference in the way that departments have handled them.
As discussed in our last meeting, there exists an extreme disparity in
the way various departments have responded to the use of the current
version of the student questionnaire. Although all of the memos that
we could locate clearly indicated that use of the questionnaires
during the Spring 1992 and Fall 1993 semesters was to be considered
"pilot data," this has clearly not been the case. For example, some
departments did not distribute the questionnaire to students. Other
department heads had the evaluation results sent strictly to them and
not to the individual instructor. This indicates that the existing
evaluation form has been used in a way that is clearly different from
what was told to the faculty as the outset of this pilot program and
use of its results may have serious negative impact upon faculty
members.
b. Lack of analysis of the existing survey.
The current student evaluation form was distributed during the Spring
1992, Fall 1993, and presumably will be distributed during the Spring
1993 semester. This distribution was intended as a pilot program,
however to the best of our understanding nothing has been done to
evaluate the instrument. For example, it has not been sent to an
independent source for review, no studies have been made as to its
reliability, no attempt has been made to correlate ratings with
student grades, etc. It would appear then that we have no further
knowledge now of this instrument than we did two semesters ago.
Therefore, to call for its permanent adoption appears unwarranted.
III. Guidelines for Future Assessment.
Clearly the overall consensus ot the information we reviewed is that
evaluation of faculty teaching should be multi-faceted. Student evaluations
are an important piece of the process, but they are not the only one or the
most important aspect ot be considered. Other aspects to be included are:
a. Description of teaching responsibilities.
In its guidelines, AAUP (1990) states that "An important and often
overlooked element of evaluating teaching is an accurate description
of a professor's teaching" (p. 168). They suggest that included in
this description would be information regarding the number, level, and
type of course taught as well as the number of students and the
development of new courses.
b. Instructor materials.
A number of the sources we reviewed strongly suggested that other
aspects of a professor's performance be considered as an index of
their teaching effectiveness. This included such things as:
a) syllabi
b) course objectives
c) in-class assignments
d) homework assignments
e) examinations
f) handouts
g) choice of text
h) reading lists
i) review of course content
c. Classroom visitation
Some writers have suggested that colleagues conduct actual classroom
observations and evaluate other professors on their teaching and
assess such aspects as instructor knowledge, method of instruction and
student rapport.
d. Self evaluation.
This would include attention to such factors as self-appraisal as a
teacher, self-identification of strengths and weaknesses, etc.
Although is is not being suggested that each and every on of these
needs to be incorporated, it does highlight the importance of multiple indices
of a performance evaluation for something as complex and as important as
teaching effectiveness. One theme that ran continuously throughout the
literature we reviewed is that one of the main goals of evaluating teacher's
performance is to derive information which they can use to stimulate and
improve their teaching skills. It it us use solely to derive numbers by which
to hand or applaud an instructor, its merit is truly compromised.
Final Recommendation:
Upon careful review, our recommendation is not to use the current
student evaluation form, not the results generated during the pilot phase to
evaluate faculty.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE CITADEL FACULTY COUNCIL
Minutes of the Regular Meeting of 18 March 1993
Board of Visitors Room, Jenkins Hall, 11:00 AM
1. The Chair called Faculty Council to order at 11:04 AM.
2. Members in attendance: Professors Alford, Anessi, O. Bowman, Carter,
Coussons, Davis, Francel, Holbein, Mailloux, McRae, Ouzts, Pyatt,
Richardson, Woolsey, and Zahid.
Members Absent: Professors Adelman, Clees, Dornetto, Kelley, Milukas,
W. Moore, Salas.
Professor Menefee substituted for Professor Teske.
3. Approval of Previous Minutes.
Professor Holbein moved, second by Professor Bowman, to accept the
minutes of the 18 February 1993 meeting. Carried unanimously.
4. Announcements (and correspondence) from the Chair.
The Chair distributed a copy of a letter, which had been sent to
President Watts, concerning the hiring of Dr. Jagdish Mehra. The
President's response was read.
The Chair distributed a copy of a letter, which had been sent to VP
Meenaghan, concerning the CHE Goals Statement which had been circulated
at the February meeting of Faculty Council. He has since had a brief
discussion with Gen. Meenaghan on this.
The Chair will be meeting with Col. Lyons and the deans to discuss
possibilities of identifying and using Citadel funds (as opposed to State
funds) for salary enhancements. Ideas which could help this process are
solicited and invited.
The Chair forwarded the recommendations of Faculty Council concerning the
Selection and Evaluation of Deans. These have been accepted for
inclusion in the new Faculty Manual.
The Chair has been named to a task force on Revenues (enhancements) and
Expenditures (reductions). A list of possibilities is being developed
and monetary amounts are being identified; this will be forwarded to the
President for consideration. The list does not include either program or
faculty reductions.
The Chair reported that he has contacted those departments whose
representatives have expiring terms and requested that elections be held.
The Chair thanked the members of Faculty Council who attended and
participated in the General Faculty meeting of 4 March 1993. He
encouraged Council to continue to hold these in the future. A letter has
been sent to the President summarizing the meeting.
5. Reports
a. The Vice President search committee is ongoing. Several candidates
are presently being further investigated to identify a list to be
brought to campus for interviews in mid-April.
Meetings with faculty: For each candidate, there will be an open,
general faculty meeting. A recommendation was made that these
meetings be run by Faculty Council and moderated by the Chair.
b. The Chair attended the 4 March 1993 meeting of Graduate Council. A
draft of a document (which will later come to Faculty Council)
concerning "A Plan for Development: Graduate Programs at The Citadel
1993-2003" was discussed.
c. The Chair attended the 16 March 1993 meeting of Academic Board. The
various recommendations from Curriculum Committee were partially
acted upon; this will be continued on 23 March 1993. It was
announced at this meeting that a freeze has been placed on the hiring
of faculty and that justification as an essential position must be
demonstrated for any hiring.
6. Old Business
a. From Subcommittee C: Selection, etc., of Department Heads
Professor Holbein moved, second by Professor Anessi, that the
proposal be considered in parts. Carried unanimously.
(1) Professor Woolsey moved, second by Professor Holbein, that the
present system of two five-year terms be replaced by three three-year
terms (and related details as outlined in paragraph one of the
proposal). [This proposal will be attached as an appendix to the
electronic minutes.]
Discussion centered on the change in term length as effectively a
conversion of department heads to department chairmen and that among
other aspects this will result in a loss of the authority and
influence of department heads.
The question was called by Professor Holbein, second by Professor
Anessi. Motion failed by a vote of 3-10.
(2) Professor Woolsey moved, second provided, the second paragraph of the
proposal.
Professor Holbein moved, second by Professor McRae, to amend the
proposal (with a five year term) "The evaluation {of the department
head by the undergraduate and/or graduate deans} will include a
report from the other tenured and tenure-track faculty of the
department. The highest-ranking member of this group will be
responsible for implementing the necessary procedures which will
result in this report to the dean." Carried by a vote of 11-2.
(3) Professor McRae moved, second by Professor Coussons, to amend the
third paragraph "A copy of the dean's annual written evaluation of
the department head, which will include the report from the
departmental evaluation, will be given to the department head by the
end of the academic year." Carried by a vote of 12-0-1.
7. New Business.
Faculty Achievement Awards. The Chair reviewed the various methods
of distribution which have been used in recent years. CDF
disapproves of the 1992 method in which a level distribution was made
to all faculty. The basic plan for 1993 is to distribute the funds
to departments; this apportionment will be based, in part, on the
1991-92 count of tenure and tenure-track faculty who are still at The
Citadel.
Departments will prepare a plan and procedure for awarding the money;
this will be approved by the deans. The significant restriction is
that a level distribution (uniform salary enhancement) can not be
implemented.
8. The next meeting will be on 15 April 1993; this is the final meeting of
1992-93. The initial meeting of 1993-94 will be held on 29 April 93.
Adjourned: 12:43 PM
/s/ Thomas H. Richardson
Secretary, Faculty Council
* * * * *
TEXT OF PROPOSAL FROM SUBCOMMITTEE C (as received, see minutes for amendments)
B. Academic Department Heads
1. Terms of Appointment
Academic Department heads (to include the Director of Library
Services) are appointed by the Board of Visitors upon the
recommendation of the President, the Executive Vice President/Dean of
the College, and the Faculty of the department. The term of
appointment and service for a department head consists of one three
year term. The appointment is subject to termination at any time by
the President upon the recommendation of the Executive Vice
President/Dean of the College, if the department head's performance is
unsatisfactory based on the annual evaluation.
2. Evaluation
The annual evaluation of the department head is to be conducted by the
Dean of Undergraduate Studies and the Dean of Graduate Studies. The
evaluation will include a report of a meeting of the other tenure and
tenure-track Faculty of the department.
A comprehensive review of a department head's performance shall be
conducted by the Dean of Undergraduate Studies and the Dean of
Graduate Studies during the third year of an appointment. The review
shall include an evaluation by each tenured and tenure-track member of
the department, allowing them to assess the state of the department,
its academic programs, and the leadership they consider most
appropriate for the next three years. (The Dean of Undergraduate
Studies and the Dean of Graduate Studies, however, can initiate this
review at any time.)
