THE CITADEL FACULTY COUNCIL 1996-1997
Minutes of the Regular Meeting of 9 May 1996
Bond Hall 161, 11:00 AM
1. Professor James Leonard, Chair of the Faculty Council,
called Faculty Council to order at 11:00 AM.
2. Members in attendance: Professors Hewitt, Barrett, Dunlop,
Durgun, Hoyle, Rembert, Rushing, Alford, B. Moore, Lipovsky,
Leonard, Hilleke, Bryson, E. Carter.
Professor Moreland substituted for Professor Feurtado,
Professor J. Carter substituted for Professor Ezell,
Professor Del Mastro represented the Department of Modern
Languages, Professor D. Moore substituted for Professor
Greenawalt.
Members absent: Professors Brannan, Newman, Chandler
Guests: Professors Elksnin, Greim, Adelman, Siskind
3. Approval of previous minutes
Professor Durgun moved that the minutes of 25 April 1996 be
approved with the addition of language under Old Business,
part F to read that there be no statute of limitations. The
motion carried unanimously.
4. Election of officers
Professor Leonard opened the nominations for Faculty Council
Vice-Chair/ Chair-Elect for 1996-97. Professor E. Carter
nominated Professor Barrett; Professor B. Moore seconded.
Professor Alford moved that the nominations be closed;
Professor Durgun seconded. Professor Barrett was
unanimously elected.
Professor Leonard opened the nominations for Secretary of
Faculty Council. Professor Rembert nominated Professor
Brannan; Professor Rushing seconded. Professor Barrett
moved to close the nominations; Professor Rembert seconded.
Professor Brannan was unanimously elected.
5. Reports by the Chair
a. Graduate Council - The Department of Business Administration
has studied reducing the number of hours required of MBA
students coming in without sufficient business preparation.
A proposal was made to change 3-hour courses to 1 1/2-hour
accelerated courses (covering 1/2 a semester). This would
present less of an obstacle to those entering the program.
The proposal passed.
b. Academic Board - Business Administration presented a new
undergraduate curriculum for approval. All but one proposal
carried (International Business will not be changed to a
required course).
c. The Board of Visitors has not met since the last FC meeting.
d. Budget Review Committee - the FC representative is Sheila
Foster. The committee has met once to discuss the process,
and will meet again when the department heads submit
budgets.
6. Core Curriculum Review
Professor Leonard reviewed the committee make-up: 5 members
chosen from Curriculum and Instruction Committee; 2 from
Academic Board; and 2 by Faculty Council. The members
chosen so far (and the clusters represented) are:
CIC: Professors Nichols (B), Mailloux (B), J. Templeton (A),
Hilleke (C), Cleaver (C).
Academic Board: Professors Finch (A), Fallon (A).
By design, Faculty Council selects last. Discussion of how
to choose the last two representatives took place: Professor
Hoyle said that representatives should come from clusters B
& C to even things out; Professor Dot Moore noted that the
two largest departments were not represented (BADM and
PSCI); Professor Del Mastro asked if representatives must be
members of FC (Professor Leonard replied, not necessarily);
Professor Moreland said he supported the idea of not
limiting nomination to FC members.
The floor was opened for nominations. Professor Moreland
nominated Professor Steed (B);Professor Dot Moore seconded.
Professor Rushing nominated Professor Baldwin (C);Professor
Hoyle seconded. Professor Dot Moore nominated Professor
Alford (A); Professor Moreland seconded. Professor Del
Mastro nominated Professor Gurganus (B); Professor Bryson
seconded. Professor Moreland moved to close nominations.
Members voted for two nominees, using paper ballots.
Professors Steed and Gurganus were elected to serve as FC
representatives on the Core Curriculum Review Committee.
7. Proposed Faculty Manual revision concerning interim
department heads.
A proposal had previously been made to amend the wording to
indicate that interim heads should be chosen from tenured or
tenure-track faculty. Professor Hoyle suggested adding
"there must be approval from at least 50% of the
departmental faculty." Professor John Carter replied that
the language referring to permanent department heads reads
that a "majority" must approve. Professor Dot Moore
proposed that the statement be modified to contain language
parallel to that describing department heads ("with
concurrence of a majority of the faculty"). Professor Hoyle
made a motion to accept the proposal, Professor Moore
seconded. The motion carried with only 1 vote against and 0
abstentions.
8. Education Department Head search
FC members were given a series of documents including
chronologies of the search process and related events,
letters from the Chair of FC to VPAA Poole and Dean Reilly
and their replies, and a resolution by AAUP.
