THE CITADEL FACULTY COUNCIL
Minutes of the Regular Meeting of 4 May 1994
(First Meeting of 1994-95)
Board of Visitors Room, Jenkins Hall, 11:00 AM
1. The 1993-94 Chair, Professor John Coussons, called Faculty Council to
order at 11:06 AM. The 1993-94 Vice Chair (Chair-Elect), Professor Ted
Tucker, was introduced as the 1994-95 Chair.
Professor Tucker moved, second by Professor Adelman that
In recognition of his dedicated service to The Citadel and
its Faculty Council as the Faculty Council Chair during the
1993-94 academic year, the Faculty Council resolves, on
behalf of the General Faculty of The Citadel, to recognize
and applaud Professor John Coussons for his leadership and
devotion to The Citadel and its faculty.
Carried unanimously with applause.
2. New Members of Faculty Council were introduced.
Professor Jane Bishop (History)
Professor Gardel Feurtado (Political Science)
Professor Leslie Crabtree (Mathematics)
Professor Teri Siskind (Education)
Professor Jim Leonard (English)
Professor Mark McCullohs (Aerospace Science)
Professor Ted Bryson (Naval Science)
3. Members in attendance: Professors Adelman, Bishop, O. Bowman, Bryson,
Carter, Crabtree, Deutz, Epple, Feurtado, Hewett, Leonard, McRae, Nath,
Richardson, Simmons, Siskind, Tucker, and Woolsey.
Members Absent: Professors Anessi, Kelley, McCullohs, Milukas, and
Tripp.
Professor Coussons was also present at the start of the meeting.
3. Approval of Previous Minutes.
Professor Bowman moved, second by Professor Adelman, to accept the
minutes of the 21 April 94 meeting with the corrections noted in the
agenda. Carried unanimously.
4. Elections.
a. Vice-Chair and Chair-Elect
Professor Woolsey nominated, second provided, Professor John Carter
Professor Bowman moved, second by Professor Woolsey, to close nominations
and elect by acclamation. Carried unanimously.
b. Secretary
Professor Bowman nominated, second by Professor Adelman, Professor Tom
Richardson.
Professor Bowman moved, second by Professor Adelman, to close nominations
and elect by acclamation. Carried unanimously.
c. Parliamentarian
Professor Bowman nominated, second by Professor Leonard, Professor Jane
Bishop.
It was moved and seconded to close nominations and elect by acclamation.
Carried unanimously.
d. Committee on Committees
Professor John Coussons, as Past Chair of Faculty Council, will serve as
chair of the 1994-95 Committee on Committees.
A slate of nominees was provided to Faculty Council by the 1993-94
Committee on Committees. It was determined that consideration and voting
would be by cluster.
Cluster A: Professor Feurtado moved, second by Professor Bishop, to
nominate the slate candidates of Professor Susan Simmons (Business) and
Professor William Rhett (Education). Professor Woolsey nominated, second
by Professor Adelman, Professor Dorothy Moore. Professor Bowman moved,
second by Professor Carter, to close nominations.
Since the two representatives from a cluster can not both be from the
same department, Professor Rhett was elected by acclamation. Paper
ballot for the second representative: Professor Simmons = 14, Professor
Moore = 3.
Cluster B: Professor Bishop moved, second by Professor Bowman, to
nominate the slate candidates of Professor David Allen (English) and
Professor Paul Benson (Political Science). Professor Bowman moved,
second by Professor Carter, to close nominations and elect by
acclamation. Carried unanimously.
Cluster C: Professor Bowman moved, second provided, to nominate the
slate candidates of Professor Margaret Francel (Mathematics and Computer
Science) and Professor Joe Epple (Electrical Engineering). Professor
Bishop moved, second by Professor Bowman to close nominations and elect
by acclamation. Carried unanimously.
5. Reports from the Chair
a. Academic Board and Graduate Council have not met since the last meeting
of Faculty Council on 21 April 1994
b. Professor Tucker reported on a courtesy visit he had with General Poole.
It is the Chair's belief that General Poole wants to work _with_ the
faculty; Professor Tucker encouraged faculty to work with the dean.
c. Learning Disabled Students. Professor Tucker reported on his follow-up
to the question which had been raised at the 21 April 1994 Faculty
Council meeting.
The essential problem would appear to be a lack of a definitive policy
for substitution and waiver of (core: mathematics, English, languages)
courses; efforts to date to formulate such a policy have not been
effective.
The Counseling Center no longer is actively involved in the diagnosis
and testing of learning disabilities. Learning disabled students are
now identified through diagnostic testing in the Education Department
(Professor Wemme Walls) as well as by off-campus services.
(Professor Bowman in later discussion) The Counseling Center no longer
does these diagnoses so as to eliminate the appearance of The Citadel
making a determination that may or may not be in conflict with diagnoses
made previously on behalf of a Cadet and his family.
To the present time, course waivers have been granted on a more or less
_ad hoc_ basis by the Dean of Undergraduate Studies. Some guidelines do
exist for course substitutions but these are incomplete. Presently, the
"loss of enrollment" in the Modern Language Department due to these
waivers is approximately 25% of a FTE faculty.
Items: Dean Metts is amenable to further study of this issue.
There is a legal requirement that the problem be addressed.
Professor Walls may be leaving; the future location of the
responsibility for this work is not clearly defined.
There is a perception that some rising seniors suddenly discover
learning disabilities as a possible escape from course
requirements!
It was suggested that each department should have a screening
committee for course substitutions, etc.
Knowledgeable faculty members can often work with the student,
etc., to resolve the problem BUT this awareness must be
communicated; disclosure is generally not legal
Professor Tucker moved, second provided, that the Curriculum Committee
be charged with formulating and disseminating a definitive, college-wide
policy for learning disabled students. Carried unanimously.
Professor Bowman moved, second provided, that the faculty be assured that
there is an expert whose position responsibilities will include diagnosis
and testing of learning disabled students and who will provide guidance
to faculty and staff in learning disabled education. Carried
unanimously.
6. Old Business: Committee on the Evaluation of Teaching
a. Professor Tucker distributed a proposed charge to the committee; this
has been approved by the committee.
Professor Bowman moved, second by Professor Feurtado, to accept the
proposal. Carried unanimously. [The text of the charge is appended to
the VAX/INFO minutes.]
b. The present membership of the committee consists of Professors Teri
Siskind, Russ Hilleke, and James Rembert; the latter two individuals are
to be on sabbatical during the 1994-95 academic year.
Professor Bowman moved, second by Professor Woolsey, that the Chair of
Faculty Council appoint two individuals to this committee to serve as
sabbatical replacements. Carried unanimously.
c. Professor Woolsey moved, second by Professor Feurtado, that the Committee
on Committees consider converting this current _ad hoc_ committee into a
standing committee; this action would also include probable changes in
composition and charter. Any such changes would not take effect until
the present committee has completed its work. Carried unanimously.
d. Professor Bowman moved, second by Professor Adelman, that the actual
forms from the Spring 1994 evaluation process be returned directly to the
individual faculty member after the committee has finished processing
them. Carried unanimously.
8. Comments.
Professor Feurtado inquired about the availability of the Faculty Manual.
Brief discussion followed; it is available for reading on the VAX through
the INFO function, topic heading "Faculty".
9. Meeting adjourned, 12:33 PM
/s/ Tom Richardson
Secretary, Faculty Council
* * * * *
Appendix: 1994-95 Membership of Faculty Council
(corrected 9 Sep 94)
Email Department Representative Term Expires Subcom
========== ============= =================== ============ ======
adelmans Physics Saul J. Adelman 1994 1st A
anessit Civil Engin. Thomas J. Anessi 1995 2nd B
bishopj History Jane Bishop 1996 1st B
bowmano Psychology D. Oliver Bowman 1995 2nd A
brysonj Naval Science Ted Bryson 1996 1st B
carterj Phys Educ. John S. Carter 1996 2nd EX Vice-C
crabtreel Math/CSCI Leslie Crabtree 1996 1st A
deutza Math/CSCI Andre Deutz 1995 1st C
epplej Electrical Eng Joe Epple 1995 1st C
feurtadog Political Sci Gardel Feurtado 1996 1st B
hewetts Education Stephanie Hewett 1995 1st C
kelleyj Biology Joe Kelley 1995 2nd B
leonardj English Jim Leonard 1996 1st A
mccullohsm Aerospace St Mark McCullohs 1996 1st A
mcraec Mod. Languages Christopher McRae 1996 2nd B
4thompsonr Military Ron Thompson 1996 1st C
nathh Library/Museum Herb Nath 1995 1st B
richardsont Chemistry Thomas Richardson 1995 2nd EX Sec'y
simmonss Business Adm. Susan Simmons 1995 1st C
siskindt Education Teri Siskind 1996 1st A
trippj History Joseph Tripp 1995 1st A
tuckert English Ted Tucker 1995 1st EX Chair
woolseyw Business Adm. Bill Woolsey 1996 2nd B
============================================================================
* * * * *
Appendix: Text of the charge to the Committee on the Evaluation of Teaching
The Faculty Council charges the Committee on the Evaluation of Teaching to
undertake the following tasks:
1. To supervise the first full pilot run of the instrument in the Fall 1994
semester, incorporating the open-ended questions according to the
original design;
2. To encourage individual departments to submit sets of additional
questions appropriate to their specific disciplines;
3. To examine and test the evaluation items for validity, particularly in
regard to possible bias, as it may affect particular groups within the
faculty;
4. To prepare an analytical report of findings arising from the Fall 1994
evaluation.
At the same time, the Committee is asked to continue their research into the
methods that will be used to complete the remaining two-thirds of the
evaluation of teaching effectiveness, with a view to implementation in Spring
1995.
===============================================================================
===============================================================================
Area reserved for reports of Committees, 1993-94 . . . as I (THR) receive
these, they will be posted here!
* * * * * *
Final Report of Faculty Employment Committee -- Academic Year 1993-94
Submitted by LtC. Saul J. Adelman, Chair
This academic year much of the effort of the Faculty Employment Committee was
taken up by making recommendations concerning the Faculty Salary Study. The
major resolution, which includes a framework and a plan of action to achieve a
Merit Pay Plan, was adopted after some minor revisions at the April meeting of
Faculty Council.
The Faculty Employment Committee was unable to complete its planned study of
faculty salaries within departments to identify individuals whose salaries were
inappropriately low on the basis of specialty, experience, rank, and merit due
to the lack of data for all departments. A prototype analysis was completed
using the data from the Chemistry Department and the help of its Head Major J.
R. Blanton. We also appreciated the cooperation of Col. R. K. Templeton,
Education; Col. H. W. Askins, Jr., Electrical Engineering; Col. J. P. Smyth,
Health and Physical Education; Col. L. H. Addington, History; Col. S. D. Comer,
Mathematics and Computer Science; Col. R. P. Steed, Political Science; and LtC
A. J. Finch, Psychology. We also interacted with LtC. R. A. White, English
Department, and our committee member LtC. J. E. Maynard worked with his
colleagues at the Daniel Library. We hope to be able to resume this study next
academic year.
The Faculty Employment Committee would like to sponsor a meeting reviewing
benefits and programs for the Faculty and Staff early in the Fall semester. We
believe that presentations by our own Faculty and Staff would be better
received than those from outside experts.
The Faculty Employment Committee discused recommending that the administration
consider ending Mark Clark and CIGNA Disability Insurance programs this coming
fall and replacing them with a more equitable voluntary Disability Insurance
Program. The need to change the disability insurance reflects in large
measure changes in recent SC law. A survey of faculty and senior
administration personnel about these matters may be appropriate. The committee
discussed the possibility of creating a computer program to determine the
benefits of various programs.
Some Items for Next Academic Year
1. Final Resolution of Mark Clark and Disability Insurance
2. Program on Benefits for Faculty and Staff
3. Planning for Next Salary Study (Academic Year 1995-96)
The members of the Faculty Employment Committee extend our best wishes to LtC.