3. Selection Process
a. If the incumbent is in his/her first or second term, each tenured
or tenure-track member of the department will include in his/her
evaluation a vote as to whether an additional term will be offered
to the incumbent. If the Dean of Undergraduate Studies and the
Dean of Graduate Studies cannot support the position of the
majority of the department, they will request an opportunity to
meet with the department faculty to explain their position and
seek to reconcile differences. The Deans will attach their own
recommendations to the department and pass all documentation to
the Executive Vice President/Dean of the College and President.
b. A fourth consecutive term will be offered to the incumbent only if
no other tenured member of the department is willing to accept an
appointment.
c. The Dean of Undergraduate Studies and the Dean of Graduate Studies
are responsible for conducting the search for a new department
head.
i. The Deans will charge the senior member of the department,
excluding the incumbent department head, to call a meeting of
all tenured and tenure-track faculty. The department will
select three or more members to serve on the search committee
with one designated as the person to chair the search. They
will recommend one faculty member from outside the department
to serve on the search committee. If a slot will be open,
they will decide whether to make the search external or
internal.
ii. The Dean of Undergraduate Studies and the Dean of Graduate
Studies shall establish and charge the search committee to
carry out all responsibilities in Part II.B. above. The role
of the incumbent department head in this process is the same
as any other tenured member of the department.
iii. The department search committee shall make its report to the
Dean of Undergraduate Studies and the Dean of Graduate Studies
who are responsible for negotiating with the candidates and
making a recommendation to the Executive Vice President/Dean
of the College and President. The two Deans shall make the
formal offer to the candidate, but the final decision on
appointment is made by the Board of Visitors upon the
recommendation of the President.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE CITADEL FACULTY COUNCIL
Minutes of the Regular Meeting of 18 February 1993
Board of Visitors Room, Jenkins Hall, 11:00 AM
1. The Chair called Faculty Council to order at 11:02 AM.
2. Members in attendance: Professors Adelman, Alford, Anessi, Kelley, O.
Bowman, Carter, Coussons, Davis, Dornetto, Francel, Holbein, Mailloux,
McRae, W. Moore, Ouzts, Richardson, Teske, and Woolsey.
Members Absent: Professors Clees, Miluka, Salas, and Zahid.
Professor Johns substituted for Professor Pyatt.
3. Approval of Previous Minutes.
Professor Teske moved, second by Professor Coussons, to accept the
minutes of the 21 January 93 meeting. Carried unanimously.
4. Announcements from the Chair.
a. The Chair accepted an invitation from President Watts to attend a
Higher Education Workshop in Columbia on 2 Feb 93 entitled "Balancing
Responsibility and Accountability." Also attending were Gen.
Meehaghan and VP Lyons. Pres. Watts and The Chair attended a panel
on Human Resources.
b. The Executive Committee has met to discuss a General Faculty Meeting
to be sponsored by Faculty Council. This will be held on 11 March 93
at 11 AM in the Riverview Room with a cash lunch following. The
format will be a presentation of what has been accomplished this year
by Faculty Council followed by a question and answer session.
This meeting would be for faculty only. The question as to whether
or not to invite Deans Metts and Reilly was discussed; if so it would
be in their roles as members of the faculty and not as deans.
Professor McRae moved, second by Professor Holbein, that Deans Metts
and Reilly be politely not invited to the meeting. Failed by a vote
of 1-19.
c. The Chair has met with the Committee on Committees to discuss the
sabbaticals issue and how changes might be implemented. The charters
of the Research and Development Committees will be modified so that
each department will have a tenured member on at least one of these
committees; the Sabbaticals Committee, which is formed from the
memberships of these committees, will be comprised of tenured
representatives from each department.
d. The Chair anticipates a subpoena from the lawyers for the women
veterans to testify with respect to the Faculty Council resolutions
and survey. The Chair has also been in discussion with college
lawyers on the same issue.
e. A task force has been named to review sources of revenue and
expenditure in response to the diminished CHE funding recommendation.
This group will be chaired by Gen. Meenaghan and VP Lyons and
consists of Deans Reilly and Metts, Messrs. Barton and Nadzak, the
Commandant, the Director of Physical Plant, the Budget Officer, and
Professors Nichols as Chair of Strategic Planning and Mailloux as
Chair of Faculty Council. The initial meeting is planned for all day
on 25 Feb 93.
5. Reports
a. The Chair reported that 132 applications have been received and
reviewed; finalists are being selected for a closer look.
b. Graduate Council met on 28 Jan 93; among other issues settled, there
will be a graduate student representative.
c. Academic Board met on 16 Feb 93. Items of crucial concern:
Core Curriculum: (1) students are delaying completion of
requirements into the junior and senior year; faculty advisors will
be asked to make timely completion of these requirements a high
priority item. (2) there has been a significant amount of transfer
credit in the core curriculum; future policy will be to permit
transfer of credit but not grades
The Faculty Manual was distributed. Recommendations from Faculty
Council have been incorporated but there remain several sections
which Faculty Council has yet to peruse; these will be distributed.
6. New Business
a. The Chair reviewed the meeting of 1 Feb 93 between Faculty Council
and Professor Berlingheri. Dr. Mehra's credentials had been reviewed
and the circumstances of his hiring presented together with the
expected benefits to the college. The appointment is to a college
slot, not a department position.
The Chair intends to write a letter stating that Council has no
reservation with respect to Dr. Mehra's qualifications but that there
is concern
1) for the effect on faculty morale (a significant salary in a time
of tight budgets, restricted hiring, and no raises).
2) that there was no involvement beyond the physics department
(Strategic Planning or Academic Board)
3) and that established procedures for chairs be not bypassed (or
proper procedures be established)
Professor Anessi moved, second by Professor Holbein, that such a
letter be written. Carried unanimously.
b. Draft copies of the "vision for our future" statement from Strategic
Planning and a statement of CHE's goals for higher education (in
light of reduced expenditures) were distributed.
Professor Holbein moved, second by Professor Alford, to accept for
information purposes. Carried 15-0-1 abstention.
The Chair asked that individual concerns about the "visions
statement" be addressed to Professor Gary Nichols (Chair, Strategic
Planning)
c. Evaluation of Academic Deans (by faculty), report from Internal
College Affairs Committee.
Concerns include the method of conducting the evaluation (including
the question of which subsets of the faculty should be involved), the
assurance of reliability, what are the goals and expected outcomes,
and the integration of these results into the evaluation of deans by
the vice president.
The Committee's recommendations included the appropriate change to
Faculty Manual [Part IV, Section A.2: Evaluation of Academic Deans
(new manual). The VPAA is evaluated by the President; the
undergraduate and graduate deans are evaluated by the VPAA. This
evaluation will be done " . . . with due consideration of the opinion
of faculty as determined by a survey administered by Faculty
Council"], the (initial) use of a form developed at the University of
South Carolina, and that the respondents be categorized (department
heads, committee chairs, general faculty).
The Chair mentioned that Dean Reilly could not attend this meeting
because of another commitment, but the Dean desired to work with
either the Internal College Affairs Committee or a subcommittee of
that body to investigate and implement an evaluation procedure. The
Chair supported this approach.
Professor Adelman moved, second by Professor Holbein, that the
appropriate changes with respect to the evaluation of deans be made
to Faculty Manual. Carried unanimously.
Professor Adelman moved, second by Professor Holbein, that an
appropriate evaluation instrument be developed by the Graduate Dean
and an appropriate faculty committee but that the USC document be
used as a default if necessary. Carried unanimously.
d. From Subcommittee A: Staffing report (Professor Holbein).
The problem is an acceptable definition of Scholarly Activity;
"dissemination of work you are doing" as proposed by Professor Ross
is perceived as too limited. The addition of "however, a department
head in consultation with the department may define alternate work"
has been proposed; this has been accepted by Professor Ross and will
be implemented.
The report of the committee was accepted for purposes of information.
e. From Subcommitttee B: Procedures for the selection of academic
deans.
A concern has been the reduction in the number of faculty members
involved in the search process; that there should be at least three
faculty representatives exclusive of heads. At the present time, two
members of the search committee are selected by Faculty Council, two
by Academic Board, and three by the vice president for academic
affairs.
Professor Holbein moved, second by Professor O. Bowman, that at least
one of the three members appointed by the VPAA be a faculty member.
Carried unanimously.
f. From Subcommittee C: Procedures of the Selection of department
heads.
Professor Woolsey distributed a proposal addressing the length and
number of terms a head may serve. The proposal also includes a
mechanism for an annual evaluation.
The Chair recommended that discussion be deferred to the March
meeting. m/s/c
7. Meeting Adjourned, 12:30 PM
/s/ Tom Richardson
secretary, Faculty Council
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE CITADEL FACULTY COUNCIL
Minutes of the Regular Meeting of 21 January 1993
Board of Visitors Room, Jenkins Hall, 11:00 AM
1. The Chair called Faculty Council to order at 11:04 AM.
2. Members in attendance: Professors Adelman, Alford, Anessi, Carter,
Coussons, Davis, Dornetto, Francel, Holbein, Mailloux, W. Moore, Pyatt,
Richardson, Teske, Woolsey, and Zahid.
Members Absent: Professors Clees, Kelley, Mcrae, Miluka, Ouzts, and
Salas.
Professor Von substituted for Professor O. Bowman.
3. Approval of Previous Minutes.
Professor Holbein moved, second by Professor Coussons, to accept the
minutes of the 19 Nov 92 meeting. Carried unanimously.
Professor Holbein moved, second by Professor Anessi, to accept the
minutes of the 10 Dec 92 meeting. Carried unanimously.
4. Announcements from the Chair.
a. Faculty Manual. A letter has been sent to Dean Metts summarizing
Council's recommended changes; he has accepted these. The revised
manual will be presented to the Academic Board at its February
meeting. Subcommittees are asked to complete their work in time for
the February meeting of Faculty Council.
b. Board of Visitors. The Chair met with Leonard Fulghum, vice chair of
the Board of Visitors, to discuss Faculty Council and its role in
campus decision-making. The Chair agreed to a future meeting with
the Board of Visitors.
c. Discussions with Vice President Meenaghan.
The Chair met with Gen. Meenaghan to discuss the possibility of
increasing the number of CDF Fellows. VP Meenaghan is presently
drafting a plan to increase their number. The Chair asked to be
included in these deliberations; this was agreed to.
They also discussed the recent hiring of a new physics professor, Dr.
Jajdish Mehra. Gen Meenaghan explained why he supported the hiring;
the Chair raised some questions about proper procedures and the
possible effect of the hiring on the faculty at large. Prof. Adelman
was asked how the Physiccs Department regarded the hiring; he
suggested that Professor Berlinghieri be asked about this.