To apprise new members of previous developments, Professor
Leonard recounted that following a vote from FC censuring
apparent violations of EEOC/AA and faculty governance
guidelines, 1995-96 Faculty Council Chair John Carter wrote
to VPAA Poole and Dean Reilly, and received replies from
both. Professor Leonard has since received a second reply
from Dean Reilly (after meeting with him), in which he
states his viewpoints. Professor Leonard briefed FC on
subsequent interviews with VPAA Poole and Dean Reilly. VPAA
Poole said he named Professor Bob Carter interim head
because there was no other viable alternative.
Professor Elksnin brought the new members of FC up-to-date
on the situation, and expressed her concern with EEOC/AA and
faculty governance violations. Professor Greim
(representing AAUP) said he asked to meet with VPAA Poole,
but then VPAA Poole elected not to meet and to not go
forward with the governance issue. Professor Elksnin walked
FC members through two chronologies of events.
Professor Leonard asked about the impasse between Dean
Reilly and the search committee in the ranking of candidates
and how many finalists would be brought in for interviews.
Professor Dot Moore asked, for clarification, if the
internal candidate did not meet criteria specified in the
ad. Professor Elksnin said the internal candidate did not.
Professor Leonard asked how much VPAA Poole knew about the
different criteria for the internal candidate and the
courtesy interview. Professor Elksnin replied that he had
been kept informed, but had received most of his information
through Dean Reilly. She added that VPAA Poole indicated he
had no published opinion on courtesy interviews. Professor
Elksnin said she also wrote to President Watts due to the
possible EEOC/AA violation concerns.
When asked for her opinion of the situation, Professor
Hewitt replied that there are many opinions in the
department, and that the Faculty Manual protected the rights
of all faculty, and that all Education Department faculty
should have input into the department head search process.
Professor Dot Moore said Academic Board members were given
an evaluation sheet to be used to assess each candidate
after interviews. Professor Siskind said there was concern
about those ratings because it was unknown who voted and how
they participated in the process. At the meeting some
Education Department faculty members were not allowed to
vote, for very arbitrary reasons, it was felt. Professors
Barrett and Leonard both said they were asked to vote as
members of Graduate Council, but they felt they were voting
only in an advisory capacity.
Professor Elksnin raised the issue of unfair tactics,
pressure, and retaliation used against some individuals in
the department. She said she would like to see the Board of
Visitors informed of what had transpired.
Professor John Carter asked Professor Hewitt how many people
attended all four interviews. She replied that at the 27
February meeting, it was first mandated that only those who
attended all four interviews could vote. Because that left
out nearly everyone, the ruling was changed to allow
department members to vote on those candidates they had
interviewed. A "Q" was to be placed by the name of those
felt to be qualified. Professor Siskind said this led to
confusion as to whether a name without a "Q" next to it
meant that the voter thought the candidate unqualified or
that the voter had not attended the interview. She also
said she asked for discussion of the candidates, but that a
motion was passed not to have discussion.
Professor Adelman said FC should endorse the AAUP
resolution, as faculty governance and EEOC/AA guidlines have
been violated. Professor Barrett said that FC is still on
record as censuring the action. Professor Leonard added
that for FC to go to the BOV indicates the VPAA has failed
in his job, and that FC needs to be very careful how it
proceeds. There also may be cause for a grievance.
Professor Dot Moore said that each year the President and
the BOV Chair sign statements of EEOC/AA compliance,
according to state and federal law. The documentation
presented to FC indicates that The Citadel's AA plan may
have been violated.
Professor Dot Moore drafted a statement describing FC's
concern with apparent violations, which she read to Council.
Professor Hoyle moved that the statement be sent to VPAA
Poole and that he be asked to respond. Professor Alford
seconded the motion. Professor Moore will distribute the
statement on e-mail for review, with changes to be sent to
Professor Leonard. Professor Barrett will draft a cover
memo to be edited by Professor Leonard and sent under his
signature, stating that FC sees this situation as very
serious, asks that the VPAA address it as soon as possible,
and has instucted the Chair of FC to proceed on its behalf
over the summer. The motion carried, 14 yes, 1 no, 0
abstaining.
Professor Elksnin asked what will happen if the VPAA does
not respond. Professor Barrett responded that the Academic
Affairs committee of the BOV would be the next step. It was
confirmed that if something is not done by 1 July, the Chair
of FC has authority to go to the BOV and present the issue.