Lee V. E. Martin on his forthcoming retirement. His expertise will be missed.
We all thank LtC. J. E. Maynard for his help with the business of our committee
as he ends his term on our committee.
===============================================================================
THE CITADEL FACULTY COUNCIL
Minutes of the Regular Meeting of 21 April 1994
Room 161, Bond Hall, 11:00 AM
1. The Chair called Faculty Council to order at 11:05 AM.
2. Members in attendance: Professors Adelman, Anessi, J. Carter,
Coussons, Davis, Deutz, Epple, Francel, Hewett, McRae, Ouzts,
Richardson, Shields, Simmons, and Tucker
Professor E. Carter substituted for Professor Nath; Professor Alford
substituted for Professor Woolsey.
Professor Bryson succeeds Professor Teske for Naval Science
Members Absent: Professors Kelley, Tripp, Miluka, and Salas;
Professor O. Bowman was absent due to a professional meeting.
Also present: Professor Siskind
3. Approval of Previous Minutes.
Professor Tucker moved, second by Professor Shields, to accept the
minutes of the 17 Mar 94 meeting. Carried unanimously.
4. Reports from the Chair
a. Graduate council has not met since the 17 Mar 94 Faculty Council Meeting
b. Academic Board. Professor Coussons
1. A statement policy on record keeping will be distributed to the
entire faculty.
2. A calendar will be distributed. Various details were described to
Council -- essentially: one break per semester, cadet commencement on
the second saturday of May, separate commencement for non-cadets, two
military activity and two cadet leadership training days per semester.
3. Evaluation of Deans and Departments Heads "will be done;" a procedure
needs to be established.
4. Attendance by faculty will be mandatory at first and last general
faculty meetings of the year. It is also Gen. Poole's intention to
have periodic colloquia and convocations for faculty.
5. Disposition of Faculty Council resolutions:
on the evaluation of teaching: approved;
on the revision of the Faculty Manual without the consultation of
Faculty Council -- the restoration of paragraph "VI.A.1.a.b" to its
original form: approved; likewise with paragraph "VI.A.1.f"
on the "gradual retirement" proposal: The president will take this
forward.
on the request to hold a meeting on the state of on-campus housing:
a meeting is being arranged [called for 4 May 1994, evening]
6. At the Dean's request, the Board of Visitors has agreed to the
concept of a salary policy; acceptance and implementation of such
will necessitate an in-place evaluation of instruction procedure
5. Old Business
a. Professor Adelman, on behalf of the Faculty Employment Committee and
subcommittee A of Faculty Council, moved, second by Professor Alford, a
revised version of the salary proposal.
Professor Shields moved, second by Professor Tucker to make all desired
changes as a committee of the whole, then to approve the final document
as modified. Carried by 12-1.
The final modified document was approved by a vote of 15-1. [A copy will
be attached as an appendix to the VAX/INFO copy of the minutes.]
b. Professor Siskind, on behalf of the Committee on Student Evaluation of
Instruction, distributed a report on activities to date and initial work
towards defining the remaining "two-thirds" of the teaching evaluation.
[The text of the report is attached as an appendix to the VAX/INFO copy
of the minutes.]
Comments: the Spring 1994 process will be strictly a trial run due to
various errors in implementation; open ended questions will be
incorporated in the future; the "real" pilot will take place
in the Fall 1994 semester with the _original_ instrument.
Professor Davis moved, second by Professor Anessi to accept the report
and consider the recommendations, carried by voice vote.
The permanent status of this committee and a charge will be brought to
faculty council for consideration at its next meeting.
6. New Business
a. Professor Francel, on behalf of Committee on Committees, moved, second by
Professor Tucker, that the membership of the Internal College Relations
Committee be reduced from 12 to 6. Carried by voice vote.
b. Professor Francel, on behalf of Committee on Committees, moved, second by
Professor Hewett, that the composition of Committee on Committees be
changed so that the past-Chair of Faculty Council will serve as the new
Chair and each cluster will have two representatives (7 members total);
the current Chair of Faculty Council will not be a member. Carried.
c. Professor Francel moved, second by Professor Alford, that election of the
1994-1995 Committee on Committees be deferred to the May meeting.
Carried.
7. Comments.
Professor McRae reported that Modern Languages was concerned with the
procedures being implemented for learning disabled students; there is a
perception that faculty are not being adequately involved. Professor
Tucker will discuss this further with Modern Language and obtain a
perspective from counseling services.
8. Adjourned, 12:30 PM.
/s/ Tom Richardson
Secretary, Faculty Council
* * * * *
Appendix: Text of the report and recommendations from the Committee on
Student Evaluation of Instruction
The purpose of this memorandum is to report our progress regarding the
"other two-thirds" of the evaluation of teaching. However, in light of recent
events, we would like to address our original charge as well.
THE ORIGINAL CHARGE
Our committee was originally charged with developing a _plan_ for the
administration of the student evaluation of instruction system. The system for
the student evaluation of instruction (a series of 12 items) and a scoring
package (The Cafeteria System from Purdue) _had_been_adopted_ by Faculty
Council based on the subcommittee work of the Curriculum and Instruction
Committee during the previous academic year.
After careful deliberation, our committee developed a plan which was
presented to Faculty Council on February 17, [1994,] and adopted. Due to the
charge, our plan was primarily logistical in nature. However, recognizing the
necessity for a fluid system, our plan did accommodate modifications to the
student evaluation of instruction system. Deliberations about alterations in
items would be made by the Curriculum and Instruction Committee which
originated the student evaluation of instruction instrument. For example, if
changes to the instrument appeared warranted by an item pilot, the Curriculum
and Instruction Committee would deterime whether and how to modify it.
Our committee also strongly recommended validity, reliability and
fairness studies of the system prior to implementation.
Recent discussions and actions regarding the student evaluation of
instruction prompt us to recommend/request the following actions:
1. A full pilot of the Student Evaluation system (including administrative
procedures) should be conducted in the fall. If possible, data should
be collected during the summer utilizing the adopted instrument.
2. Validity, reliability, and fairness studies be conducted and the
necessary resources be made available.
3. The purposes and uses of the evaluation system for teaching be made
explicit. (This would include the student evaluation of instruction
as well as the "other two-thirds.")
4. All future chages to our committee be made in writing, with
clarification as necessary.
THE OTHER TWO-THIRDS
As a first step in the assessment of teaching, an attempt was made to
define "teaching." Eight dimensions of teaching were identified:
1. Knowledge in one's discipline;
2. Stimulation of intellectual curiosity in one's students; interesting
students in course content;
3. Preparation for class;
4. Presentation of material in a clear, understandable fachion;
5. Interest in students; sensitivity to their needs;
6. Clearly stated course objectives and requirements;
7. Instruction which results in new knowledge for students;
8. Encouragement of open student expression.
Discussion and approval of these dimensions is sought from the Faculty Council.
[Subsequent work will follow from these definitions. The following material,
while a portion of the report to Faculty Council, represents committee thinking
only and is not a definitive position or statement.]
Some of these dimensions may be adequately measured by the Student
Evaluation of Instruction. To measure other dimensions, the committee has
discussed the following types of evidence: self-assessments; samples of
student work (reports, projects, tests, grades, etc.); instructional materials
(transparencies, videotapes, project requirements, tests, etc.); teaching
documents (syllabi, lecture notes, assignments, etc.); peer
evaluations/observations; teaching portfolios (which could include any or all
of the previously mentioned types of evidence including student evaluations).
Assistance from experts in the field of faculty evaluation has been sought, and
the pros and cons of the types [of] evidence and mechanisms for gathering and
assessing them has been vigorously debated.
Consideration has also been given to how to report assessment findings.
* * * * *
Appendix: Salary Resolution from Faculty Employment Committee and Subcom. A
Resolution from the Faculty Employment Committee reworked by Subcommittee A
of Faculty Council. As modified and adopted by Faculty Council on 21 Apr 94.
Subcommittee A recommends that the Faculty Council 1) adopt the following
resolution which is a revision of one sent by the Faculty Employment
Committee and which is based upon the current Salary Study be adopted and
2) then forward it to the Academic Board for consideration.
Introduction
Programs for cost of living increases, catch-up pay, merit and performance pay
are required to increase the average faculty member's base pay and thus
decrease the discrepancies between The Citadel faculty salary averages by
discipline and the salary averages by discipline of our designated peer
institutions.
1. When the State of South Carolina appropriates funds for cost of living
increases for unclassified employees, these should be allocated by The
Citadel as appropriated. Cost of living increases should be independent of
any merit pay program instituted by an appropriations act or any
performance pay program instituted by The Citadel.
2. The Citadel needs as soon as possible to find funding for catch-up pay to
close the departmental discrepancies relative to the peer institutions.
These discrepancies are also seen in comparison with various national
averages. The College should eliminate the discrepancies between The
Citadel academic departmental averages and the salary averages of the peer
institutions surveyed in the last decade. The discipline specific
programs must have different annual average catch-up amounts for the
various disciplines depending on the relative discrepanices between the
Citadel departmental averages and those of the peer institution
departmental averages. Ending discrepancies within departments should
have the highest priority for catch-up pay.
3. Despite marketplace differences, it is unwise to have too great
discrepancies between departmental mean salaries for each rank especially
in closely allied disciplines. The Citadel entrance salaries should be
close to national averages for each department. Salaries within
departments should reflect experience, rank, merit, and specialization.
4. The Citadel faculty need a merit pay plan based upon achievements in three
primary areas of an academic's professional life at a comprehensive
college. These are teaching (or position effectiveness for non-teaching
library faculty), research, and service. The weights assigned to these
three areas should be in the ranges of 50-60%, 20-30%, and 20-30%,
respectively. Faculty who have substantial duties as administrators
should have these percentages adjusted to reflect values more appropriate
to their duties and be evaluated as administrators for their remaining
percentages. Each faculty member will earn shares of the merit pool based
upon his/her annual evaluation. The total shares awarded will be divided
into the total funds budgeted for faculty merit pay and each share earned
will be multiplied by that value to determine the amount of merit pay to
be allocated to each faculty member. Any system to be viable must reward
achievement as well as active participation in those critical activities
necessary for the functioning of The Citadel. It should be very difficult
for any faculty member to be awarded a full share for teaching, research,
and service. Shares should reflect both the amount of work expended and
the achievements in the various activities.
If there is a year(s) in which merit pay is not given, the period for
evaluation should be from the end of the last period in which
merit/performance pay was given.
5. Each academic department must formulate and/or review its criteria for
merit pay in each of the three areas of evaluation: teaching, research,
and service. These should be as consistent as possible between
departments, especially those in closely related disciplines. BGen Poole,
the Vice President for Academic Affairs, has requested departmental heads
to give him these criteria before the middle of May 1994. Further,
release time from teaching given by the Citadel for sabbaticals, and for
other purposes such as being the chair of Faculty Council must be
accounted for and its effect on what a faculty member achieves taken into
account. Standards for evaluating Department Heads and other faculty (who
have part time administrative duties) as administrators need also to be
established.
It is appropriate for both the Faculty Council and the Academic Board to
review and to attempt to harmonize these criteria during the Fall 1994
semester before approval/and implementation by the Vice President for
Academic Affairs and the President. We recommend that the incoming
Faculty Council President work with the Vice President for Academic
Affairs to plan this review. We strongly recommend that before final
adoption, the department heads and the Vice President for Academic Affairs
use the proposed standards to re-evaluate the merit ratings for faculty
for 1993. These values can be used to validate the fairness of the system
and to serve as a means of fine tuning the relative values of shares.