Professor Coussons moved, second by Professor Dornetto, to
invite the head of the physics department, Professor Berlinghieri, to
discuss these events. Carried unanimously. The Chair agree to
arrange this as soon as possible.
d. The Chair will be meeting with the Committee on Committees to discuss
the issue of untenured faculty members serving on the Sabbaticals
committee.
5. Reports
a. Vice Presidential Search. At the present time, some 110 applications
are in the review and evaluation process.
b. Strategic Planning. The composition of the North Area Task Force has
changed: because of other responsibilities, Professors Askins and
Comer have asked to be replaced and have been by Professors Lindbergh
and Baldwin.
c. Graduate Council. General Watts has reaffirmed the administration's
commitment to the the graduate programs although he reminded members
that the primary mission of The Citadel is to educate the Corps of
Cadets. The president was questioned about the failure to recycle
graduate program profits so as to support additional faculty and the
promotion of the program. He was also asked if he supported the
creation of any new graduate programs.
Professor Edwards presented an update on SACS. Discussion
focussed on the results from the graduate student survey. Criticisms
include the perceptions of a minimal degree of support services and
less-than-the-best student advising. This and other survey results
can be inspected at the SACS office in Grimsley Hall.
d. Academic Board.
Veteran Students: some 50 of the 70 students are accommodated
through through night courses or courses to be taken elsewhere. The
remainder require additional follow-up and are being contacted. Two
students have filed suit for readmittance to the day program; this
suit is to be heard on 27 Jan 93. (Related: the motion to moot the
women's suit will also be heard on 27 Jan 93. If this is not
granted, a March court date can be anticipated.)
At the December meeting, the president asked Academic Board to vote
whether or not he (General Watts) should continue to chair those
meetings. The vote was 12-9 that the president should continue as
chair but he has decided not to do so on a regular basis. He will
chair those meetings which discuss issues which he deems particularly
significant.
General Watts requested nominations for honorary degrees; these are
to be forwarded to him.
6. New Business
a. The Chair attended the Faculty Senate Chairs' Meeting in Columbia to
discuss appropriations problems, etc. This was not a one-time event;
it was learned that the intention is to create a chartered
association to be named the "South Carolina Conference of University
Faculty Chairs" which would meet frequently. Membership will be the
Chairs and, to ensure continuity from year to year, the Vice-Chairs
from the several state-supported schools (excluding technical
colleges). The Citadel has been asked to participate.
The advantages of joining include allowing us to communicate with and
have awareness of the situations at other schools and to have a
unified voice through collective efforts. This would be both
separate and complementary to that from the Council of Presidents.
Although this would have some of the qualities of a lobbying group
(question from Professor Alford), the proposed charter would exclude
potentially divisive issues such as faculty salary. VP Meenaghan and
General Watts support the concept of Citadel participation.
Particular actions to be taken by this organization include visiting
selected legislators to present the faculty viewpoint and initiating
and providing accurate information for letter writing campaigns by
students and faculty.
Faculty Council approved continued involvement with this group.
b. The SACS faculty survey had three questions which addressed Faculty
Council: (1) is there adequate participation in governance; (2) how
could Faculty Council become more effective; and (3) is there
effective communication of Faculty Council activities.
The Chair expressed concern that some 35% of the faculty stated that
Faculty Council activities are not effectively communicated to them.
He proposed several recommendations.
1. Minimize delay in distributing minutes of Council including
making them available prior to approval at the following meeting.
2. Members should circulate a hard copy of these early minutes
within their departments prior to the next meeting.
Comments included the request that summaries be available, that
this be done via e-mail as well as hard copy, and that the VAX
log-on message could be used to announce the availability of new
minutes.
3. A general faculty meeting should be held to acquaint faculty with
the activities of Faculty Council and to solicit suggestions on a
variety of topics.
Professor Coussons moved, second by Professor W. Moore, that this
be done on a semester basis provided that is there is adequate
interest and purpose; that this should be run by Faculty Council.
Comments included: it should not degenerate into frustration
session, that a prepared agenda is essential.
Professor Holbein asked that the Executive Committee undertake
consideration of this.
c. Employment Committee: Professor Adelman.
Salary survey results will be presented at a forthcoming "public"
meeting. Presently this is a comparison to comparable institutions;
internal comparisons will be a later presentation.
Discussions have been held with Col. Lyons concerning course loads.
There are two problems. (1) Accreditation organization limits are
important and the committee needs to know what these are. A listing
of departments which have furnished data was read; other departments
are requested to forward information. (2) The pay scale incorporates
CHE numbers which combine service courses with majors' courses.
Different (and better) numbers are needed for the different
classifications of laboratory, majors' courses, service courses, etc.
d. The Chair announced that he would be meeting with President Watts
weekly henceforward.
7. Meeting adjourned, 12:25 PM
/s/ Thomas H. Richardson
Secretary, Faculty Council
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE CITADEL FACULTY COUNCIL
Minutes of the Regular Meeting of 10 December 1992
Board of Visitors Room, Jenkins Hall, 11:00 AM
1. The meeting was called to order by the Chair, Professor Peter Mailloux, at
11:03 AM. Absent were Professors Alford, Clees, Milukas, Pyatt, and
Salas. Professor Barrett substituted for Professor W. Moore.
2. The minutes of the 19 Nov 92 meeting were not yet ready for approval.
3. Announcements.
a. The President wishes to host a gathering with the members of Faculty
Council and their spouses. Wednesday 16 Dec 92 has been proposed;
members can anticipate an invitation.
b. The Chair reported that a letter was sent to the president giving the
results of the faculty survey. He has also met with Mr. Rick Mill of
Public Relations and gave him a copy of the results. Since that
meeting he has send a private letter protesting the bias and
inaccuracy of the press release.
c. A letter has been sent to Dean Metts detailing Faculty Council's
responses to the revisions to the Faculty Manual. All of Council's
suggestions have been accepted, including the redrafted version of the
Faculty Responsibilities to the Honor Code.
d. In response to an inquiry at last month's meeting, the chair reported
that there are presently three CDF Faculty Fellows, all of whom are
Research Fellows.
e. A letter has been received from the head of the Faculty Senate at USC-
Spartanburg concerning a joint meeting of all faculty senates from
state-supported schools. This meeting, which will be held in Columbia
on 8 Jan 93, will address, among other things, state appropriations.
The Chair will attend.
4. Reports.
a. The advertisement for the vice president position has been published
and will continue to appear through January. The committee is
presently determining the criteria for evaluation of applicants; the
reading of applications will begin following Christmas break.
b. Strategic Planning has created and charged a task force (Messrs. C.
Lyons, J. Reilly, I. Metts, C. Lindberg, S. Comer, R. Gaskins, R.
Pokryfka, and J. Scott) to consider the Engineering 2000 North
Charleston Campus proposal.
c. Graduate Council. Professor Coussons reported that questions
continue with respect to the number of transfer hours which may be
accepted for graduate degrees.
5. Old Business -- The chair summarized which items from the proposed
revision to the Faculty Manual had been sent to subcommittees or to
Faculty Committees during the previous meeting.
Discussion turned to the following issues.
a. Responsibility for revising the Faculty Manual
Professor Holbein asked that the second paragraph of section A (which
begins "Part II") be revised to include "approval by Faculty Council"
as well as "review by Faculty Council." The Chair asked that this
entire issue be deferred until discussion of the larger question of
faculty governance at the next meeting.
b. Faculty Recruiting and Selection. The entire issue is how many
candidates will be invited for campus visits. Section d is to include
"the department may invite at least three candidates to campus."
c. Class Absence System
Professor Teske noted that guard should not be an excuse for absence
from class, that the student should work to rearrange his duty so as
to be able to attend class.
Professor Holbein moved, second provided, to delete guard as a
legitimate excuse for missing a class and to eliminate the further
reference to guard.
Subsequent discussion followed on the 20%-rule for consideration for
automatic failure (Professor Zahid), assigned tests having mandatory
attendance (Professor Adelman), the Citadel tradition (Professor
Coussons), "excused reasons" for missing exams requiring prior
arrangement (Professor Mailloux), the Commandant objecting to the
elimination of the guard provision (Professors Barrett, Davis, McRae),
and academic officers being aware of class vs guard conflicts
(Professor Teske).
Professor Barrett moved, second by Professor Bowman, to table the
motion. Carried 8-7.
d. Standing Committees -- formation statement
The policy should be that Faculty Committees are named by Faculty
Council through the Committee on Committees with the approval of the
vice president.
e. Public Relations -- paragraph 2 is modified to say "official
contacts."
f. Housing
Paragraph 4 does not state by whom the regulations are updated.
The comment was made that any revisions to the regulations should be
subject to review by the Housing Subcommittee of the College Affairs
Committee.
g. Sabbatical Committee -- method of formation.
Due to a variety of circumstances, there are presently several non-
tenured faculty on the Sabbatical Committee and the question has been
raised whether this is advisable.
The present chair, Professor Tucker, surveyed the committee with
respect to changing the qualifications for membership; the vote was
tied. (8-8).
Professor Coussons moved, second by Professor Davis, to require that
members of the Sabbatical Committee have tenured status. Carried by
a vote of 9-6. This will be forwarded to Committee on Committees.
h. Student Evaluation of Instruction.
Professor Woolsey reported that a member of his department had asked
that the proposed form receive an outside demonstration of validity
prior to its official use. The Chair reported that this is presently
under consideration.
The Chair stated that he would relay all of these proposed revisons to Dean
Metts.
Meeting adjourned, 12:25 PM.
/s/ Thomas H. Richardson
Secretary, Faculty Council
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE CITADEL FACULTY COUNCIL
Minutes of the Regular Meeting of 19 November 1992
Board of Visitors Room, Jenkins Hall, 11:00 AM
1. The meeting was called to order by the Chair, Professor Peter Mailloux, at
11:03 AM. Absent were Professors Clees, McRae, Baldwin, Teske, and
Milukas. Professor O. Bowman was not present due to a previously
scheduled college responsibility.