Professor John Carter asked if the Chair of FC should try
again to meet with Dean Reilly. Professor Rushing said he
had had a chance to respond by letter. Professor Greim said
the letter omits some facts and did not address some
concerns.
8. Report by Chair on review of student complaint of unfair
grade
Professors Carter and Leonard consulted with Dean Metts, who
agreed that he had made a mistake in setting up a review
committee before getting the complaint letter. He has since
received the letter. The committee has also been asked to
look at the faculty member's conduct during the
investigation. Professor Finch, a member of the review
committee, said the issue was not a question of
falsification of a grade, but rather the fairness of the
grade. The committee will look at the grade in relation to
others in the class.
9. The meeting was adjourned at 1:30 PM.
Respectfully submitted by Elizabeth W. Carter for Ken Brannan
===============================================================================
THE CITADEL FACULTY COUNCIL
Minutes of the Regular Meeting of 25 April 1996
Board of Visitors Room, Jenkins Hall, 11:00 AM
1. Professor John Carter, Chair of the Faculty Council, called
Faculty Council to order at 11:00 AM.
2. Members in attendance: Professors Adelman, Bishop, Bowman,
Brannan, E. Carter, J. Carter, Chandler, Crabtree, Dunlop,
Durgun, Feurtado, Hewitt, Hutchisson, Leonard, McRae,
Newman, Rushing, Siskind
Members absent: Professors Bryson, Greenawalt, Woolsey
Professor Forsythe substituted for Professor Baldwin,
Professor Nichols substituted for Professor Barrett
Guests: Professor Lipscomb, Mr. Bart Daniel of the Board of
Visitors
3. Information
a. The first meeting for the 1996 - 97 Faculty Council will be
Thursday, 9 May @ 11:00 AM in Bond Hall 161. New officers
will be elected at this meeting. A copy of the Faculty
Council Roster for 1996 - 1997 is attached.
b. The Faculty Council Resolution on the retirement of General
Watts is now being printed. Appreciation was expressed to
Ted Tucker for writing the resolution. The resolution will
be read at the next General Faculty Meeting on 1 May, 1996
and will be included in the minutes.
c. A reception for retiring faculty members will be held Friday
26 April at 2:15 PM at the Alumni House. The parade that
follows will honor retirees. All faculty are encouraged to
attend the reception and parade.
d. The next general faculty meeting will be held Wednesday, 1
May, at 1:00 PM in Bond Hall 165. Refreshments will be
served beginning at 12:30.
e. All faculty are expected to attend commencement on 11 May
(not optional this year).
f. The Fall Colloquy will be held on 30 August, 1996.
g. The Fall convocation will be held on 3 September, 1996.
h. The final report on "Survey of Professional Discrimination"
prepared by Subcommittee A was distributed.
i. John Carter, who has been selected to represent the faculty
on the search committee for the new president, asked that
faculty members notify him of the characteristics that they
feel are the most important in selecting the next president.
4. Approval of Minutes
Minutes of the 14 March meeting were approved.
5. Old Business
a. Core Curriculum Review
Following the last general faculty meeting, BGEN Poole
appointed a committee, which met and unanimously recommended
the following composition of the Core Curriculum Review
Committee (CCRC):
- Five representatives will be selected from the 1996-1997
Curriculum and Instruction Committee.
- Two representatives will be selected from the current
Academic Board.
- Two representatives will be selected from the Faculty
Council.
- The VPAA/Dean of the College will appoint one of the above
nine members to serve as chair of the CCRC.
- The VPAA/Dean of the College will ask that the nine
members of the CCRC remain on the committee until the Core
Curriculum Review has been completed.
- The VPAA/Dean of the College will ask that the Committee
on Committees, Faculty Council, and Academic Board select
individuals who want the responsibility, will view the core
curriculum as an instrument of the College, are committed to
objectivity, will consider needs and concerns of all
disciplines, will examine solutions that address the
educational good of all students and the College, and will
be futuristic as well as cognizant of traditional courses
throughout the process.
The recommendation was accepted by BGEN Poole.
b. Faculty manual.
The changes in the Faculty Manual approved by Faculty
Council (FC) has not yet been considered by Academic Board.
The changes in the Faculty Manual is on the 11 May agenda.
COL Metts submitted a new section on Planning, Assessment,
Budgeting, and Institutional Research for consideration by
FC. FC decided to discuss the section at the next meeting
so that faculty members would have an opportunity to review
the section.