In all areas The Citadel should reward faculty for activities beyond those
which are performed in a minimially acceptable level to fulfull the job
requirements. Bearing in mind that The Citadel is primarily a teaching
institution, each department's standard should be based on some percentage
of the professional standards for the discipline which are usually
appropriate for faculty working at a university. For service, service to
the college, to the corp of cadets and to other students, to the
Charleston community, and to the various professional communities should
be evaluated on a common standard. Service to one's department may have
to be based partially on departmental standards. As certain service to the
college is absolutely essential to the running of The Citadel, it may be
appropriate to give it extra weight for merit - for example, serving as
Secretary of the Faculty Council. The evaluation of teaching should be
based both on classroom performance and on a faculty member's activities
which go beyond the acceptable minimum standards. Each should be worth
25-30% of the merit evaluation. Any adjustments in percentages for full
time teaching faculty should be in the later category. The classroom
performance portion should include both student evaluation and peer
review. It should be concerned with how effectively a professor transmits
knowledge to his students.
6. The Citadel's performance pay program shall be in addition to any cost of
living increases and any state merit pay program. It should use the same
evaluation process as used for the merit pay program.
===============================================================================
THE CITADEL FACULTY COUNCIL
Minutes of the Regular Meeting of 17 March 1994
Room 161, Bond Hall, 11:00 AM
1. The Chair called Faculty Council to order at 11:02 AM.
2. Members in attendance: Professors Adelman, Anessi, O. Bowman, Carter,
Coussons, Davis, Deutz, Epple, Francel, Hewett, McRae, Ouzts, Nath,
Richardson, Shields, Simmons, Tripp, Tucker, and Woolsey
Members Absent: Professors Kelley, Miluka, Salas, and Teske.
Also present: Gen. C. Poole
3. Approval of Previous Minutes.
Professor O. Bowman moved, second by Professor Shields, to accept the
minutes of the 17 Feb 94 meeting. Spelling errors identified,
corrections made to VAX/INFO version. Carried unanimously.
4. Summary of comments by General Poole
a. Academic Reorganization: this exists only as a concept, there is no
plan per se.
The discussion with the heads of education, health and physical
education, and psychology was to consider and discuss the possibility of
combining into a UNIT. The intent of this meeting had been for "thinking
purposes" only.
Previous strategic planning exercises have discussed academic
reorganization.
Eighteen department heads are too many for one dean to handle. The
"middle dean" responsible for a UNIT grouping would have decision making
powers.
To the question about this becoming an additional level of bureaucracy
between departments and the dean, the hope is for this structure to move
the decision level closer to the faculty and away from the dean.
Any changes to the present organization will go through the strategic
planning committee; the earliest that anything could be considered with
be at least a year in the future.
Another concern was the possible loss of departmental identity. In a
sense, the potential and possibilities of the present cluster organization
have not been fully realized.
b. Academic Board and Faculty Council should be considered as the elected
representatives of the Faculty; in general, the assumption should be that
these groups are speaking for the faculty.
c. Dean Metts will become the dean for assessment and institutional research
with responsibility for establishing evaluation and assessment programs
for the campus. He will be continuing as dean of undergraduate studies;
this latter function may be eliminated with a academic reorganization.
d. Action on various Faculty Council resolutions, etc.
Classroom evaluations: proposal adopted, contracts are out for the
necessary materials.
Teaching loads and the faculty manual: wording understood.
Housing concerns: the VP of finance is agreeable for a meeting, still
needs concurrence of the president. A meeting should happen by the end
of the semester.
Retirement: the proposal will be taken forward.
Turner money: there are no commitments as yet; salary enhancement is a
possibility; Mr. Turner wants to know how the money will be used;
anticipate more information following the Board of Visitors meeting.
The president wants the Board of Visitors to adopt and commit to a salary
policy which can be used to drive the budget process; the study from
committee will be examined and taken forward.
5. Announcements from the Chair
a. Graduate council. Professor Tucker.
1. SACS expressed concern about the quality control of contract courses,
particularly with respect to support services such as library access.
Presently there are 51 such courses representing about 3000 credit
hours. The comments have been taken under advisement; a committee
will be established to govern these courses.
2. Other discussion focussed on the various recommendations made in the
SACS exit presentation. Definitive action will await the written
report; much of this will be directed to strategic planning.
3. A subcommittee is working on a rules and regulations, policies and
procedures document for the graduate and professional school.
4. A subcommittee is working towards clarifying the status of graduate
faculty concerning the criteria for appointment and continuation.
b. Academic Board. Professor Coussons
1. The president reported that there were no changes in the status of
the Faulker litigation.
2. Various curriculum proposals were examined; those from math and
biology were returned to the respective departments for reworking.
3. Pay for performance committee. Aspects of the proposal as detailed
at that time were presented. [This material has also been presented
to the faculty in a variety of forums including the general faculty
meeting of 31 March 1994.]
6. New Business: Elections to the Strategic Planning committee.
Faculty council was asked to elect three tenured faculty members, one
each from the assistant and associate ranks, the third at any rank.
a. Assistant Professor. The following individuals were identified and
nominated:
vote
Professor A. Lipscomb (mathematics) by Professor Francel 7
Professor J. Epple (electrical engineering) by Professor O. Bowman
Professor S. Hewett (education) by Professor Woolsey 9
Professor Epple asked to be removed from consideration as electrical
engineering already has a representative to strategic planning.
Professor Shields moved that no Assistant Professors be considered for
this election. Died for lack of a second
Professor Hewett was elected.
b. Associate Professor. The following individuals were nominated.
vote
Professor Sharbrough (business) by Professor Woolsey 5 3
Professor Briggs (physics) by Professor Adelman 3 1
Professor Gurganus (modern language) by Professor Tripp 5 10
Professor Hoyle (math) by Professor Francel 3 -
No nominee received a majority on the first ballot. Professor Gurganus
was elected on the second ballot.
c. At Any rank. The following individuals were nominated.
vote
Professor Carter (health and pe) by Professor Nath 2
Professor Moreland (political science) by Professor Davis 5
Professor Barrett (history) by Professor McRae 2
Professor Zigli (business) by Professor Woolsey 8
Professor Carter received a majority on a first ballot.
7. Other Business
a. For reference purposes, Professor Coussons distributed reproductions of
various Faculty Council resolutions: [These will be attached to the vax
version of these minutes]
16 Sep 93: Appointment of Ad Hoc committee (Professors Siskind, Rembert,
and Hilleke) on evaluation of instruction.
18 Nov 93: Modification of Faculty Manual concerning course load.
9 Dec 93: Additional on course loads
20 Jan 94: From F. Employment Committee on retirement.
17 Feb 94: On Faculty Housing.
b. Professor Adelman, on behalf of F. Employment Committee, brought forward
a resolution that the current salary study be adopted and forwarded to
Academic Board for further consideration. This was received and referred
to Subcommittee A for further action. [The final version is attached as
an appendix to the APRIL 1994 minutes]
c. Professor Adelman, on behalf of F. Employment Committee, brought forward
a DRAFT of a merit policy. This was received and referred to
Subcommittee A for further action.
Meeting Adjourned, 12:40 PM
/s/ Thomas H. Richardson
secretary, faculty council
* * * * *
Copies of Resolutions:
1. RESOLUTION TO RESTORE THE ORIGINAL WORDING OF SECTION VI, PARAGRAPH
A.1.f. so that it reads as follows:
f. The teaching load for faculty teaching graduate course work must
reflect the expectations of accrediting bodies that graduate
faculty must spend additional time in student instruction through
avenues such as mentorships, student collaboration in research, and
non-credit seminars/symposia. Therefore, the normal teaching load
is 9 credit hours when one or more graduate courses is assigned.
The combined credit hour production from the undergraduate and
graduate portions of the faculty member's teaching load should
generate approximately the number of credit hours expected of a
full-time equivalent faculty (FTEF) in that discipline.
Adopted by Faculty Council by voice vote on 9 December 1993.
2. RESOLUTION ADOPTED BY COUNCIL ON 17 FEBRUARY 1994
Whereas: The practice of "deferred maintenance" has left faculty
housing in a state of decline evidenced by fallen and
rotted gutters, peeling paint, rotted eaves and window
frames, deteriorated window glazing, and unsightly
exterior wiring, and,
Whereas: In conjunction with forced air central heat, the absence
of attic insulation and either weather stripping or storm
windows, causes energy waste and high utility bills, and,
Whereas: No evident plans exist for remedying these conditions,
Now, therefore, be it resolved that Council request that the
President, the Vice President for Academic Affairs, the
Vice President for Finance, and the Director of the
Physical Plant meet with faculty and staff tenants for the
purpose of assessing the current state of campus housing
maintenance and planning for its improvement.
3. RESOLUTION ADOPTED BY COUNCIL ON 16 SEPTEMBER 1993
As a means of evaluating the teaching effectiveness of the individual
faculty member, said means to count for one-third of the measure of
teaching effectiveness, Council moves as follows:
1. The adoption for use by The Citadel of the Purdue University
instrument and analytical software package.
2. Purchase by The Citadel, at a cost of somewhere around $6000,
the necessary equipment to implement this program.
3. The appointment of an _ad hoc_ committee to consist of
Captain Theresa G. Siskind -- Chair
Colonel James A. W. Rembert -- Member
Major Russell O. Hilleke -- Member
and report to Council. Said Committee will:
a. Supervise the use of the Purdue package,
b. Design the means of evaluating the remaining two
thirds of one's teaching effectiveness,
c. Employ as broadly as possible, cadets in the
administration of this program.
4. The Purdue package is approved for trial use without delay
and no later than the spring term of 1994. Subsequent usage
will depend upon the outcome of the trial run.
4. RESOLUTION TO MODIFY THE FACULTY MANUAL SECTION VI A.1.a.b. so as to
read:
a. In light of its commitment to the position that the primary function of
The Citadel Teacher-Scholar is effective teaching, The Citadel expects
that each faculty member will have a teaching load which is measured
not only by weekly contact hours but also by actual student contact or
credit hour production. This philosophy reflects The Citadel's
dedication to student-centered undergraduate and graduate programs.
b. Each faculty member is scheduled for normally 12 semester hours or
14 contact hours of lectures and labs (normally representing no more
than three separate preparations). A further consideration in the
assignment of these courses is the expectation that a faculty member
should generate, where possible, approximately the number of credit
hours for his or her discipline as outlined in the following table.
These expected credit hour productions are updated periodically by
the Commission on Higher Education and had their genesis in the
actual credit hour production for the various disciplines in the
senior four-year colleges in the state. With its commitment to small
class size and innovative teaching, the college frequently finds itself
in disagreements with these figures, especially in higher level
courses. However, these figures are the basis for the state formula
funding and cannot, therefore, be ignored.
---- TABLE TO REMAIN AS IT APPEARS IN THE CURRENT MANUAL ---
This teaching load, at the upper end but still within the spectrum of
academically demanding four-year colleges, allows for faculty
involvement in student consultations and mentorships along with SOME
scholarly activity. The reluctance to increase this teaching
assignment through overloads evolves from the desire to encourage
out-of-class student contacts along with scholarship and service to
the college.
Adopted by unanimous voice vote of Council on 18 November 1993.
5. RESOLUTION ADOPTED BY COUNCIL 20 JANUARY 1994
Whereas: At present faculty at State Colleges and Universities must
retire completely to receive retirement benefits, and, it
they wish to continue to teach, are subject to various
restrictions, and, are paid -- on a per course basis --
considerably less than when they were full time faculty, and,
Whereas: Many potential retiree still have much to offer their
Colleges and Universities, and,
Whereas: Studies indicate that being able to retire, utilizing a
program to gradually reduce one's workload, is healthier
than complete retirement on a given date;
(Adopted -- for forwarding to the Academic Board with the request that
it endorse the proposal -- by unanimous voice vote.
The second section of the resolution, which appears below, was referred
by Council to further study.)