2. Approval of minutes: Professor Holbein moved, second by Professor
Adelman, the acceptance of the minutes of the 22 October 1992 meeting.
Approved by voice vote.
3. Announcements.
a. The Chair reminded members of the possibility that the meeting might
run longer than the time available. If necessary, the meeting would
reconvene at 4:00 PM.
b. The Chair asked the three subcommittees to meet and to choose chairs.
c. Letters have been sent to Professor Ezell (Brown Bag Lunches) and
Nichols (Strategic Planning "research report") detailing Faculty
Council's actions. A copy of the latter will be distributed to
members of Faculty Council.
d. A letter has been received from Professor Ross (who is heading the
appropriate SACS report committee) in response to Faculty Council's
recommendations on the Strategic Planning Staffing Report. He is
requesting assistance and notes that pages 8 to 10 of the report
consider various definitions and relationships of scholarly activity
and teaching.
Professor Zahid moved, second by Professor Coussons, that this be sent
to a subcommittee for further work. Carried unanimously. The Chair
assigned this responsibility to Subcommittee A.
e. A letter has been received from Professor J. Moore which states his
belief that Faculty Council has changed its position on the Student
Evaluation of Instruction question.
The Chair stated that he had told Professor Moore that he believed
that there had been no change in position but the issue could be re-
opened if Council wished. No motions were made so the Chair deferred
further discussion of this issue; it will be considered in connection
with the appropriate portion of the Faculty Manual review.
f. Concern has been expressed that there are potential violations of the
Privacy Act when faculty discuss students grades with parents, most
particularly the parent-faculty discussions which take place on
Parents' Weekend.
The Chair has discussed this with Dean Gaskins; the two of them will
be meeting with college lawyers to further clarify the situation. As
it presently stands, the faculty are not culpable for any possible
violation.
g. The Search Committee for a new vice president has been constituted;
the seventh member is Professor C. Spivey (President's appointment).
Professor Askins is chairing the committee; Professor Mailloux is vice
chair. An advertisement has been prepared and will be appearing in
"The Chronicle of Higher Education" and "Black Issues in Higher
Education"; a copy of the ad and other information will be distributed
to faculty.
The committee is presently setting evaluation criteria, etc. Review
of applications will begin on 18 Jan 1993.
4. Reports.
a. Academic Board meeting of 17 Nov 92. Reports were received on
assessment and on graduate program activities. Professor Lindberg
presented the concept of a North Area Campus for the evening college
engineering offerings; this was sent to Strategic Planning for
feasibility, etc, considerations and other faculty input.
b. Strategic Planning meeting of 10 Nov 92. The committee met with the
president; the Goals and Benchmarks document was approved, this will
be distributed to faculty.
c. Graduate Council. There will be the meeting of graduate faculty, etc,
on 1 Dec 92. An announcement will be forthcoming to faculty. The
panel discussion will be titled "The Future of Graduate Education in
South Carolina and at The Citadel."
Other items. A new scheduling plan for summer school is being
implemented. The financial aspects of the summer and graduate
programs are being reviewed. There will be a graduate student
symposium on 24 Apr 93.
5. New Business
a. Poll of faculty with respect to the options presented to VMI. 127
responses were received from 149 distributed ballots; three were
returned "blank." The 149 distributed ballots were to a list of
tenured and tenure-track professors obtained from V.P.Meenaghan's
office.
The Chair and Professor W. Moore counted the ballots on 16 Nov 92.
1. Do you favor The Citadel becoming a private college?
10 Yes, 102 No
2. Do you favor the State of South Carolina's establishing
a separate corps of cadets for women students only?
10 Yes, 105 No
3. Do you favor the admission of women to the now all
male The Citadel Corps of Cadets?
82 Yes, 33 No
4. In case a choice must be made among the following, which
course of action do you believe is the most prudent?
a. The Citadel becoming a private college. 17
b. The Citadel establishing a corps of cadets for women
students. 8
c. The Citadel admitting women to The Citadel Corps of
Cadets. 99
The Chair reported that he had discussed the survey with the President
who objected to the fourth question, believing that it did not
accurately reflect the options presented by the court in the VMI case.
The President also objected that the faculty were not given the option
of agreeing with the school's policies. The chair suggested that each
of the first three questions could have been answered "no," thereby
affirming present policy.
These results will be e-mailed to the faculty and forwarded to the
president. [The original motion (FC 22 Oct 92) was annotated with
these results and distributed to the IRM-provided list @ALL_FACULTY at
about 1:45 PM on 19 Nov 92. A copy will be attached as an appendix to
the electronic posting of these minutes.]
Subsequent discussion focused on the further dissemination of these
results. The Chair suggested that the proper procedure will be to go
through the Public Affairs Office; that procedure was approved. [A
copy of the press release will be attached as an appendix to the
electronic posting of these minutes.]
b. Acceding to a request by Professors J. Moore and B. Woolsey, the issue
of the "change in rules" for the selection of a vice president was
addressed again. The Chair reviewed the events that led to the
change, reminded Council that the procedures for this search are part
of the College Regulations, and there fore liable to change by the
Board of Visitors without consultation of the faculty, and mentioned
that he had protested the failure to consult the faculty to the dean
and the President.
Professor Woolsey distributed a draft of a statement addressing future
searches.
Professor Holbein asked that this matter be discussed in conjunction
with the Faculty Manual; the Chair deferred further discussion.
c. Professor Woolsey raised the issue of "duty hours" and the requirement
for continuous wearing of the uniform. He also distributed a draft
proposal to redefine duty hours. No action was taken.
d. Proposed revisions to the Faculty Manual. The Chair outlined
guidelines for the discussion. It should be limited to five minutes
per item. Controversial topics requiring more time will be directed
to either subcommittee or standing committee for further discussion.
In the meanwhile, an interim Manual will be made available to the
faculty; topics still under discussion will be so marked.
1. The following changes were accepted without discussion.
a. The Faculty Manual will be available on the VAX
b. There will be no civilians in the day program. Various
enrollment numbers need to be checked and verified, however.
c. References to the Charleston Consortium have been deleted.
d. Revisions in the policy on Final Exams are in accord with
current policy
e. Revisons in the policy on the Repeating of Courses are in
accord with current policy.
f. Grievances. These revisions are in accord with current
policy.
g. Organization of the Citadel: This is in accord with current
policy. The senior administrative staff now includes the
director of student activities and the director of
intercollegiate athletics.
2. The following matters were deferred:
a. Teaching loads and FTE requirements. This issue was assigned
to the Faculty Employment Committee for further study.
b. English Fluency: Professor Zahid noted that this follows from
Faculty Council actions in 1991-92 but that changes have been
made in the wording; the first sentence of part I should read
"all applicants will make an oral presentation . . . " The
Chair will discuss this with Dean Metts.
At 12:30 PM, the Chair called a recess until 4:00 PM.
Faculty Council reconvened at 4:08 PM. In attendance: Professors Woolsey,
Alford, Carter, Holbein, Mailloux, Coussons, W. Moore, Richardson, Anessi,
Francel, Zahid, and Davis.
The discussion on revisions of the Faculty Manual continued. The items
discussed were:
1. CDF Faculty Fellows
Professor W. Moore expressed reservations that the selection committee is
not involved in the "review before reappointment" process; that there
appears to be no formal review process; why not include faculty as well as
administration in the review process?
Professor W. Moore moved, second by Professor Anessi, the following text
follow the first sentence of the the third paragraph and replace the
original text:
"The decision to renew is made early in the Spring semester of the third
year of the appointment. It is based on a review by the Executive Vice
President/Dean of the College of a written report and documentation
presented by the Faculty Fellow, an interview with the individual, and a
written evaluation of his or her performance by an appropriately appointed
faculty screening committee. Additional information and rcommendations
may be solicited by the Executive Vice President/Dean of the College in
this process. If the Faculty Fellow is not renewed, the procedure to fill
the available Faculty Fellow is initiated by the Executive Vice
President/Dean of the College. "
The motion carried unanimously.
A question arose concerning the present number and the holders of these
fellowships. The Chair agreed to make inquiries.
2. Fixed-term Endowed Faculty Chairs
The proposed revision is that the filling of these positions will become
the responsibility of the appropriate department, not the college
administration, and the department need not (unless it so chooses) conduct
a national search for each chair.
Discussion followed on the meaning and implication of "fixed-term"
appointments. The consensus is that it is the responsibility of the
appropriate department to establish, on a case-by-case basis, the
expectations of a holder of a fixed-term chair.
Professor Holbein moved, second by Professor Davis, to accept the
recommendations. Carried 8-2-2.
On behalf of the Political Science Department, Professor Davis asked that
the John C. West Chair not be assigned to the Political Science
Department, since that department has no voice in choosing the chair
holder.
3. Tenured Endowed Faculty Chairs.
The proposed revisions grant more authority to the department.
Professor Holbein moved, second by Professor Alford, to accept the
revisions. Carried unanimously
4. Endowed Professorships
The revision is to define the process for determining the professorships.
Responsibility is to remain with the department. The point was made that
the honorarium is a very modest supplement in excess of normal salary.
Professor Holbein moved, second by Professor Davis, to accept the
revision. Carried unanimously.
5. Faculty Responsibilty to the Honor Code
The proposed revision is a response to a question from the English
Department: Does the faculty member have the right to determine that
plagarism has occurred, independently of the Honor Court, and can the
faculty member award an appropriate grade to a plagiarized assignment,
regardless of the Honor Court's decision?
The philosophy behind the revision is that plagiarism is best determined
by the faculty, who are professinally trained in the matter. The question
to be resolved by the honor court is one of intent: Was the offense due
to ignorance or was it deliberate? The honor court does not address the
question of whether or not plagiarism occurred. If the faculty member
suspects the plagiarism to be deliberate, he is expected to report it to
the Honor Court.
If the honor court decision is "not deliberate" the student remains in the
corps of cadets and the faculty member retains control of the awarded
grade.
Professor Holbein moved, second by Professor Anessi, to accept the Dean's
statement. Carried unanimously.