Professor Adelman moved, seconded by Professor Siskind that
an addition be made to the Faculty Manual that required
interim department heads to be tenure or tenure-track. The
motion passed with no opposing votes and 1 abstention. One
comment was that FC should consider writing a separate
section on the appointment of interim department heads.
c. Student Evaluation of Teaching
A survey has recently been distributed to the departments by
COL Mettss office. The survey results will be used in
determining the direction for study of the assessment of
teaching effectiveness during 1996 - 1997.
d. Report on "Survey of Citadel Faculty Wearing a Uniform"
(Subcommittee B)
Preliminary results from the uniform survey were discussed.
Professors McRae and Carter will continue to work on the
report. Professor Carter and Professor Leonard agreed to
share some of the preliminary results with BGEN Poole.
e. Report on The Citadels Grading System (Subcommittee C)
Preliminary findings of Subcommittee C were discussed and
are attached.
f. Appeals Process in Annual Evaluations
At the 14 March FC meeting, a motion was passed that the
1989 appeals process be reinstated for annual evaluations
with no statute of limitations. A proposal has been
distributed to the department heads to reinstate the process
at the next Academic Board meeting. FC will study the
process next year and make recommendations.
g. Female Faculty Academic Advisors to Cadet Companies
Professor Carter will continue to work with the Human
Resources Department on Female Faculty Academic Advisors to
Cadet Companies.
h. Education Department Head Search Process
Following the 14 March FC meeting, Professor Carter wrote a
letter to BGEN Poole censuring the apparent violations of
Faculty Manual procedures in the search for the Head of the
Department of Education and requested that BGEN Poole halt
the search process, reinstate the original departmental
search committee, readvertise the search process, and repeat
the search process according to College procedures. In
addition, Dean Reilly was invited to appear before a special
meeting of FC. BGEN Poole declined to reappoint the
original committee or reopen the search (since the search
was still ongoing). Dean Reilly declined to appear before a
special meeting of FC. Apparently, Dean Reilly felt that FC
had already drawn conclusions in the issue and that a
special meeting would not be worthwhile.
Several members said that they were genuinely interested in
hearing all sides of the issue and would not have voted in
favor of the motion without the assurance that an
opportunity would be provided to hear Dean Reilly.
Professor Hutchisson agreed to draft a paragraph for a later
set of minutes to clarify this.
Professor Adelman moved, seconded by Professor Durgun, that
Mr. Vanderhurst be contacted to see if any EEOC/AA
violations had been identified, and that Dean Reilly be
contacted to ensure that no violations of Faculty Manual
procedures had taken place. If necessary, a special meeting
could be called by the chair of the Faculty Council. The
motion passed with no opposing votes and 1 abstention.
6. New Business
a. Elections of Committee on Committee Representatives
Cluster A: Nominations included Steve Silver(Business
Administration), Rusty Stout (Civil Engineering), and Gene
Styles (HPE). Rusty Stout and Gene Styles were elected.
Cluster B: Nominations included Tony Redd (English) and Jane
Bishop (English): both were elected.
Cluster C: Nominations included Peter Greim (Math and
Computer Science) and Tom Richardson (Chemistry): both were
elected.
b. Ascertaining Whether Faculty Manual Procedures Were Followed
Professor Lipscomb gave an account of a complaint made by a
student relating to the grading of an examination. Some of
the events that followed include a request by the department
head for a copy of the material in question, a disagreement
over whether this material was submitted or not, racial
slurs written on the professors office door followed by an
investigation by law enforcement officials, the appointment
by COL Metts of a faculty review board that is apparently
investigating Professor Lipscomb, and discussion between
Professor Lipscomb and Professor Greim (president of the
local chapter of AAUP). Professor Lipscomb asked the review
board for a statement of the complaint against him but has
not received an answer since he made the request
approximately three weeks ago. He has also asked the Human
Resources Department for a copy of his personnel file, but
has not yet received a response. He asked FC to request
from Professor Finch (chair of the review board) for a
written statement of the complaints against him. In
addition, he asked FC to approach COL Metts in his behalf
regarding this situation.
Professor Adelman moved that Professors Carter and Leonard
investigate whether Faculty Manual procedures have been
followed. The motion passed with no opposition and 1
abstention.