Therefore, we request that General Watts propose that the Council of
College and University Presidents investigate the possibility
of a program in which College and University Faculty could
retire in stages. For example, one might go to half-time
status for two years, receiving one-half the usual full time
salary and one-half the prescribed retirement salary. If
contributing to retirement, the faculty member could earn an
additional one-half year credit toward full retirement per
year of participation. Since salaries for beginning
assistant professors are roughly one-half those of
professors, the salary released would enable the institution
to hire a junior level replacement. The semi-retired
professor could still perform his or her usual academic
duties such as service on faculty committees, acting as a
research advisor, and remaining active in research. Colleges
and Universities could, where appropriate, make similar
provisions for senior executives, classified employees, and
coaches. Considering the benefits of such a program, and,
since it would require legislative approval, Council requests
that this proposal be studied without delay.
===============================================================================
THE CITADEL FACULTY COUNCIL
Minutes of the Regular Meeting of 17 February 1994
Room 161, Bond Hall, 11:00 AM
1. The Chair called Faculty Council to order at 11:05 AM.
2. Members in attendance: Professors Anessi, O. Bowman, Carter,
Coussons, Davis, Deutz, Epple, Francel, Kelley, McRae, Richardson,
Shields, Tripp, Tucker, and Woolsey
Members Absent: Professors Hewett, Miluka, Ouzts, Nath, Salas, and
Teske.
Professor Hilleke substituted for Professor Adelman.
Professors T. Siskind and H. Hoyle attended to make reports to Council.
3. Approval of Previous Minutes.
Professor O. Bowman moved, second by Professor Francel, to accept the
minutes of the 21 Jan 94 meeting. Correction to note (5) under
academic board: this pertains primarily to fifth-year students;
corrections made to VAX/INFO version. Carried unanimously.
4. Announcements from the Chair.
Professor Coussons distributed a draft (dated 15 Feb 94 from Dean Poole)
of academic policy changes which are to be considered by Academic Board
at its March meeting.
Notes from the 15 Feb 94 meeting of Academic Board:
(1) President Watts reported on the state of the Faulkner case. Judge
Houck is hearing this; the decision will be appealed regardless of
the nature of the ruling!
(2) President Watts reported on the nature of the Turner gift. The
first million dollars is in hand with one million to be given to The
Citadel per year for the next four years. The remaining 20 million
is in a trust fund; this plus interest will be given to The Citadel
when Mr. Turner passes away.
(3) Professor Berlinghieri reported on the status of the development of
an administrator-evaluation policy and process. Dean Poole asked
that a prototype evaluation be conducted this semester. A Professor
Cashin at Kansas State is serving as a consultant.
(4) Dean Metts reported on the upcoming SACS visit and expectations for
the process.
(5) Dean Reilly reported on aspects of the joint degree program with
South Carolina State University. Since in excess of 51% of the
courses are taken at SCSU, that institution awards the degree.
(6) Dean Poole reported on a proposal which will be presented to the
Board of Visitors for their consideration.
(a) A reorganization and collection of departments into schools
together with a reclassification of heads into chairs and
changes in duties. The departments of psychology, education,
and health/physical education appear to be involved in such a
reorganization.
[Professor Bowman reported briefly to Faculty Council on how
this process is being forcefully implemented.]
(b) Because drastic and unallowed grade changes are being attempted
by cadets, the policy will be that these changes must be done
within one month of issuance of the grade.
Graduate Council meeting (these minutes may be available on VAX/INFO).
Business was deferred due to absences. Notes presented:
(1) Various changes in the courses for the MBA program.
(2) policies and procedures of the New College: the separation of
graduate and undergraduate programs, summer school and continuing
education.
(3) a reminder on commencements that there will be two in the spring
(Cadet/Other), none in the summer, and a recognition ceremony in
December.
Professor Coussons distributed a memo (attached as an appendix to the
VAX/INFO copy) from the Conference of South Carolina University Faculty
Chairs which outlined the purposes and goals of the organization.
Professor Coussons noted that he had been unable to attend any meetings
due to time conflicts with Citadel teaching duties.
The Conference has met with Sen. Drummond to share concerns on the
financing of higher education in South Carolina; other information
on higher education will be given to the legislative delegations.
5. Old Business
a. Professor Hoyle, reporting for Professor Adelman, on behalf of the
Faculty Employment Committee: three resolutions (previously sent to
members of Council via Email) were distributed. [text of resolutions
will be inserted into the VAX/INFO edition]
(a) a supplement to The Citadel Salary Policy
(b) a clarification of the policy on Emeritus status (a supplement to
memorandum 11 of 26 Jun 1991)
(c) a statement about overloads in the case of a faculty member's
extended illness.
Discussion centered on item (a); the motion was made to table the
resolutions and act upon them at the next meeting. Carried 12-1.
b. Professor Siskind, as chair of the subcommittee on assessment of
teaching, distributed a memo on the subcommittee's progress to date.
(The text of this memo is attached as an appendix to the VAX/INFO
edition.)
Items remaining to be addressed include acquisition of the scoring
program, the content of the report to be returned to the faculty member
(and to head, dean, etc).
The committee plans to administer the pilot evaluation this spring and do
"fairness" and similar studies on the results; revisions to the
evaluation will also be considered.
It is assumed that a similar procedure will be implemented for the
evening program as well as the day program.
Professor Woolsey moved, second by Professor Bowman, to accept the
proposal from the subcommittee.
Professor Woolsey moved that the proposal be modified so that an
individual faculty member would distribute the forms, etc, to his class
and then leave. Died for lack of a second.
Original motion carried by unanimous voice vote.
Professor Siskind was directed to consult with Dean Poole concerning the
impending need to implement this pilot evaluation.
Professor Coussons reminded members that this evaluation-of-teaching-
survey process will constitute only one-third of the annual PDS review on
teaching effectiveness; the subcommittee was further directed to devise
procedures for the other two-thirds.
6. New Business
a. A presentation on behalf of the committee on committees was deferred
until the next meeting.
b. On behalf of Professor Nichols, chair of Strategic Planning Committee,
and Professor Feurtado, Chair of Faculty/Staff Housing Committee,
Professor Coussons distributed a proposed resolution on faculty housing
(This will be attached to the VAX/INFO edition.).
Professor Woolsey moved, second by Professor Francel, to act on this
proposal. Carried by unanimous voice vote.
Professor Coussons will pursue arrangements for setting up this meeting
of resident faculty and administrators, including Messrs. Lyons,
Schlottler, and Poole, to address various concerns, repairs, finances, etc.
c. Professor Coussons outlined various steps which have been taken with
respect to the recently recommended changes to the Faculty Manual.
d. Discussion to the gift from Mr. Turner. These are unrestricted funds.
It might be a good recommendation that these be used to enhance salaries;
the barracks replacement was supposed to have been financed by the sale
of bonds.
Professor McRae moved, second by Professor Tripp, that faculty salary
enhancement be considered as an application of the Turner gift. Carried
by unanimous voice vote.
Professor Woolsey asked that the Faculty Employment Committee address the
mechanics and dollar amounts of this recommendation.
e. In view of concerns expressed about the proposed reorganization of the
departments into schools, it was determined that Dean Poole would be
invited to the next meeting of Faculty Council to discuss various aspects
of this plan including "why" and "what are the goals and objectives, the
benefits and advantages."
Meeting adjourned, 12:20 PM
/s/ Thomas H. Richardson
secretary, faculty council
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Appendix: Memo distributed by Professor Coussons
Conference of South Carolina University Faculty Chairs
Statement of Purpose and Goals
The Conference of South Carolina University Faculty Chairs is composed
of faculty chairs at all public universities in South Carolina. It was
founded in December, 1992, with the purpose of providing a strong faculty
voice advocating public higher education in the State of South Carolina.
At its initial meetings, the Conference concluded that the first
priority should be given to direct advocacy for increased support for higher
education in the State of South Caroina. It was the unanimous conclusion of
the Conference that during the past several years declining legislative and
executive support for higher education had begun a process seriously eroding
the fabric of higher education in South Carolina. Decreased state assistance
and commitment continues to cause excessive tuition and fee hikes, deferred
maintenance on physical facilities, a shortage of laboratory and computer
equipment including software, a shortage of classroom and office space,
inadequate library space, book holdings and specialized journals, inadequate
faculty resources and excessive reliance on part-time faculty, overcrowded
classrooms, disincentives for high quality out-of-state students decreasing
the diversity of the student body, and more restricted access to a university
education for South Carolina students who, it they leave the state for higher
education, are likely to be lost to the future of the state forever.
This background of erosion in the very foundation of higher education
amounts to living off our capital. Once used up, nothing is left. This
erosion will continue until the state legislature and other elected officials
acknowledge the necessity of increasing support for higher education in South
Carolina.
From the perspective of Faculty Chairs, public university education in
South Carolina is at a crossroads. Down one road is continuing erosion and
decline and with it a depressed and depressing future for every single South
Carolinian. Down the other road is a commitment to establishing public
university education as a priority of the first order. The Conference
believes that the elected executive and legislative officers of this State
will choose the second road and with it a brighter and growing future for
every citizen and for the State as a whole. As a result, the Conference will
work through all appropriate means to acheive that goal.
The specific goals of the Conference are:
1. to consult with university administrations, the Commission on Higher
Education, legislators and legislative bodies, and other public officials
in furtherance of the purpose of the Conference;
2. to inform the news media and public-at-large about the necessity and value
of a strong commitment to pubic higher education;
3. to exchange information on matters of mutual interest among the faculties
of member institutions;
4. to undertake other activities deemed appropriate by the Conference and its
Executive Committee in furtherance of the purpose of the Conference.
For more information, please contact the 1993/94 chairperson of the
Conference, Professor Joseph Cabri, Lander University, PO Box 6041, Greenwood,
SC 29649, (803) 229-8214
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Appendix: Resolutions submitted by Professor Hoyle on behalf of Professor
Adelman for the Faculty Employment Committee
Resolution 1.
The Citadel Faculty Employment Committee recommends to the Faculty
Council that the following resolution be adopted and forwarded to the Academic
Board.
The current Faculty Salary Study (based on academic year 1992-93)
should produce recommendations for future salary increases. A new merit
system needs to be adopted as soon as possible for the period beginning
January 1, 1994.
As the current Faculty Salary Study is likely to result in a total for
recommended increases in salaries greater than the funding that The Citadel
will have available for this purpose during both the current and next academic
yar, it is prudent to plan for this eventuality. Some recommended salary
increases may be greater than those permitted by Budget and Control Board
guidelines for a given academic year. Similar situations may occur in the
future.
The following sections are thus proposed to be appended to The
Citadel's Salary Policy:
1. Any merit increase will be based on an employee's performance since the
last review period for which merit increases were paid.
2. If all of the cost of living increases cannot be paid, then The Citadel
will divide the available funds so that every employee gets
a. the same amount or
b. his/her complete cost of living increase, whichever is smaller.
3. If only part of the merit increses can be paid, then The Citadel will
divide the available funds so that every eligible employee gets the same
percentage of his/her complete merit increase.
4. Funding cost of living increases will be given priority over funding
merit increases which in turn will be given priority over funding
bonuses.
5. When employees are found to have lower salaries than they should based on
the reviews as part of each salary study, The Citadel will endeavor to
find funding to correct such discrepancies. If the amount of funding
available is insufficient to correct the total amount of such
discrepancies, then each eligible employee will get the same percentage
of his/her discrepancy as a pay raise. Salary augmentations to correct
such discrepancies may occur over several years.
6. State requlations may require different categories of employees to be
treated differently. In such a case, the above rules will be applied to
each category separately.
* * * * *
Resolution 2.
The Citadel Faculty Employment Committee recommends to the Faculty
Council that the following resolution be adopted and forwarded to the Academic
Board.
We believe that The Citadel should be more concerned with the needs of
Emeritus Faculty. They are a resource which needs to be better utilized.
Those who remain professionally active need to be better integrated with the
rest of The Citadel community. They should be encouraged to interact with
other faculty and students. Professionally active means that an Emeritus
faculty member does research, teaching, participates in professional
organizations, and/or participates in scholarly organizations.