Professor Coussons moved, that the Executive Committee attempt to redraft
the statement to make it more concise but keeping the spirit of its
meaning. Carried unanimously.
At 5:10, several members departed. Due to the loss of a quorum, Faculty
Council met as a committee of the whole to review the following items.
1. Student Evaluation of Instruction.
The Chair briefly reviewed the recent history; the committee chaired by
Professor Steed will be reconstituted to continue work on the evaluation
form.
Faculty Council has previously approved the concept of evaluation. In the
opinion of the Chair, the prime issue of concern to the faculty is the
manner in which the results of these surveys will be used. The
reliability and validity of the evaluations is also a primary concern, of
course.
Concern was expressed about the specific dates of testing outlined in the
draft document.
Because of the importance of the issue, the proposal was referred to the
Curriculum Committee for further study and recommendations. This
committee will also asked to coordinate its review with Professor Steed's
committee.
2. Selection and Evaluation of Academic Deans
Evaluation: This requires a faculty component. The matter was referred
to the Internal College Affairs Committee for further study.
Selection: The concept underlying the proposed revison is that the
position's supervisor should have input into the process. The matter was
referred to subcommittee for further study.
3. Academic Department Heads: The stated policy is that searches will be
internal except when the department can demonstrate the need for an open
search. A proposed alternate appointment plan has been to have three
three-year terms before the individual must step down. This was directed
to a Subcommittee C for further discussion.
Meeting adjourned, 5:50 PM.
/s/ Thomas H. Richardson
Secretary, Faculty Council
Appendices to minutes of 19 Nov 92
Appendix: E-mail message reporting faculty poll:
* * * * * *
From: CIT::RICHARDSONT "Tom Richardson ChemDept 792-7791" 19-NOV-1992 13:36:39.51
To: @ALL_FACULTY
CC:
Subj: from Faculty Council regarding recent poll of tenured/t-track faculty
===============================================================================
For the information of the Faculty . . . distributed to the (provided) list
@ALL_FACULTY
===============================================================================
At the Faculty Council meeting of 22 Oct 1992, the following motion was
approved; it was forwarded to Subcommittee C for implementation. The poll of
the tenured and tenure-track faculty has been taken and tabulated. The
results are as follows:
> There were 127 responses from 149 ballots distributed; 3 of these were
returned "blank"
> The motion:
As there is a substantial probability that the court case
involving The Citadel and the three women veteran students will
have a similar outcome to that involving Virginia Military
Institute, the Faculty Council should poll by secret ballot the
tenured and tenure-track faculty to obtain their answers to the
following four questions. The results could well be useful in
formulating future resolutions [from Faculty Council]. In
addition, the results will be reported to all who participated.
RESULTS
1. Do you favor The Citadel becoming a private college? 10 Yes, 102 No
2. Do you favor the State of South Carolina's establishing
a separate corps of cadets for women students only? 10 Yes, 105 No
3. Do you favor the admission of women to the now all
male The Citadel Corps of Cadets? 82 Yes, 33 No
RESULTS
4. In case a choice must be made among the following, which
course of action do you believe is the most prudent?
a. The Citadel becoming a private college. 17
b. The Citadel establishing a corps of cadets for women
students. 8
c. The Citadel admitting women to The Citadel Corps of
Cadets. 99
Please contact the Chair of Faculty Council, Professor Peter Mailloux, should
there be any questions or comments regarding this.
=============================
Thomas H. Richardson
Secretary, Faculty Council
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Appendix: Capture of Public Relations Press Release wrt survey
* * * * *
FACULTY COUNCIL SURVEY RESULTS
CHARLESTON, S.C., Nov. 19.--The Citadel Faculty Council recently
conducted a survey questionnaire of tenured and tenure track faculty members.
These faculty members of the college, excluding deans, were asked questions
regarding their preferences of the future of the college in the event The
Citadel were to have to change its current admissions policy. The results of
that questionnaire were delivered to the president of the college today.
The questionnaire asked whether or not faculty members favored similar
options declared by the 4th Circuit Court in the case of VMI and its admissions
policy. Additionally, one question dealt with faculty choosing one of the
options in the VMI case if those were the only options available to The
Citadel.
"The survey was unscientific," said Major Rick Mill, Director of Public
Relations at The Citadel. "It did not allow the option of the faculty to
declare their support and belief of the current Cadet Corps and the admissions
policy of The Citadel," said Mill.
The purposes of The Citadel Faculty Council are to consider institu-
tional problems and policies; to study, discuss, and make recommendations con-
cerning them and to serve as a channel of communication between the faculty and
the administration. The survey conducted had no valid purpose in regards to the
faculty council.
"It is our position," said Mill, "that individual faculty members
here at The Citadel can obtain for their own purposes, any material they deem
beneficial to further their academic pursuits and professional development.
Surveys assist in efforts to provide data concerning a myriad of subjects and
can be interpreted for many different purposes," said Mill.
The survey conducted by the faculty council of faculty members at The
Citadel was administered under the assumption that The Citadel would be forced
to change its admissions policy.
"That is absolutely not the case," said Mill. "The unscientific
results of this informal questionnaire should not be misconstrued as a
precursor to future policy of The Citadel," said Mill.
What the survey did determine was that if The Citadel were forced to
change its admissions policy the following desires of the faculty would be:
a. The least preferred option, in the opinion of the faculty, would be
for The Citadel to become a private educational institution.
b. The next preferred option, in the opinion of the faculty, would be to have
parallel military college implemented for women in South Carolina.
c. The preferred option, in the opinion of the faculty, would be for The
Citadel to become co-educational.
Those three options have no obvious merit since no change in the
admissions policy has occurred.
"We stand behind all our faculty members in their efforts to educate
Cadets," said Lieutenant General Claudius E. Watts, III. "Their support and
belief in single gender education was not offered as an option on the informal
questionnaire," said Watts.
"Every faculty member and prospective faculty member here at The
Citadel fully understands the unique environment in which they chose to pursue
their professional and academic careers," said Watts. "They are free to teach
anywhere they so choose.
"Their presence here indicates their belief in the benefits of the
educational opportunity provided for the Cadets in the single gender
environment," said Watts.
"The Citadel faculty maintain credentials which any institution of
higher learning would aspire to obtain for its staff," said Watts. "Their
academic purpose here has provided South Carolina, the nation and the world
with leaders in all fields of endeavor that have contributed immeasurable
benefits to society.
"These accomplishments and efforts on the part of The Citadel faculty
should strengthen the belief in the value and validity of single gender
education and the benefits it provides for women as well as men," said Watts.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE CITADEL FACULTY COUNCIL
Minutes of the Regular Meeting of 22 October 1992
Board of Visitors Room, Jenkins Hall, 11:00 AM
1. The meeting was called to order by the Chair, Professor Peter Mailloux, at
11:01 AM. Absent were Professors Ouzts, Baldwin, Salas, and Milukas.
Professors Johns and Deutz substituted for Professors Pyatt and Zahid,
respectively.
2. Approval of minutes from previous meetings:
Professor Holbein moved, second by Professor Anessi, the acceptance of the
minutes of the 10 Sep 92 Special Meeting. Approved by voice vote.
Professor Holbein moved, second by Professor O. Bowman, the acceptance of
the minutes of the 17 Sep 92 regular meeting. Approved by voice vote.
Professor Holbein moved, second by Professor Anessi, the acceptance of the
24 Sep 92 Special Meeting. In the paragraph under FACILITIES which begins
"The canteen and gift shop," the words "The ad hoc committee recommended
that" are to be inserted before "a percentage of the profits". As
modified, approved by voice vote. [POSTED MINUTES REFLECT THIS CHANGE]
3. Announcements from the Chair.
a. Positive comments about our resolutions of 10 Sep 92 regarding the
veterans program have been received from Professors Vozikis, Moreland,
Moore, and Nath and from Mr. Rod Welch.
b. On 21 Sep 92, the Chair and Professor Tucker, president of The Citadel
Chapter of AAUP, visited with President Watts to discuss the issues
raised in Professor Tucker's Spring 1992 letter to the President.
These issues include (1) the naming of a head of the civil engineering
department without the consent of the civil engineering faculty, (2)
the naming of an endowed chair in business without involvement of the
business department, (3) the filling of faculty positions while
bringing only the top candidate to campus, and (4) the perception that
faculty are ignored. The results of this meeting have been summarized
in a letter that Professor Tucker subsequently sent to the President
and which will be circulated to Faculty Council for information
purposes.
c. The results of the Faculty Council voting for representatives to the
search committee for the Vice President and Dean of the College were
distributed via E-mail. Professors Bill Gordon and Peter Mailloux
have been appointed by Faculty Council. The Chair has forwarded these
names to the President. According to the letter which asked for the
representatives from Faculty Council, this committee was to be charged
by 16 Oct 92. The representatives from Academic Board are Professors
Phil Ross and Bob White. At the Academic Board Meeting of 20 Oct 92,
the President stated that two of the three representatives to be
appointed by him were Professor Bud Askins and Mr. Leonard Fulghum of
the Board of Visitors. As of 21 Oct 92, the third presidential
appointment had not been announced.
In related discussion, the Chair stated that the change in the
procedures for the selection of the Vice Presidential Search Committee
was the result of the Board of Visitors incorporating a proposed plan
into the college regulations; this position and its method of
selection is within their sphere of influence.
d. The Chair sent a letter to Professor Gary Nichols giving Faculty
Council's reaction to the "Facilities" and "Staffing" reports from
Strategic Planning; a copy was distributed to members of Faculty
Council. An ad hoc committee has been formed to study possible uses
of Thompson Hall; the members are the Capers-Hall department heads
plus Dean Reilly and various individuals associated with activities.