1. One of the deans should act as an advocate for Emeritus faculty.
2. Those emeritus faculty who remain professionally active should be
considered to be members of their academic departments.
3. Those Emeritus faculty members who desire an office on campus with some
storage and a telephone should be provided with one.
4. Active emeritus faculty receive the usual notifications and materials to
be able to apply for CDF faculty grants and opportunities.
5. Active emeritus faculty if they are physically able should receive first
consideration for couses that are taught in their department by adjaunct
faculty.
6. Emeritus faculty should receive each year a Citadel telephone directory,
calendars of events, and course schedules if they so desire.
7. Active emeritus faculty should be able to obtain a vax account which can
be accessed 24 hours a day.
8. Emeritus faculty if continuing to be professionally active should have
continued use of any PC type computer and/or workstation that they had as
an active faculty member.
9. Active emeritus faculty should be included in the all faculty computer
list as well as their departmental computer list.
10. Emeritus faculty should be able to obtain new and updated IRM
publications at no charge.
11. Emeritus faculty should be invited to all appropriate campus and
departmental activities.
12. Emeritus faculty should be able to use the Daniel Library and other
college facilities with all the usual faculty rights.
13. Emeritus faculty should be given Citadel parking permits.
14. Emeritus faculty should be able to purchase tickets to athletic events at
faculty rates.
The current applicable memorandum No. 11 (dated 26 Jun 91) grants item
3 on a space available basis, 4, 11, 12, 13, and 14 while item 7 is implied.
* * * * *
Resolution 3.
The Citadel Faculty Employment Committee recommends to the Faculty
Council that the following resolution be adopted and forwarded to the Academic
Board.
As part of the regular budgeting process a contingency fund should be
established to cover the cost of overload salaries so that faculty members who
take over the courses of faculty members who become too ill to teach or die,
are always compensated.
Comment: Faculty members who have been at The Citadel for several
years usually have sufficient sick leave to ensure that even if they are ill
for most of a semester they will get paid. However, in too many cases, the
faculty members who take over their course do not get compensated. On average
usually one faculty member gets sufficiently ill each year that others have to
take over his/her classes for at least several weeks.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Appendix: Text of the memo distributed by Professor Siskind, Chair, Committee
on Student Evaluation of Instruction. (members: Professors
Hilleke and Rembert)
1 Feb 94
Attached is a procedural outline for the student evaluation system.
The purpose of this memo is to further explain some of the actions taken in
this report as well as to make recommendations for future action.
The plan details the actions to be taken as part of the pre-
administration, administration, and post-administration of the student
evaluation of instruction system, and specifies the party responsible for the
completion of each step. Steps may need to be added in the future. For
example, some modification of the scoring program probably will be required.
Until we receive the scoring program, however, these steps can not be
detailed. Similarly, we would like to make further recommendations about the
reporting procedures; however, we would prefer to proffer these after
obtaining additional information.
The committee discussed at length a number of suggestions. Among
these was the involvement of the student body, specifically the Company
Academic Officers, in the preparation and administration of the evaluation
process. We determined that each Academic Officer would miss one week of
class to administer the rating forms, and that this would not be in the best
interests of the college. Similarly, we decided that the evaluation system
would be better served by administration in the classroom of record than in an
evening "evaluation" system. Fatigue, inattention, and ordering effects were
all factors that we felt would devalue the evaluation of instruction in this
latter manner.
As you will note in the plan, we have recommended that a faculty
member be present in the classroom during administration. The rationale for
this proposal is to maintain decorum. We recognize that having a faculty
member present may influence ratings, however, we hope that by having a
faculty member present in all classrooms, ALL ratings will be influenced
equivalently.
The committee has outlined a procedure which can be utilized during
this semester and modified for implementation in future years. We strongly
recommend that the administration during this semester be viewed as a pilot
administration and that in addition to "trying out" the attached plan, The
Citadel "try out" the evaluation form. We recommend that formal validity
studies be conducted and that an assessment be made of the validity,
reliability, and fairness of the system. Based on the findings of such a
study, the Curriculum and Instruction committee would review the current
instrucment and the process we have outlined would begin again.
We hope that the process that we have outlined will be fluid and
reviewed continually and revised as warranted.
* * * * *
Pre-administration Procedures: Task/Action to be taken; Responsible Party
1. Finalize items to be used in evaluation of instruction by students;
Curriculum and Instruction committee
2. Review items finalized by Curriculum and Instruction Committee and
forward recommendations to the Dean of the College; Faculty Council
3. Print student evaluation forms comprised of recommended items and class
labels; IRM with fiscal responsibility and authorization from the Dean of
the College
4. Distribute appropriate number of student evaluation forms, envelopes and
appropriate class labels to departments; Offices of the Dean of
Undergraduate Studies and the Dean of Graduate Studies
5. Package and distribute to departmental faculty class sets of evaluation
forms. Distribution should be scheduled for one month before the end of
classes; Offices of Department Heads.
6. Develop evaluation plan for faculty supervision of student evaluation for
the department. The plan should ensure that during evaluation, each
class is supervised by a professor other than the professor of record.
The evaluation should be administered prior to the Friday of teh next to
the last week of classes (at least two weeks prior to the end of
classes); Department Heads
* * * * *
Administrative Procedures: Task/Action to be taken; Responsible Party
1. Following the evaluation plan developed by the department head, faculty
should supervise the evaluation process by
a. reading the standardized instuctions at the beginning of the class
period. (draft copy -- 17 Feb 94 -- attached below)
b. selecting a student to collect the evaluation forms.
c. providing the "selected student" with instructions for collecting and
preparing the forms for return
d. remaining in the front of the classroom during the evaluation. The
professor should not intervene in the evaluation process -- his/her
function in remaining in the classroom is to preserve decorum;
Faculty members
2. When all students have completed evaluation forms, the "selected student"
will collect forms and prepare them for scanning. The student will
remove unused forms and prepare the documents for scanning according to
directions provided by the supervising professor. The "selected student"
will place the completed forms in an envelope which should be sealed,
taped, and signed across the tape by the student; "selected student" from
each class. (comment during presentation: IRM does not have adequate
staff to preprocess the forms)
3. The "selected student" will return the envelope to the designated place
in the departmental office; "selected student" from each class
4. Departments will forward unopened envelopes to IRM; Department Heads.
* * * * *
Post-administration procedures: Task/Action to be taken; Responsible Party
1. Scan documents; IRM
2. Print reports and distribute to faculty and department heads. Evaluation
results shuld be distributed the day after grades are due (turnin); IRM
(comment during discussion: the content of this report is to be
determined.)
* * * * *
Draft version of "Directions to be Read Aloud to Students by Assigned Professor"
Today you will have the opportunity to evaluate this class. I have
been assigned to oversee the evaluation in this class. After I read the
directions to you, I will select a student in the class to distribute,
collect, and return the evalaution forms. I will remain in the front of the
classroom only to ensure that the procedures are followed properly.
The purpose of today's evaluation is to help improve the instruction
at The Citadel. Your ratings and comments are critical to this process. With
such an important goal, it is imperative that both students and faculty take
the evaluation process seriously.
Your responses will remain confidential. Neither the professor of
this class nor the department head will see the responses until after grades
are posted.
Thank you for participating in this important part of education at The
Citadel.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Appendix: Memo from Professors Nichols (Strategic Planning Committee) and
Feurtado (Faculty/Staff Housing Committee)
10 February 1994
For some time now, the Physical Plant's maintenance of faculty and
staff housing has failed to ward off the general decline in the condition and
appearance of these residences. In addition, there has been a lack of faculty
and staff involvement in the decision-making process when it directly affects
faculty and staff housing.
For example, rooms damaged by the effects of Hurricane Hugo have not
yet been repaired; window frames are loose and show signs of rotting from lack
of paint; doors do not have adequate weather stripping and do not shut
properly; window glazing has deteriorated to the point where wind blows
through and blinds rattle; exteriors show weather streaks and mildew stains;
absence of gutters results in unsightly mud splattering against exterior walls
and in rain being blown against windows, seeping through and staining walls in
the absence of proper glazing. In additon, when cental heating units were
installed in stucco quarters a number of years ago, no assessment was made of
the energy efficiency of these 50 year old quarters. Consequently, eht
combination of old and matted insulation in attics and drafty windows and
doors has resulted in energy waste and escalating electricity and natural gas
bills. Also, the recent decision to place tenants on a direct billing with
SCE&G has resulted in even higher heating bills. Why this decision was made
is not clear, since it was taken without any review by or consultation with
the housing committee or any other representative faculty/staff body.
In view of these problems, and in consideration of the fact that The
Citadel has failed to undertake in consultation with faculty and staff tenants
a comprehensive assessment of the present status and future course of campus
housing, we believe it is time to have an open meeting on the topic of campus
housing. We urge Faculty Council to call this meeting and invite LGEN Watts,
COL Lyons, and LCOL Schottler as well as all faculty and staff housing
tenants.
===============================================================================
THE CITADEL FACULTY COUNCIL
Minutes of the Regular Meeting of 20 January 1994
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, O. Bowman, Carter,
Coussons, Deutz, Epple, Francel, Hewett, Kelley, Nath, Richardson,
Shields, Simmons, Tucker, and Woolsey.
Members Absent: Professors Anessi, Davis, Mcrae, Miluka, Ouzts,
Tripp, Salas, and Teske.
3. Approval of Previous Minutes.
Professor Richardson moved, second by Professor Bowman, to accept the
minutes of the 9 Dec 93 meeting. Carried unanimously.
4. Announcements from the Chair.
Professor Coussons reported that he had been interviewed (on or about 13
Jan 94) by the education reporter of the (Columbia, SC) State newspaper
concerning various aspects of the Shannon Faulkner situation and that he
had indicated that he represented himself and not faculty council.
Graduate Council Meeting of 11 Jan 94 (Minutes available on VAX:INFO)
(1) The academic integrity document was discussed; (2) Dean Reilly
noted that in the future separate commencements would be held for cadets
and non-cadets, other modifications to the commencements system are being
implemented; (3) reorganization of the Evening College is being
considered; (4) summer school will remain a part of the Evening College;
(5) a committee has been assigned to nominate the recipient of the
Graduate Teaching Award.
In response to various questions and concerns advanced by members of
Faculty Council, Professor Coussons suggested that Dean Poole be invited
to meet with us to discuss these issues.
Academic Board (December meeting): (1) By 1995, there will be separate
commencements for cadets and non-cadets. (2) Departments are to prepare
written policies regarding the expectations, etc., for tenure, promotion,
merit, etc. (3) There will be an evaluation of deans, department
heads, and the vice president for academic affairs by the faculty. (4)
the 1994-95 calendar has two short breaks in each semester (not a single
week-long break): fall 1994 breaks are 14-19 Oct, 23-28 Nov; spring 1995
breaks are 3-9 Mar, 13-19 Apr. (5) As it particularly petains to fifth
year students, Cadets will remain in the Corps until degree requirements
are met; in general, a minimum of eight semesters in the Corps will be
needed to graduate as a cadet; other guidelines were posed for
consideration. (6) The Charleston Pass policy has been revised and is in
accordance with the memo circulated previously.
Professor Coussons reported that he would be meeting with Professor
Siskind's committee on faculty evaluation. Presently, Mr. Welch (IRM)
has stated that there is no money for the necessary scanner or the
software; Dean Poole has stated that the money can be found, that he
needs a budget. The committee has determined that it will not be
practical to have the Cadet Academic Officers administer the faculty
evaluation.
5. Old Business -- Faculty Employment Committee
a. Professor Adelman moved, second by Professor Woolsey, that the following
document addressing partial retirement, which would more easily permit
post-retirement adjunct work, be accepted by Faculty Council for
forwarding to Academic Board. It was noted that this proposal would
require legislative action. Carried by unanimous voice vote.
"A Proposed Retirement Program
"At present, faculty at State Colleges and Universities must retire
completely to receive retirement benefits. If they wish to continue to
teach, they are subject to various restrictions and are paid on a per
course considerably less than when they were full time faculty. Many
potential retirees still have much to offer their Colleges and
Universities. Studies indicate that being able to retire utilizing a
program to gradually reduce one's workload is healthier than complete
retirement on a given date.
"Therefore, we ask General Watts to request that the Council of College
and University Presidents investigate the possibility of a program in
which College and University Faculty could retire in stages. For
example, they might be able to go to half-time status for two years.
During this time program participants could teach half-time, receive one-
half of their full time salary and one-half of their retirement salary,
and if they contributed to retirement, could earn an additional one-half
year credit per year of participation for their full retirement. The
released salary would allow the professor's College or University to hire
their replacement as salaries for starting assistant professors are about
one-half those of full professors. The semi-retired professor could
still perform his/her other usual academic duties such as service on
faculty committees, being a research advisor, and remaining active in
research. Such a program would require legislative approval. But, as
both the professors and their Colleges and Universities would benefit, we
believe that this suggestion should be studied. It could also include at
the option of the Colleges and Universities, senior executives,
classified employees, and coaches in those cases where suitable duties
could be found."
b. Professor Adelman moved, second by Professor Shields, that faculty
council accept the following document for further discussion. It was
noted that these ideas are not totally inclusive, other ideas are possible
and could be included; furthermore some of these are currently
under consideration by various committees. Additions are invited and
requested! After discussion and deletion of section 2 which addressed
student numbers, the motion carried by a vote of 11-3.
"Financial Comments about The Citadel Salary Policy
"For a merit system to operate, it is imperative that cost of living
increases be a paid yearly and before any merit increases or bonuses.
The funds to pay for cost of living increases must either come from the
State of South Carolina or be generated from Citadel sources. Several
approaches can be considered.
"1) Fees from students could be increased. This might be self defeating
as it might decrease enrollments.
"2) *** section deleted by friendly amendment ***
"3) An endowment for supplementing academic salaries and other current
academic needs could be raised. It is important to involve
businesses in the Low Country in this effort and to solicit support
from nationally recognized foundations and businesses.
"4) Funds could be transferred from non-academic to academic purposes.
This topic is being studied by the self study.
"5) With the construction of the new barracks, an effort should be made
to attract meetings to The Citadel campus in the summer. Another
possibility is to have courses for 'senior citizens'. Non credit
community courses should be a regular part of the evening program.
"6) Opportunities for faculty to earn supplemental pay could be increased
in the summer. For example, The Citadel could urge incoming freshmen
with marginal credentials to attend a special summer program where
they would take intensive Mathematics and English courses so that the
prognosis for their academic careers could be substantially
increased. Further, The Citadel could offer courses in the summer to
bring talented upcoming High School seniors to give them a taste of
the college experience. Both programs could have special tutors.
Both programs would increase the academic prestige of The Citadel."
c. To the question of the committee's authorization to study the salary and
structure and other financial aspects, the note was made that this is a
duty assigned in the basic charter of the Faculty Employment Committee.
6. New Business: Professor Coussons asked it there was interest in holding
future meetings in 161 Bond Hall. A division of Council for a preference
to relocate vs staying in the Board of Visitors Room was by geographic
location of member's offices. Professor Coussons stated that if the room
is available, the next meeting of Council will be at 161 Bond Hall.
7. At 12:15, Professor Bowman moved, second by Professor Tucker, to adjourn.
Carried.
/s/ Thomas H. Richardson
Secretary, Faculty Council
===============================================================================
THE CITADEL FACULTY COUNCIL
Minutes of the Regular Meeting of 9 December 1993
Board of Visitors Room, Jenkins Hall, 11:00 AM
1. The Chair called Faculty Council to order at 11:05 AM.
2. Members in attendance: Professors Adelman, Anessi, O. Bowman, Coussons,
Davis, Deutz, Epple, Kelley, McRae, Nath, Richardson, Shields,
Simmons, Tripp, and Woolsey.
Members Absent: Professors Carter, Hewett, Ouzts, Milukas, Salas, and
Teske.
Professor Leon substituted for Professor Tucker, Professor Pages
substituted for Professor Francel.
3. Approval of Previous Minutes.
Professor Richardson moved, second by Professor Bowman, to accept the
minutes of the 18 Nov 93 meeting. Carried unanimously.
4. Announcements from the Chair: due to the early date for this meeting,
there have been no Academic Board or Graduate Council meetings to report.
5. Old Business: Faculty Salaries
Professor Adelman presented a brief review of what the Faculty
Employment Committee is doing and presented some other developments.
Dean Poole has affirmed that there will be a Citadel Salary Policy! A
draft (partial) statement from the committee was distributed and
reviewed. The "standard policy" portions of the statement have been
reviewed by Messrs. Lyons and Nadzak. Further work to be done is to
include a merit system, advance funding suggestions, and alternates if
there is no funding forthcoming.
Professor Adelman moved, second by Professor Bowman, that this draft
statement be accepted.
"PROPOSED CITADEL SALARY POLICY STATEMENT
1. The Citadel, the Military College of South Carolina, is a State Agency,
and is a part of the Higher Education System of South Carolina. As
such, it is subject to the personnel policies, regulations and laws of
the State. In large part its salary actions are governed by annual
provisos contained in the State Appropriations Act. There is more
leeway provided when addressing salary matters for unclassified
employees (which includes faculty and coaches) and executive
compensation personnel, but even those categories must conform to
certain over-arching policies and regulations as directed by the General
Assembly, the Budget & Control Board, and the Division of Human Affairs.
2. The Citadel affirms that its hiring, promotion, tenure, and salary
actions will not be influenced by sex, race, religious beliefs,
national origin or physical limitations.
3. All employees should be fairly compensated for their work, should
receive increases as necessary to offset increases in the general cost
of living, and should be considered for increases under an approved
merit pay system when such merit increases are authorized by appropriate
State Authority and the necessary funds are available to the college.
4. Classified employees should be compensated based upon their approved
grade, applicable experience, and performance. As a general rule,
Citadel classified employees should receive comparable salaries to
other classified employees in the State personnel system with the same
grade. The Citadel Employee Relations Committee is responsible for
reviewing the salaries of all classified employees.
5. Unclassified employees should be compensated in a manner to ensure that
salaries are comparable to an appropriate peer grouping.
a. Coaches' compensation at The Citadel should be comparable to those
at other Southern Conference institutions of similar size. The
Athletic Director is responsible for reviewing the salaries of all
coaches.
b. Faculty salaries, by discipline, should be comparable to a
designated peer group of colleges and universities. The Citadel
Faculty Employment Committee, in coordination with the Dean of the
College, is responsible for reviewing the salaries of all faculty
members. The current peer group consists of UNC Charlotte, Western
Carolina, Appalachian State, North Carolina Central, VMI, James
Madison, University of Richmond, Towson State, and Davidson College.
6. Senior executives of the college have their authorized salary ranges
established by the executive compensation policies of the Budget &
Control Board. They should be similar to those of institutions of
comparable size. Periodic surveys are conducted and adjustments to the
salary ranges are made as appropriate. Senior executive salaries
should be reviewed by the President and revised as required.
7. Noninflationary salary adjustments will be based upon individual merit.
Detailed plans are needed for each general category of employee as
noted in paragraphs 4 through 6 above. Merit pay increases including
Performance and Productivity pay should be implemented when authorized
by the General Assembly and/or the Budget & Control Board and when the
necessary funds are available to the college. Other categories of pay
actions such as Bonus Pay should be considered when properly authorized
and under conditions which meet established criteria for such pay actions.
8. Thus the college's official pay plan provides for:
a. Appropriate Base Level of Salary. To be established by reviews by
the designated individuals or committees through the chain of
command to the President for final approval.
b. Adjustments for Inflation.
Unclassified employees. Use the Charleston Metropolitan Area
Cost of Living Index.
Classified employees. As specified by the General Assembly.
c. Merit Pay. *Based upon the State Merit Pay Program and the State
Performance Pay Program as authorized by the General Assembly.
d. Reviews. *Appropriate reviews should be conducted as to The
Citadel's implementation of the Pay Plan for all categories of
employees.
9. Merit pay plans for each category of employee will be appended as
approved."
Additional comments from Professor Adelman:
a. For any merit system to operate it is imperative that the cost of
living increases be paid yearly and before any merit increases/or
bonuses. Otherwise those who do not receive merit pay believe that
the merit pay of others comes from their salaries.
b. The Faculty Employment Committee will next meet on December 15. The
committee will discuss the merit system for the Faculty and how to
fund the proposed Citadel Salary Policy. We hope to have something
to present to Faculty Council at the January 1994 meeting.
Suggestions and comments about these topics are welcome.
Comments from the discussion:
At the present time, the State permits The Citadel to award merit pay
if the school can find money.
The cost of living adjustments must be tied to an identified index.
Council approved the draft statement by voice vote.
6. Old Business: Faculty Manual, Graduate Teaching Loads Adjustments
Professor Woolsey moved, second by Professor Tripp, the restoration of
the "original" handbook language to define teaching loads which include
graduate courses. The following language is to replace the current
paragraph f:
"f. The teaching load for faculty teaching graduate course work must
reflect the expectations of accrediting bodies that graduate faculty
spend additional time in student instruction through avenues such as
mentorships, student collaboration in research, and non-credit
seminars/symposia. Therefore, the normal teaching load is 9 credit hours
when one or more graduate courses are assigned. The combined credit hour
production from the undergraduate and graduate portions of the faculty
member's teaching load should generate approximately the number of credit
hours expected of a full-time equivalent faculty (FTEF) in that
discipline."
Professor Woolsey noted that Dean Poole has confirmed that a twelve-hour
graduate load will not be implemented without consulting Graduate
Council and Faculty Council.
There appears to be some questions as to the origin of the 12-hour load
concept.
Carried by voice vote.
7. Meeting adjourned, 12:05 PM
/s/ Thomas H. Richardson
Secretary, Faculty Council
===============================================================================
THE CITADEL FACULTY COUNCIL
Minutes of the Regular Meeting of 18 November 1993
Board of Visitors Room, Jenkins Hall, 11:00 AM
1. The Chair called Faculty Council to order at 11:05 AM.
2. Members in attendance: Professors Adelman, Anessi, O.Bowman, Carter,
Coussons, Davis, Deutz, Epple, Francel, McRae, Nath, Richardson,
Simmons, Tripp, Tucker, Woolsey.
Members Absent: Professors Hewett, Kelley, Milukas, Ouzts, Salas, and
Teske
Professor Allen substituted for Professor Shields.
3. Approval of Previous Minutes.
Professor Richardson moved, second by Professor Bowman, to accept the
minutes of the 16 Sep 93 and 21 Oct 93 meetings. Professor Woolsey
requested proper attribution of the report concerning the Faculty Manual
updating. [The VAX/INFO version reflects this change.] Motion carried
by unanimous voice vote.
4. Announcements from the Chair.
Graduate Council Meeting of 22 Oct 93
The "Policy on Student Academic Integrity" for the graduate and evening
colleges was presented.
FC discussion: Professor O. Bowman reported that he had chaired the
committee which had drafted this honor policy/process/sanctions, etc;
it is typical of that at most institutions. The Chair asked that
further questions be directed to Professor Bowman and that Pat Ezell
should have copies for distribution.
The development of a statement of graduate status and review is in
process and will membership and teaching-load requirements as well as
definitions and expectations of scholarly activity.
Course rearrangements, changes, and revisions were presented by the
English, Education, and Psychology departments.
There is as yet no statement regarding the distribution and reinvestment
of "evening/graduate program profits" into the evening and graduate
programs.