The Chair had recommended to Dean Reilly that a liaison to Strategic
Planning be included; this will be done. At the present time, there
appears that there will be no work done to Thompson Hall until 1997;
therefore the committee will have adequate time to make its
recommendations.
e. The Chair has received a copy of the court Opinion on the VMI case;
this was also sent to department heads. Interested individuals may
inspect this document either from the Chair or their head.
f. The Chair noted that Dean Metts had sent a letter to faculty
concerning the evaluation of instruction process. The Chair
emphasized again the importance of faculty's passing along any
comments they might have about the present instrument so that it can
be made as reliable as possible. He reminded members that it WILL be
used, in some form, in the fall of 1993.
g. A letter has been sent to all faculty regarding the availability of
Faculty Council minutes on the VAX.
h. The Chair met with Dean Metts concerning the revision of the Faculty
Manual. Copies of revisions which Dean Metts considered important
have been received by the Chair; these will be circulated to Faculty
Council for discussion at the November meeting. The Chair asked that
members peruse the present Faculty Manual for incorrect or inadequate
material. Faculty Committees will be invited to peruse those sections
which pertain to their duties.
In discussion, it was noted that some items in the Manual are
statements of fact, specifically such things as state regulations and
personnel policies. These will be changed without discussion.
When it is finished, the revised edition will be available on the VAX,
with hard copies in the departmental offices.
i. The Chair asked that the three subcommittees meet to elect chairs and
to report the results of these elections. Committee assignments were
outlined in the appendix of the 17 Sep 92 Faculty Council minutes.
4. Reports from the Chair.
a. Academic Board met on 20 October 92. The status of the Vice
Presidental search was described above. Dean Metts noted that he had
received comments from some departments about the evaluation of
instruction instrument. The special arrangements for veteran students
are still being worked on. The President stated that it should be
assumed that there will be no civilians in the day program in Spring
1992 (this includes fifth-year students). The concept and other
aspects of a Learning Center will be discussed at a future Academic
Board meeting. There is continuing concern about students dropping
courses; this will be examined by Dean Metts and a committee.
b. The Strategic Planning committee did not meet but copies of its "Goals
and Benchmarks" statement have been distributed. Comments to this
should be forwarded to Gary Nichols.
c. The Graduate Council met on 8 Oct 92. Key items were: (1) A graduate
assistant manual was approved. This will make explicit the standards
to be met by graduate assistants; this should minimize abuse of the
system. (2) A subcommittee has been formed to review the criteria
for graduate faculty in preparation for a review of the graduate
faculty itself. (3) There will also be a meeting of the graduate
faculty to discuss the future of graduate education at The Citadel.
5. Old Business
a. Brown Bag Lunches (Professor Ezell): The concept is to establish a
once-a-month series of lunch-time professional meetings consisting of
presentation by members of the faculty to the group.
The Chair called for a motion. Professor Holbein moved, second by
Professor Anessi, to table the request because of the large number of
activities involving faculty which are already scheduled. Carried by
voice vote.
b. Research Report from Strategic Planning. The Chair opened the floor
to comments.
Professor Alford pointed out that professors in the Business
Administration department may do, and are sometimes required to do
(for accreditation, for instance), kinds of scholarly activity no
mentioned in the Report's list of scholarly activities. Professor
Maillouz pointed out that other departments may also have such
activities, and that all such activities should be included in the
list. These activities should also be brought to the attention of the
promotion and tenure commitee, it they have not been.
The access to offices and other facilities as noted on page 5, item 7,
must have special attention drawn to it (Professors Davis, Mailloux).
Page 5, item 5 (faculty vitae) was discussed in view of the recent
availability of access to these on the VAX. (Professor Alford) It
was noted that for the most part these are the 1987 versions and that
faculty have been invited to update these. The only individual who
can do this (other than IRM by special request) is the faculty member
him/herself. [Individuals needing assistance may contact the
secretary.]
Page 4, item 6. Professor Carter noted that Institutional Research no
longer appears to be a grants assistance office; that the college
presently lacks a real research assistance office. Help is needed if
The Citadel is to be as serious about research as it wishes to be
(Professor Clees); we do not, however, want to add additional staff;
is there a possibility of assistance from one of Clemson, USC, MUSC?
It was noted that through the grant overhead, these offices tend to be
self sufficient (Professor Alford). It was further stated that Ms.
Pinta is often overwhelmed with the grant auditing process in addition
to her other duties (Professor Adelman). This portion of the report
needs to be reconsidered and expanded (Professor Mailloux).
Professor Adelman moved, second by Professor Johns, to accept the
report for informational purposes. Carried by voice vote.
The Chair stated that the concerns and comments of Faculty Council
would be conveyed to Strategic Planning.
6. New Business
a. Professor Adelman asked that Faculty Council address the procedures of
taking and reporting class attendance; he presented the background
situation leading to his concerns.
Brief discussion of the attendance process ensued. The various
activities which can conflict with class attendance is a concern.
The discussion was terminated with a call for a motion. No motion was
forthcoming; the issue died.
b. Professor Adelman moved, second by Professor Dornetto:
As there is a substantial probability that the court case
involving The Citadel and the three women veteran students will
have a similar outcome to that involving Virginia Military
Institute, the Faculty Council should poll by secret ballot the
tenured and tenure-track faculty to obtain their answers to the
following four questions. The results could well be useful in
formulating future resolutions [from Faculty Council]. In
addition, the results will be reported to all who participated.
1. Do you favor The Citadel becoming a private college?
2. Do you favor the State of South Carolina's establishing a
separate corps of cadets for women students only?
3. Do you favor the admission of women to the now all male The
Citadel Corps of Cadets?
4. In case a choice must be made among the following, which
course of action do you believe is the most prudent?
a. The Citadel becoming a private college.
b. The Citadel establishing a corps of cadets for women
students.
c. The Citadel admitting women to The Citadel Corps of
Cadets.
Professor Coussons stated that the Board of Visitors would not take
kindly to this, that it would hurt Faculty Council credibility with
the Board of Visitors. He recommended that we not do this.
Professor Holbein indicated that such a vote could be premature as
there is a high probability for further appeal in the courts.
Professor Dornetto noted that the process of The Citadel's going
private has implicit in it that the faculty and staff would no longer
be state employees with the benefits that acrue.
Professor Mailloux reminded Council that the deans, the
administration, and the Board of Visitors occasionally question
whether Faculty Council speaks for the faculty. This would be an
opportunity to determine what the faculty as a whole think on this
issue, for future reference.
By show of hands, 8 Favor, 5 Oppose, 3 Abstain. The motion carried.
The Chair assigned implementation of the motion to Subcommittee C.
c. Professor Carter asked if Faculty Council should revise its 10 Sep 92
resolutions to include Marine, Navy and fifth year students together
with the veteran students.
The Chair provided some background: He had asked Dean Metts for
clarification and learned the following. The Board of Visitors
resolution is now interpreted to mean that no civilians will attend
day classes beginning in the Spring of 1993. This includes fifth year
students who will have the option to rejoin Corps of Cadets as senior
privates or to complete their degrees at night or elsewhere. The Navy
and Marine students will for the moment continue in their status.
Discussion was terminated.
d. Draft of an honor code clarification from Dean Metts. The Chair read
the cover letter to the proposed honor code clarification that had
been distributed to faculty (Appendix). The draft was moved by
Professor Holbein, second by Professor O. Bowman.
Professor Mailloux outlined the background to the situation. The
question had been asked of Dean Metts and Professor Coussons, the
Advisor to the Honor Court: What if a suspected case of plagiarism is
referred to the Honor Court, which does not find the student guilty?
Does the professor of the class still have the option to decide the
student had, for the purposes of the class, committed a plagiarism and
grade him accordingly?
By show of hands, 2 Favor, 11 Oppose, the motion failed.
The Chair directed that this proposal be included in the greater task
of reviewing and revising the Faculty manual.
7. At 12:40, it was m/s/c to adjourn.
/s/ Thomas H. Richardson
Secretary, Faculty Council
* * *
Appendix: Text of Dean Metts Cover Letter accompanying the Draft Honor Code
Clarification
Over the years, a number of Faculty members have shared their
confusions regarding how their teaching responsibilities relate to
the Cadet Honor Code. When we detect acts of cheating or
plagiarism, how are the actions and consequences that we are
expected to take as professional educators related to the
institutional consequences that may be forthcoming through the
Cadet Honor System? It has been proposed that a statement
regarding this matter be included with the Faculty Manual . . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE CITADEL FACULTY COUNCIL
Minutes for the Special Meeting of 24 Sep 1992
Board of Visitors Room, Jenkins Hall, 4:00 PM
1. Call to Order and Attendance
The meeting was called to order by the Chair, Professor Peter Mailloux at
4:03 PM. Absent were Professors Adelman, Clees, Dornetto, McRae,
Milukas, Ouzts, Pyatt, Salas, and Teske.
2. Announcements from the Chair.
The Chair reported that the process to start the search for a new
Executive Vice President should be beginning within a week, as soon as a
charge is received from the President.
Subsequent discussion focussed on the make-up of this search committee
and the method of selecting its members. One pertinent point is
that although the two members to be elected by Faculty Council need not
be members of Faculty Council, they should vigorously represent the
faculty in the evaluation and selection process.
The Chair suggested that the appointment procedure could be handled with
out a meeting, it the members so wished. He would ask for nominations,
then distribute the names for voting. Several votes might be necessary
if there were more than ten nominees. The membership agreed to this
procedure.
3. Meeting Business: Reports from Strategic Planning.
The three reports which have been distributed to Faculty Council are the
first of several which will be prepared. Faculty Council serves strictly
as a review and recommendation body; these reports are made to the
administration. An additional report, "Priority Ranking of Master Plan
Project" was distributed to Faculty Council (Appendix I).
a. FACILITIES: The Chair asked that the emphasis be on recommendations and
priorities rather than on "tiny details;" the issue of how to use
Thompson Hall should perhaps be addressed later as a separate matter. It
was noted that this report has been seen by Academic Board and various
comments and recommendations have already been made by Academic Board.
The following information was brought forward in response to various
questions and comments.
Professor Bowman reported that the original "counseling and mathematics"
request had been to ensure "adequate space" for these programs, not that
these programs be moved to Thompson Hall; that the "Student Learning
Center" is an umbrella for a variety of student services; and that a
subcommittee of the Facilities Planning Committee is about to be named
to consider the issue of how to use Thompson Hall. This last was in
response to Professor Mailloux's suggestion that a subcommittee of
Faculty Council might consider the issue. Professor Holbein recalled
that there was once a "little theatre" within Thompson Hall and suggested
that this facility should be restored.
The off-campus development (report pages 11-13, priority item 6) may
depend on cooperation with the city and might need to be accelerated
(question from Professor Davis).
The canteen and gift shop upgrade (report page 6) is in progress; the
bowling alley will be made over into a new canteen and the gift shop
expanded into the present canteen. The ad hoc committee recommended
that a percentage of the profits of these operations will go towards
future maintenance and renovation (question from Professor Holbein).
Consideration needs to be given to conservation and consolidation of
services. The new cadet dining hall should be able to accommodate
superfluous satellite facilities, especially faculty house and perhaps the
canteen. The report needs to address energy, water, heat, etc.,
conservation and recycling (comment from Professor Carter).
Byrd Hall (omitted from the report) renovations and repairs have been
added to the Master Plan and will be incorporated into this report
(question from Professor Richardson).
The needs of the departments housed in Capers Hall (priority item 4)
should be considered (comment from Professor Mailloux).
The needs of special students and visitors (report page 17) should be a
very long-term aspect (comment from Professor Holbein).
The actual need for a parking garage was doubted (question from
Professor Baldwin).
Various aspects of the barracks rebuilding were discussed, especially the
rumor that the new barracks will not be air conditioned. Comment was
made that if this is to be the case, high ceilings and transoms must be
included in the new construction. It was doubted that any reputable
architect would prepare a 1990's design for South Carolina that omitted
air conditioning.
Professor Davis moved, second by Professor Holbein, that the
facilities report with comments be accepted for the purposes of
information. Motion passed by voice vote.
b. STAFFING: In response to written concerns from Professor Zahid, The
Chair stated that a separate report covering academic support services
such as the writing center and IRM will be forthcoming.
Professor Davis noted that many of the items in this report follow from a
survey which was administered to a subset of the faculty.
The organizational chart (report page 24) has since been updated (comment
from Professor Mailloux).
Over the time period discussed by the report, there has been significant
disparity in the growth of the numbers of administrators over the numbers
of academics (comment from Professors Davis and Holbein).
The tenure upon arrival (report page 12) provisions for endowed chairs is
not consistent with the provisions for department heads hired from the
outside (these individuals too should receive tenure upon arrival)
(comment from Professor Coussons). It was noted that other "special
professorships" are not addressed in the report and that the selection
guidelines for these need to be clarified (comment from Professor
Mailloux).
There was also discussion about the present method for choosing a
department head. This issue was not addressed in the Staffing report,
but the Chair reminded members that two years ago, Deans Metts and Mahan
had stated that their position was that the department heads should be
chosen from within the departments, except under extraordinary
circumstances. The responsibility was in the members of the departments
or the deans to justify the case for extraordinary circumstances. As far
as he knew, this policy had not changed.
It was noted (report page 15) that the Math Lab has no staffing beyond
cadet student assistants (comment from Professor Zahid).
Considerable discussion focussed on the stated relationships among
teaching, research, scholarly activity, professional growth, and other
professional activities; these appear to be equivalent but this seems to
be at odds with current college policy. Accurate definitions and
expectations are necessary. Additional comments addressed the perceived
emphasis on publication and apparent negative emphasis of working with
and for students. The expectations for sabbatical leave (pages 7-8, 10)
are also at a variance with current policy.
Professor Coussons moved, second by Professor Woolsey, that "the document
is not an accurate reflection of current college policy and should be
made accurate." Professor Zahid moved to amend the motion to include an
endorsement of the sentiment of the first sentence in the last paragraph
of page seven of the report, "The Citadel should define clearly its
policy on the relative importance of teaching, scholarly activity, and
college service to the professorial career." The amendment was accepted.
The motion passed by a vote of 13-0 with one abstention.
Professor Davis moved, second by Professor Bowman, that the staffing
report with the qualifications as put forth in the previous motion be
accepted for information purposes. The motion passed by voice vote.
5. The Chair deferred discussion of the research report to the next regular
meeting of faculty council.
The actions and discussions of Faculty Council will be reported to the
Strategic Planning committee.
Meeting adjourned at 5:32 PM.
/s/ Thomas H. Richardson
Secretary, Faculty Council
* * *
APPENDIX I. Priority Ranking of Master Plan Projects
1. Elimination [of] deferred maintenance across the campus
2. Replacement of the barracks
3. Renovation/replacement of Thompson Hall
4. Renovation of classroom buildings
5. Planning and construction of [a] parking garage
6. Development of Lockwood Drive property and adjacent landfill area
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE CITADEL FACULTY COUNCIL
Minutes for the Meeting of 17 Sep 1992
Board of Visitors Room, Jenkins Hall, 11:00 AM
1. Call to Order and Attendance
The meeting was called to order by the Chair, Professor Peter Mailloux at
11:02 a.m. Absent were Professors Alford, Salas, and Milukas. Professor
Rembiesa served as proxy for Professor Adelman; Professor Baldwin has
been elected by the Biology Department. General Watts was also in
attendance.
2. Approval of the Minutes from the meeting of 30 Apr 92.
Professor Holbein moved the acceptance of the minutes as distributed;
second by Professor Francel.
Professor Zahid requested the addition of the words "communicated with"
inserted in section 11-A between the words "and" and "Mr. Nadzak".
The minutes, as corrected, were approved.
3. Announcements from the Chair.
a. The Chair thanked members of Faculty Council for their work during
the special meeting of 10 Sep 92.
b. A new Faculty Council roster was distributed with the agenda; this is
reproduced (with corrections) in Appendix I below.
c. Actions of the Executive Committee:
(1) Subcommittee structure. Subcommittee-D has been retired; its
members are reassigned to the other subcommittees; the executive
committee will function as a fourth subcommittee.
(2) Meeting times. In general, the regular meetings of Faculty
Council will be at 11:00 on the designated Thursdays. If longer
agendas are anticipated, the meeting will be called for Thursday
afternoon. Those members of Faculty Council who had provided
Fall schedules for perusal were thanked.
d. Letter of response to the Race Relations Advisory Committee Report.
There has been no formal response to this letter which was sent on
behalf of Faculty Council. However, a copy of the President's
recommendations was received; copies can be had upon request to the
Chair.
e. Letter from Faculty Council about the Veterans Day Program. This was
forwarded to the President on the afternoon of 10 Sep 92 (following
the special Faculty Council meeting). The President verbally
acknowledged receipt of the letter and stated that it would be
presented to the Board of Visitors on 14 Sep 92. The President later
affirmed that this had been done.
f. Student Evaluations of Faculty. The crucial point of the
disagreement between Faculty Council and the dean was the matter of
"sharing" the results. The Chair has met with COL Metts several
times on this issue. The agreement is that during the time that the
instrument is tested, the results will not be shared with department
heads. Rather, the dean will collect responses from the departments
about the instrument and these will be shared with the committee
chaired by Professor Steed, the Academic Board, and with Faculty
Council. Following this evaluation, the instrument will be modified
as necessary for use in Fall 1992 and Spring 1993.
The goal is that an acceptable instrument will be in place by Fall
1993. The exact details of how the results of these evaluations will
be used for probationary reappointment and tenure and promotion are
still to be determined. A letter is forthcoming to all faculty which
will rescind the spring 1992 directive. The Chair has assured the
dean that the faculty agrees in principle with the importance of
student evaluation and asks that all faculty provide as much
constructive feedback to the dean as possible.
4. The Chair introduced General Watts who presented and reviewed:
a. the situation and events leading up to the Board of Visitors action
to terminate the veteran student day program.
b. the actions which the college has taken during the past year in
response to the events which were described in the "Sports
Illustrated" article of 14 Sep 92. These actions have included
forming the Lane Commission and the Race Relations Advisory Committee
and attempts to implement their recommendations. The President also
said that the college is trying to be more open in dealing with the
media and the public about alleged problems.
c. the financial situation of the college in view of the fiscal state of
South Carolina and the actions of the court, the Budget and Control
Board, and possibly the legislature. The effect on the college
academic program, he said, should be no greater than it was last
year.
Subsequent discussion focused on a perceived low faculty morale and poor
internal communications.
5. Reports.
The Chair reported on the Academic Board meetings of April, August and
September. Significant items from those meetings are
a. there is no new information concerning the shooting of Cadet Byrd;
the investigation is continuing.
b. a task force has been established to study the question of transfer
credit from other institutions, especially as this pertains to
courses which constitute the core curriculum. Particular attention
is focussed on the English and mathematics courses.
c. the Ethics Act as passed by the legislature has implications for
faculty who are paid for their involvement in conferences or
seminars. At the present time, such payment is not permitted, even
though the Statehouse admits that faculty who happen to work for a
state school were not originally intended to be covered by the act.
Several schools are making efforts to have this oversight corrected;
The Citadel is supporting a reinterpretation of the Act to exclude
faculty who are paid for participation in events such as conferences
and seminars.
d. the presentation and adoption of the 24-hour cadet schedule
e. continued concern on race relations and problems of sexual
harrassment.
f. the search for a Deputy Assistant Commandant has been terminated;
this position will not be filled.
g. discussion on the appropriate course load for entering students
h. discussion towards establishing an earlier deadline for withdrawal
from a course
i. establishment of duty hours from the first period of the day to the
last; that uniforms will be worn during that time, even it the
faculty member is not teaching a class.
j. a tuition asssistance program has been implemented. It presently
applies only to members faculty and staff: 4 hours per semester in
the evening college as space is available and prerequisites have been
met. Expansion to dependents and cross-registration with other state
colleges is a future goal.
k. special advising of veteran students for spring 1992 and subsequent
semesters: department heads were asked to forward to COL Metts lists
of courses required by their majors; attempts will be made to meet
these needs. The Chair raised the point that the individual faculty
who will be presenting these courses, possibly by special
arrangement, should be involved in the planning process; the point
was accepted.
l. other veteran-related items: the ACLU has filed suit to stop the
closing of the veterans program, the veteran students have asked, of
the plaintiffs, permission to be grandfathered without jeopardizing
the position of The Citadel.