Academic Board Meeting of 16 Nov 93 (held prior to the court decision
regarding Ms. Faulkner's matriculation at The Citadel)
Faculty and others are asked to anticipate a restriction of privilege for
the granting of Charleston Passes and weekend leaves. [This policy has
since been distributed through the department heads.]
Faculty are asked to anticipate the SACS visitation team on 22-25 Feb 94;
it is requested that no meetings be scheduled during this time and that
faculty be available for departmental visits by the team. Course syllabi
and final exams are to be on file in the departmental offices.
Status of 1994-95 calendar and breaks. According to Dean Metts, the
department head consensus is to have one long break per semester rather
than two short breaks.
FC discussion: Having a week-long break at Thanksgiving is too late
in the semester; this tends to duplicate the one-time practice of
holding final exams in January following a Christmas break. The
comment was made that having a break earlier in the semester could be
detrimental to ensuring sufficient Cadet attendance at home ball games.
Professor Coussons had been asked to get a "sense of Council;" the
sense was "acquiescent" towards whatever happens.
Faculty are asked to anticipate OSHA building inspections in the near
future.
A policy on fifth year students is being developed which will allow these
students the option of being uniformed members of the Corps of Cadets or
transferring to the Evening College (and receiving an Evening College
diploma).
Academic Board voted 16-3 to permit Professor Adelman present his
committee's report on salaries.
FC discussion: Professor Adelman believes that things will be
"worked through;" the deans are working towards a salary policy which
Professor Adelman will bring to the next council meeting. The
immediate process is to identify and fix "inordinately out-of-line"
salaries within departments.
Professor Coussons distributed a report of salaries for all college
employees. While it is not explicitly so stated, these appear to be
base salaries.
Conference of South Carolina Faculty Senate/Council Chairs. There was a
meeting on 21 Oct 93 at which the concerns about budgets and the
Commission on Higher Education proposal were discussed. Professor
Coussons stated that he intends to be at the next meeting.
The CHE proposal had been previously distributed to faculty via E-mail
by Professor J. Moore; a copy of this proposal and a report provided
by Professor J. Moore on the fall SC-AAUP meeting as which this
proposal was discussed will be attached as an appendix to the VAX/INFO
version of the minutes.
Faculty Manual changes. Professor Coussons reviewed Professor Greim's letter
of 4 Nov 93 (which had been forwarded to @ALL_FACULTY) expressing various
concerns about the redefinition of teaching loads and read a letter from
Professor Mailloux addressing these. Copies of the text of these letters
will be attached as appendices to the VAX/INFO version of the minutes
5. Old Business: Faculty Manual Changes.
Professor Francel moved, second by Professor Woolsey, a change in the
Faculty Manual text concerning teaching loads. The original text of the
motion had previously been distributed to the members; the following text
reflects minor changes made during the discussion.
"The Faculty Council asks that the following text replace the existing
wording in the Faculty Manual (as distributed to Department Heads), in
section VI: Policies and Programs, subsection A: Teaching
responsibilities, sub-subsection 1: Loads
a) In light of its commitment to the position that the primary
function of the Citadel Teacher-Scholar is effective teaching,
The Citadel expects that each faculty member will have a
teaching load which is measured not only by weekly contact
hours but also by actual student contact or credit hour
production. This philosophy reflects The Citadel's dedication
to student-centered undergraduate and graduate programs.
b) Each faculty member is scheduled for normally 12 semester
hours or 14 contact hours of lectures and labs (normally
representing no more than three separate preparations).
A further consideration in the assignment of these courses is
the expectation that a faculty member should generate, where
possible, approximately the number of credit hours for his or
her discipline as outlined in the following table. These
expected credit hour productions are updated periodically by
the Commission on Higher Education and had their genesis in
the actual credit hour production for the various disciplines
in the senior four-year colleges in the state. With its
commitment to small class size and innovative teaching, the
college frequently finds itself in disagreement with these
figures, especially in higher level courses. However, these
figures are the basis for state formula funding and cannot,
therefore, be ignored.
(A table is inserted at this point in the printed version of the
Faculty Manual)
This teaching load, at the upper end of but still within the
spectrum of academically demanding four-year colleges, allows
for faculty involvement in student consultations and
mentorships along with SOME scholarly activity. The reluctance
to increase this teaching assignment through overloads evolves
from the desire to encourage out-of-class student contacts
along with scholarship and service to the college.
Items from the discussion:
Professor Adelman: There are problems in hour counting due to
special automatic load reductions for other service and for
laboratory hours.
Professor Allen: The FTE numbers expectations are being driven by
the use of adjunct instructors at some schools.
The Chair ruled that the vote would be to recommend that these changes be
made. Carried by unanimous voice vote.
6. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 12:05 PM.
/s/ Thomas H. Richardson
Secretary, Faculty Council
* * * * *
Appendices to 18 Nov 93 Faculty Council Meeting
1. Text of E-mail from Professor J. Moore regarding CHE proposal
The following were among the agenda items at the Fall Assembly of the SC
Conference of the AAUP. (1) A draft plan which has been submitted by
the State Superintendent of Education to the Education Improvement Act
Select Committee. The plan calls for elimination of tenure at all state
institutions of higher learning. (2) Changes in the SC Code that allow
state agencies to increase or decrease salaries based on performance
reviews.
I. The following comes from the Executive Committee of the Conference of
South Carolina University Faculty Chairs, Oct. 25, 1993. It relates
to recent actions of the SC Commission of Higher Education and a
draft copy of the "Plan for Action" submitted to the Education
Improvement Act Select Committee by Dr. Barbara Nielsen, State
Superintendent of Education. The draft includes the following:
The Governor, Commissioner appointed by the Governor, and the
Commission on Higher Education (or an agency which may be newly
established) shall be granted authority to do the following:
a. Govern all institutions of higher education beginning 1 Jan 1998.
b. Establish a system of eminent status to replace tenure and to
require a review of eminence every five years.
c. Revitalize the centrality of teaching, the need for universities
and colleges to enter into partnerships with their communities,
and redirect faculties to a commitment to a changing world.
d. Establish performance standards for all colleges and universities
in the areas of compliance, agency effectiveness, and results.
e. Approve all budgets, programs, and new facilities.
f. Set admission standards, tuition, and degrees granted.
g. Employ all presidents and establish contract obligations.
II. By a memorandum dated September 10, 1993, to each member of the
faculty, et. al., The Citadel Director of Personnel and
Administrative Services, Lee V. E. Martin, provided information on
significant legislative changes. Paragraph No. 2 in his memorandum
informed that "agencies and institutions may now increase or decrease
individual salaries based on performance." The new section of the SC
Code of Laws reads:
"SC Code, Section 8-1-160. Notwithstanding other provisions of law,
state agencies may increase or decrease individual employee salaries
based upon performance. Such increase or decrease shall be
determined by the agency. Performance increases shall not place an
employee's salary above the maximum of the grade or executive
compensation level. Performance decreases may not place an
employee's salary below the minimum of the grade or executive
compensation level. Performance decreases shall be based on the
results of an EPMS evaluation. Employees assessed salary decreases
may seek redress through the state employees' grievance system."
From discussion with the SC Division of Personnel and Human Services
I am advised: (1) that the section of the statute definitely applies
to faculty in the state colleges and universities, (2) that both the
EPMS evaluations (Employee Performance Management System) and the
state employee grievance process apply to classified employees but
not to faculty, thus (3) increases or decreases in faculty salaries
in the state higher education institutions will be determined by
institutional procedures.
I have sent this faculty-wide because these items are of interest to
all faculty. I hope to set up an AAUP email distribution list for
paid members shortly to solicit information and communicate the SC
Conference responses and actions. Others who wish to connect to the
net should send me [MOOREJ] an email request.
2. Text of a follow-up e-mail from Professor J. Moore to "AAUP-NET"
The following is a summary of the Fall Assembly of the SC Conference of
AAUP.
The Assembly recommended that faculty at state institutions take care to
see there are appropriate criteria, standards, and procedures for
evaluating faculty for merit increments or, as now provided in state law,
for salary reductions.
The Assembly opposed the section of the plan for action in implementing
educational changes being drafted by Dr. M. Donald Thomas for the State
Department of Education which recommends "a system of eminent status to
replace tenure and to require a review of eminence every five years."
The Assembly also took action to bring AAUP concerns before the
appropriate bodies.
In the morning program, Bob Black, Counsel for the women applicants to
The Citadel, and M. Dawes Cook, Jr. Counsel for the Citadel, discussed
"Single Sex Education: The Citadel Case and Its Implications for Higher
Education in South Carolina." Mr. Cook said one thing that seems new:
The Citadel's case rests on the fact that The Citadel had its single
gender cadet program because of its unique mission. By its vote on the
alternatives posed by the Court in the VMI case, the Faculty Council had
indicated its preference for the admission of women. One of the
problems, Mr. Cooke then said, was that the faculty at The Citadel did
not understand The Citadel's mission. Faculty felt they were hired to be
professors of physics, English, etc., much as faculty at any other
institution of higher learning. Mr. Cooke then stated that The Citadel
needed to do a better job of indoctrinating its faculty.
3. Text of e-mail from Professor Greim to @ALL_FACULTY concerning loads
The new "Faculty Manual" as distributed to Department Heads redefines
faculty teaching loads. A letter from the VPAA to department heads, dated
8 September 1993, refers to the new teaching load section of the Manual
as "the pertinent section of the Faculty Manual". I would like to know to
which extent Faculty Council was involved in the creation and approval of
this part of the document.
My reading of the Academic Board minutes of 20 April and May 11 1993 is
that the AB did not find the time to discuss the document in full on 20
April, agreed instead that any comments should be directed to Spike
Metts, and at the following meeting, in the absence of any comments
submitted to Spike, approved the full document without further discussion.
Unfortunately, the Faculty Council minutes on the Vax are not very
specific about the changes FC proposed to the draft of the new Faculty
Manual, nor do they contain that draft. I am therefore in the dark about
which parts of the recently distributed paper are approved by FC.
Specifically, I would like to know the following:
1. Did FC approve the draft's following formulations which lay the
foundation for a raise of the faculty teaching load from presently
12 hours:
...The Citadel has an over-arching expectation that each faculty
member will have a teaching load which is measured NOT SIMPLY BY
WEEKLY CONTACT HOURS BUT BY actual student contact or CREDIT HOUR
PRODUCTION....
...Through teaching loads of AT LEAST 12 semester hours or 14
contact hours, each faculty member is scheduled for lectures and
labs ... which WILL GENERATE APPROXIMATELY THE NUMBER OF CREDIT
HOURS INDICATED FOR HIS OR HER DISCIPLINE as outlined on the
following table...
(emphasis P.G.)
2. If "Yes", has FC discussed the legal aspect of this unilateral
modification of the faculty's work contracts? In which form has the
faculty at large been informed and consulted in this matter that
concerns vital faculty interests?
3. If "No", has the Faculty Council chair informed any other bodies of
college governance that FC did not approve this part of the draft,
and which such bodies? Which actions does FC plan if the college
administration will or did unilaterally declare the text in question
to be college policy?
4. Text of e-mail from Professor Mailloux (Chair of Faculty Council in 1992-
1993 when this was discussed) to Professor Coussons, et al.
In response to your question about the teaching load section of the
Faculty Manual: FC Minutes reveal that that page, because it was
different from the earlier draft, was discussed at the 19 Nov 92 meeting.
At that time it was decided to assign it to the Faculty Employment
Committee, headed by Saul Adelman, for review and recommendations. He
reported back to FC at the 21 Jan 93 meeting that he had met with Jerry
Lyons and learned, essentially, that the FTE chart, one of the primary
changes from the old manual to the new, simply reflected CHE
requirements. Spike Metts, when I spoke with him, said essentially the
same thing, and emphasized that this did not reflect, no lay the
foundation for, a change in policy regarding teaching load. The
Employment committee did not raise your concern as a danger either.