The Chair has attended meetings of the Strategic Planning Committee
during the summer months. Several of the reports from this committee are
on the day's agenda. A key item presently before Strategic Planning is
the preparation of a document to enumerate goals and benchmarks for the
next five years; much of this work has been completed, and it will be
coming to Faculty Council for perusal in the near future.
The Chair met with the Graduate Council on 3 Sep 92. Key issues:
a. the proper ways to use graduate assistants; the need to NOT use them
primarily as clerical help. A plan to change the pay scale to
reflect the work the graduate student is doing was passed with one
dissenting vote.
b. Dean Reilly reported that a plan to improve student recruitment is
being developed.
c. the summer school calendar was reviewed in light of the recent
changes in the public school calendars. The summer school dates have
been adjusted to accomodate public school teachers' schedules.
6. Old Business
a. The Chair deferred action on Professor Ezell's "Brown Bag Lunches" to
a later date.
b. Strategic Planning: In addition to the reports on Facilities,
Research, and Staffing, additonal reports are anticipated in the near
future. These reports are distributed to Faculty Council for perusal
and review and to solicit recommendations; since this committee
reports to the President, Faculty Council's role is not to approve or
reject these reports.
Professor Zahid moved, second by Professor Holbein, that Faculty
Council hold a special meeting on 1 Oct 92 discuss the reports on
Facilities, Research, and Staffing. The motion carried, 12-3.
[Later: meeting date changed to 24 Sep 92]
7. New Business
The Chair reported that a search for the position of Executive Vice
President and Dean of the College is about to begin. As reported at
Academic Board, the constitution of the search committee has been
changed by the Board of Visitors. Previously, two members were appointed
by Academic Board, two by Faculty council, and three were elected by the
faculty at large. Now, Academic Board and Faculty Council will each
appoint two members but three will be appointed by the President.
8. The next regular meeting of Faculty Council will be on 15 Oct 92; a
special meeting will be held on 1 Oct 92. [Later: meeting date changed
to 24 Sep 92]
9. Professor Holbein moved, second by Professor Anessi, to adjourn at 12:39
PM. Motion carried.
/s/ Thomas H. Richardson
Secretary, Faculty Council
* * *
APPENDIX I. Membership of Faculty Council, 1992-1993
Email Department Representative Term Expires Subcom
========== ============= =================== ============ ======
woolseyw Business Adm. Bill Woolsey 1994 1st C
alfordm Business Adm. Mike Alford 1993 1st A
ouztsd Education Dan T. Ouzts 1994 1st C
cleesw Education W. James Clees* 1993 2nd A
carterj Phys Educ. John S. Carter 1994 1st B
bowmano Psychology D. Oliver Bowman 1993 1st B
holbeinw English Woodrow L. Holbein 1993 1st A
maillouxp English Peter Mailloux 1994 2nd EX Chair
coussonsj History John S. Coussons 1994 1st EX V-Chair
moorew History Winfred B. Moore Jr 1993 1st C
pyatts Library/Museum Sherman E. Pyatt 1993 2nd B
mcraec Mod. Languages Christopher McRae 1994 1st A
davise Political Sci Ed B. Davis 1994 2nd B
baldwinb Biology Robert Baldwin** 1993 1st B
richardsont Chemistry Thomas Richardson 1993 1st EX Sec'ty
anessit Civil Engin. Thomas J. Anessi 1993 1st A
dornettol Electrical Eng Lou D. Dornetto 1993 2nd C
francelm Math/CSSI Margaret Francel 1994 1st B
zahidi Math/CSSI Muhammad Ishaq Zahid 1993 1st A
adelmans Physics Saul J. Adelman 1994 1st C
salasm Aerospace St Mark Salas 1994 1st A
milukas Military Martin Milukas 1994 1st C
teskej Naval Science Julian Teske 1994 1st B
* replaces Linda Elksnin during 1992-93 sabbatical leave
** replaces B. J. Kelley Jr during 1992-93 sabbatical leave
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE CITADEL FACULTY COUNCIL
Minutes for the Special Meeting of 10 Sep 1992
Board of Visitors Room, Jenkins Hall, 11:00 AM
1. Call to Order and Attendance
The meeting was called to order by the Chair, Professor Peter
Mailloux, at 11:03 a.m. Absent were Professors Alford and Clees.
Professor Brown served as proxy for Professor Ouzts, Professor
Porcher served as proxy for Professor Kelley, Professor Menefee
served as proxy for Professor Teske. Also present was Professor
Moreland.
2. The Chair described and reviewed the events and circumstances leading to
the Board of Visitors decision to end the veteran student day
program; this information was obtained in a meeting with President
Watts and the Strategic Planning committee.
3. The Chair opened the floor to discussion. Among the points made were:
There is a moral contract between the college and the matriculated
student who remains in good academic standing. The termination by
the college of the veteran students' program without providing a
"grandfather" provision is a violation of this contract; this is not
an honorable behavior. (Professor Adelman)
Given the Board of Visitors assumptions about the mission of The
Citadel, their resolutions make sense; however, the faculty were not
solicited for comments or advice at any time prior to the general
announcement of the termination of the veteran student's program.
There was no announcement to faculty that such a decision would be
made; to date there has been no official announcement to the faculty
of this decision. (Professor Coussons and others)
There is concern as to how departments and individual faculty will
meet the administration's promise that degrees in progress will be
completed; how will this affect faculty load, what evening school
commitment by "day faculty" is anticipated, what additional
remuneration or staffing will be needed or provided? (Professor
Porcher and others)
4. Professor Zahid moved the passage of a resolution which had been
distributed to the members of Faculty Council by Professor Davis on
behalf of Professor Moreland; second by Professor W.B. Moore. The
motion failed, 8-10. The text of Professor Moreland's proposed
resolution is attached as Appendix I.
5. Professor Porcher moved the passage of a resolution which combined the
draft from Professor Moreland with a draft which had been distributed
to the members of Faculty Council by Professor Adelman; second by
Professor Dornetto. After much discussion, the motion failed, 9-10.
The text of Professor Adelman's proposed resolution is attached as
Appendix II.
6. Professor Porcher moved the passage of the draft resolution from
Professor Adelman, second by Professor W.B. Moore.
Professor Coussons moved to table the motion; was seconded. The
motion to table failed, 4-8.
Professor Woolsey moved to amend the motion to retain only the
final sentence; was seconded. The motion to amend passed, 10-7.
Professor Anessi moved to amend the motion to include the initial
sentence of the original motion; second by Professor Woolsey. The
motion to amend passed, 14-1.
The motion passed, 14-1.
"Be it resolved that Faculty Council requests that The Citadel Board
of Visitors honor the moral contract a college assumes when it admits
a student and allow current veteran students in good academic
standing to continue in the day program until they complete their
bachelor's degrees."
7 Professor Woolsey moved, second by Professor O. Bowman, the passage of
the following resolution. The motion passed, 15-1.
"Be it resolved that Faculty Council notes with concern the failure
of the administration (1) to consult with the faculty prior to
eliminating the veteran student day program, (2) to notify the
faculty prior to announcing the elimination of the veteran student day
program, and (3) to provide, as of the present time, the faculty with
any formal notice with respect to the elimination of the veteran
student day program."
8. Professor Menefee moved, second by Professor Adelman, the passage of the
final paragraph of Professor Moreland's proposed resolution.
Professor Menefee moved; to amend the motion to include the first
paragraph of Professor Moreland's proposed resolution. The motion to
amend failed.
The original motion passed, 14-1.
"Be it resolved that Faculty Council deplores and opposes the
elimination of the veteran student day program and strongly urges the
immediate restoration of the program."
9. The Chair took the responsibility to communicate the actions of Faculty
Council to the administration. The Chair reminded Council of the
regularly scheduled meeting to be held on 17 Sep 92; the meeting was
adjourned at 12:54 PM.
/s/ Thomas H. Richardson
Secretary, Faculty Council
* * *
APPENDIX I. Text of a proposed resolution from Professor Moreland.
Whereas the abrupt and arbitrary elimination of the day educational
program for veterans affronts veterans across the state of South
Carolina and across the nation, thus deviating from The Citadel's own
ideal of dedication to service to country, and
Whereas the elimination of the program disrupts and distorts the
educational process (as well as the lives) of over 75 current
students in good standing, and
Whereas the elimination of the program substantially reduces the
educational opportunities provided by The Citadel to residents of the
Lowcountry, and
Whereas the elimination of the program undermines public confidence in
the continuity of the Evening College and Graduate programs, and
therefore threatens their continued viability, and
Whereas the elimination of the program affronts The Citadel's own
faculty as it was undertaken without any kind of faculty consultation
or advice or even notification, and
Whereas the elimination of the program reduces the income of The
Citadel so as to exacerbate already critical budget shortages,
Therefore, be it resolved that The Citadel's Faculty Council, on
behalf of The Citadel's Faculty, deplores and opposes the elimination
of the veteran student day program and strongly urges [alternately,
demands] the restoration of the program forthwith.
APPENDIX II. Text of a proposed resolution from Professor Adelman.
Once a college admits a student it assumes a moral contract to let
the student continue to graduation as long as the student is in good
academic standing. The recent announcement of the decision to
terminate at the end of the current semester the Veteran student
program during the day by The Citadel Board of Visitors is both
unethical and without honor. More important than the issue of
whether The Citadel should admit women students is the honor of The
Citadel. Since without the concept of honor, The Citadel as we know
it can not exist we respectively request The Citadel Board of
Visitors to allow current veteran students of good academic standing
to continue in the day program until they complete their bachelor's
degrees.