The employment committee report was an interim report, and so no vote
was taken on that page then. Saul gave another report on 15 April but at
that time focused on salary issues. There was no further mention of the
teaching load, and no one on FC raised it as an issue.
The answer to your question is therefore somewhere between yes and no.
FC did consider the page specifically, but never voted yes or no on it
specifically. Our procedures was to recommend changes where we saw the
need; if we made no recommendation, we tacitly accepted the section. But
there was always the proviso that we could reconsider, and make
recommendations on, any section in the future. If you think there is a
problem with this section, to look at is again would seem to me as
alternative, although that is, of course, John Coussons' decision to
make, not mine.
===============================================================================
THE CITADEL FACULTY COUNCIL
Minutes of the Regular Meeting of 21 October 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, Anessi, O. Bowman, J. Carter,
Coussons, Davis, Deutz, Epple, Francel, Hewett, McRae, Nath, Richardson,
Shields, Simmons, Tripp, Tucker, Woolsey
Members Absent: Professors Kelley, Milukas, Ouzts, Salas, Teske
3. Approval of Previous Minutes.
The minutes of the 19 Sep 93 meeting were delayed; these will be
distributed for the November meeting.
4. Announcements from the Chair.
a. Graduate Council: Professor Coussons noted that that body was
meeting simultaneously with Faculty Council.
b. Academic Board Meeting
President Watts briefed the Board on the state of the various law
suits: that from the female Navy veterans has been dismissed but may
be appealed, that from Ms. Faulkner is underway.
President Watts stated that Junior Sword Drill has been "disbanded,"
not "suspended."
Dean Poole expressed concern regarding what appears to be an
excessive number of Charleston Passes and overnights. He is also
unhappy with the current "late lights" policy. His reservations
focus on the effects these are having on study habits and he hope
that the situation can be improved.
Draft 1994-95 academic calendars were presented; the dean solicited
advice concerning the spring break possibilities. These have since
been distributed to departments for comment. [Faculty Council chose
to wait for departments to comment.]
It is the dean's intention to determine the definition of "scholarly
activity." [Faculty Council chose to defer discussion on this
topic.]
5. Old Business
a. Student Evaluation of Instruction. A packet of materials, which
consists of two papers, the proposal approved by Faculty Council, and
various studies, is being distributed to members of council who are
asked to review and share this this information with their
departments.
Professor Siskind's committee will review this and also proceed with
the "how to administer" problem.
Since it has been previously established that this evaluation
document will count no more than 35% of the "evaluation of
instruction" portion of the annual review of faculty process, this
committee is also asked to prepare and forward a proposal to the
Curriculum and Instruction Committee and to Faculty Council which
addresses the remaining 65%.
b. Salary Comparison Document (previously distributed to faculty via the
vax). Professor Adelman distributed a draft "plan of action to
complete the salary study."
He reviewed what additional work has been done with respect to the
salary comparisons. The discrepancy analysis is as before; a trend
analysis has been performed, this report has been placed in the
college library.
It was reported that Dean Poole has asked that a salary policy be
established for The Citadel; the assumption is that the average
salary should equal that of the peer group with whom we compete for
faculty. Previously, ad hoc committees have recommended remedies to
correct discrepancies; this time it is hoped that similar rank and
experience will result in similar salaries. The question of
inflation correction and rank differentials will need to be
addressed.
Presently the committee is doing a statistical comparison, relative
to the peer group. The intent is to address the discrepancies on a
department by department basis and doing this work with each
department. Items to be considered include the effects of endowed
chairs on the process, specialization differentials, the weighting of
years of professional experience, and merit.
Professor McRae moved, second by Professor Woolsey, that the draft
plan of action as presented by Professor Adelman be perused by
members of Council and that they notify the Chair by 28 October 93
whether or not this document should be forwarded to Academic Board.
Carried by voice vote.
Members of Council were invited to forward any suggestions to
Professor Adelman.
c. Faculty Manual: Professor Coussons reported that Dean Metts had
stated that there has been only one item added to the Manual since
the review of changes by Faculty Council in 1992-93. This statement
of the decision and recommendation-making process reflects current
practice; a copy was distributed to members.
Copies of the updated Faculty Manual have been given to department
heads for departmental use. The document is also to be available on
the vax. [At the time these minutes were prepared, there was no
obvious entry to the Faculty Manual in the INFO function.]
d. Standing Committees: Professor Tucker commented that Council's
previous decision in the committee reorganization process to avoid
staff committees may have been in error. Members are asked to
anticipate a report on the current situation.
6. New Business
a. Report of the Special Task Force to the President: Dean Poole has
referred this to Council for study; copies have been distributed to
members.
Professor Bowman moved, second by Professor Shields, that the
Executive Committee take this under review for presentation to the
full council at the next meeting. Carried by voice vote.
7. Meeting adjourned at 12:24; next meeting is scheduled for 18 November 93.
/s/ Thomas H. Richardson
Secretary/Faculty Council
=============================================================================
THE CITADEL FACULTY COUNCIL
Minutes of the Regular Meeting of 16 September 1993
Board of Visitors Room, Jenkins Hall, 11:00 AM
1. The Chair called Faculty Council to order at 11:05 AM.
2. Members in attendance: Professors Anessi, O. Bowman, J. Carter,
Coussons, Davis, Francel, Hewett, Kelley, McRae, Ouzts, Richardson,
Simmons, Tripp, Tucker, Woolsey
Members Absent: Professors Deutz, Milukas, Shields, Salas, and Teske.
Professor Epple was absent by reason of a meeting of the Electrical
Engineering faculty with Dean Poole.
Professor Briggs substituted for Professor Adelman, Professor B.
Carter substituted for Professor Nath.
Guest: Professor Judy Von was introduced.
3. Approval of Previous Minutes.
Professor Tucker moved, second by Professor Tripp, to approve the
minutes of the 22 April 93. Carried unanimously.
4. Announcements from the Chair.
a. Academic Board Meeting of 16 August 93
President Watts briefed the Board on the then-current status of Ms.
Faulkner's matriculation. [The court's order requiring her
matriculation has since been vacated.] To a question concerning the
three female veteran students, the judge had indicated that obtaining
a degree "during the day" is a matter of convenience, not a violation
of rights.
President Watts indicated that he is "comfortable" with the direction
and progress of the SACS accreditation process. In a later
discussion, Dean Poole indicated that he was not "comfortable" with
this accreditation process.
Dean Poole stressed the importance of an agenda for Academic Board
meetings and asked members to forward items to be considered to his
office for inclusion.
Dean Metts indicated that the Board of Visitors had taken no action on
the Faculty Manual but will be doing so in the fall. Dean Poole
inquired about faculty involvement in the process; Dean Metts stated
that Faculty Council had reviewed the document and that it had been
distributed to the faculty through the department heads.
It was noted that there are three searches ongoing; that only one of
these (multicultural) is a new position and that no faculty positions
will be eliminated.
b. Graduate Council meeting of 2 Sep 93 (these minutes were distributed
to faculty via the vax)
Dean Reilly reviewed the 1993 summer school; enrollment was up,
income exceeded expenses. He has recommended that 20% of the income
from the Evening College and Summer School be directed to the
academic programs of the college.
Professor Templeton presented a motion to create an MAT degree in
Social Science. While it is not the intention to eliminate the MAT
in History, this will be done if necessitated by the Commission on
Higher Education.
A graduate course in Educational Psychology has been approved.
Dean Reilly (1) asked Graduate Council to review the criteria for
appointment and review of Graduate Faculty, (2) noted that there is
presently no honor policy for graduate or evening college students,
(3) requested that there be an early date on firm plans for spring
and summer offerings in the evening and graduate programs, and (4)
reported that MUSC and UoC wish to form a consortium for Charleston-
area graduate education.
Professor Comer reviewed a state education department plan to improve
the teaching of math and science. The Citadel plans to become
involved in the process.
c. The report to the President from the special task force on the
reduction of expenditure/enhancement of revenue was referred by Dean
Poole to Faculty Council for study. Copies of the document will be
distributed to members for discusson at the next meeting.
d. Professor Coussons was interviewed by a Mr. Smith of Associated
Press; this was under the auspices of Rick Mills office. In general,
Mr. Smith was "friendly to the college," his interests were with
respect to faculty support of single gender education. Professor
Coussons shared his point of view but emphasized that he could not
speak for the faculty.
e. Professor Coussons has met with Dean Poole who would like to hold an
"open" faculty meeting for discussion of various interests and
concerns. Professor Coussons indicated that the topic of perhaps
most current concern to faculty is salaries and referred to the
report from the Faculty Employment Committee which has been
e-mail-distributed to Faculty Council and to the faculty at large.
A brief discussion followed concerning the recent memorandum from the
Personnel Office. Of most concern was the proposed idea of salary
reductions as a penalty for unfavorable evaluation results. The
comment was made that, with respect to faculty, this would be in
violation of tenure and AAUP guidelines.
5. Old Business
EVALUATION of (FACULTY) INSTRUCTION: Professor Coussons and others
traced the history action during the past year. Professor Suskind
will replace Professor Von (who has resigned from The Citadel) as
chair of the task force to address this issue.
Professor Von presented a packet of items derived from the evaluation
tool available from Purdue University.
a. The Citadel has obtained copyright permission to use the survey
form.
b. The evaluation tool consists of a large question set, from which the
form examined was derived. Questions can be selected from the set
(and minor editing can be done) to create the actual survey form.
There is a one-time purchase (about $1000) for the computer program
which consists of the data set, preparation and analysis and
reporting software, and national norms of responses to the various
questions. In addition, The Citadel will need to either obtain a
scanner (a suitable model will cost about $5000) or arrange to have
the use of one. Alternately a per use fee of 40 cents per sheet
permits one to have Purdue do the scanning and analysis.
In addition to national norms, there is provision for local
comparisons and the storage of results for future comparisons.
Professor Tucker moved, Professor Woolsey seconded, the adoption and
purchase of the Purdue copyright and program package.
Professor Coussons noted that the task force consisting of Professors
Suskind, Rembert, and Hillike will be charged to administer this
package.
It was noted that Cadets must take this evaluation process seriously.
Professor Tucker suggested that the Cadet Academic Officers be
trained to administer the actual writing of evaluations in the
classroom. Professor Coussons noted that this will permit
standardized and uniform administration of the evaluation.
To the question concerning dissemination of results, it was stated
that these will be to the professor, the department head, and to the
dean. Professor Coussons noted that the deans are on record as
stating that "there will be evaluations" and that faculty can expect
the results from these evaluations to have a weight towards overall
evaluation.
The motion carried by unanimous voice vote.
REPORT ON FACULTY SALARIES from Faculty Employment Committee.
Discussion of the report was deferred to the next meeting.
Copies have been distributed to Faculty Council and to faculty
members via e-mail; a printed copy has been placed in the library.
It was noted that, due to limitations of the e-mail software, charts
and diagrams were omitted from the electronic version.
Professor Coussons noted that he had requested additional salary
information from Mr. Spearman.
6. New Business
FACULTY MANUAL
Several members voiced concerns that the Faculty Manual as
distributed to department heads, appears to contain several changes
and modifications which have not been reviewed by Faculty Council.
Professor Davis moved, second by Professor Bowman, that the Executive
Committee take suitable action to determine the actual status of the
Faculty Manual and that Faculty Council be permitted to review and
advise on all proposed revisions. Carried by unanimous voice vote.
7. Announcements
Professor Tucker shared some concerns about the current operation of
the faculty committee structure. The INFO and other functions of the
VAX do not provide the degree of detail and completeness which hard-
copy distribution fostered in times past. Professor Briggs noted
that the original intention of the electronic dissemination had been
to supplement hard-copy distribution of materials.
Meeting adjourned at 12:30 PM. The next regular meeting of Faculty Council
will be on 21 October 93.
/s/ Thomas H. Richardson
Secretary/Faculty Council