7. The meeting was adjourned at 12:55 PM.
FACULTY COUNCIL ROSTER
1996 - 1997 ACADEMIC YEAR
Department Name Term, year Cluster Subcom Comments
Business Admin. Greenawalt 1st, 2nd A C
Alford 1st, 1st A B
Civil Eng. Brannan 1st, 2nd A Exec-com Sec
Daniel Library Carter 1st, 2nd A B
Education Hewitt 2nd, 4th A C
(TBA) 1st, 1st A A
Electrical Eng. Dunlop 1st, 2nd A C
Health & PE Ezell 1st, 1st A C
Psychology Lipovsky 1st, 1st A A
English Leonard 2nd, 1st B Exec-com
Chair
Rembert 1st, 2nd B C (1 yr
replacmt only)
History Barrett 1st, 2nd B A
Moore, B. 1st, 1st B B
Modern Lang (TBA) 1st, 1st B B
Political Sci Feurtado 2nd, 1st B B
Biology Baldwin 1st, 2nd C B
Chemistry Rushing 1st, 2nd C A
Math, Csci Durgun 1st, 2nd C C
Hoyle 1st, 1st C A
Physics Hilleke 1st, 1st C A
Aero Sci Newman 1st, 2nd A
Mil Sci Chandler 1st, 2nd C
Nav Sci Bryson 2nd, 1st B
Preliminary Findings of Faculty Council Subcommittee "C"
On Possible Changes in the Current Grading System
Given that our mission as teachers is to help students learn and
given the increasingly poor level of college preparation of our
incoming cadets, this committee suggests that two changes in the
current grading system might be considered.
1. A policy providing for a course to be repeated without
penalty but with strict limitations on the number of times
such can be taken.
2. A limited expansion of the number of grades that are
currently assigned, such as adding a "B+" and "C+" but no
other pluses or minuses.
Nothing in our research has indicated that there is a pressing
need to change the grading system, but it may be helpful for
these issues to be studied further--by a larger body, such as the
Core Curriculum Review Committee. Sometime in the future,
Faculty Council may also wish to sponsor an open faculty meeting
on this topic.
===============================================================================
THE CITADEL FACULTY COUNCIL
Minutes of the Regular Meeting of 14 March 1996
Room 161, Bond Hall, 11:00 AM
1. Professor John Carter, Chair of the Faculty Council, called
Faculty Council to order at 11:00 AM.
2. Members in attendance: Professors Adelman, Baldwin, Bishop,
Bowman, Brannan, E. Carter, J. Carter, Chandler, Crabtree, Durgun,
Feurtado, Hutchisson, Leonard, McRae, Rushing, Siskind, Woolsey
Members absent: Professors Barrett, Bryson, Dunlop, Greenawalt,
Hewitt,
Professor Wilkerson substituted for Professor Newman,
Guests: Professor Vozikis, Elksnin, Greim
3. Approval of Minutes
Minutes of the 15 February, 22 February, and 7 March meetings were
approved.
4. Old Business
a. Report on Survey of Professional Discrimination
The report is currently being reviewed by BGEN Poole. Following
his review, the report will be printed and distributed to the
faculty and the Board of Visitors (BOV).
b. Report on Survey of Citadel Faculty Wearing a Uniform
Lori Woods has received all surveys and has compiled all responses
except Item 18 (comments). A draft report will be ready as soon
as possible.
c. Study of The Citadel's Grading System
Excellent progress is being made on the study of the grading
system by Subcommittee C. Several additional items have been
added to the study, including consistency of grading (scales,
criteria, methodology) across departments and coordination with
the core curriculum review process.
d. Recommended Changes in the Faculty Manual
Professor Leonard reported that the Graduate Council was
continuing to discuss requirements for appointment to the Graduate
Faculty (ref., p. 32 of draft Faculty Manual).
Professor Carter reviewed the results of Faculty Council (FC)
responses to COL Metts questions on changes proposed by FC over
the past few weeks. One of the questions involved the English
Fluency Policy. FC members discussed how to best word this
section, but eventually postponed the discussion until the exact
wording of the current law could be reviewed.
Professor Carter pointed out that the Faculty Tenure and Promotion
Committee (FTPC) recommendations on Promotion and Tenure
Guidelines to be included in the Faculty Manual and the strategic
planning and budget review process were the major items remaining
to be resolved in completing the Faculty Manual. Because of
cancellation of the 13 March Academic Board meeting, he has not
yet been able to present the Faculty Council recommendations to
the Academic Board.
Following a discussion of the appeals process used in annual
evaluations, Professor Adelman moved, seconded by Professor
Rushing, to (a) reinstate the 1989 appeals process for the 1995 -
1996 annual evaluation, (b) investigate the evaluation and appeals
process in 1996, and (c) as part of the investigation, to study
the right of faculty members to retroactively appeal evaluations
for the past three years. The motion passed: YES: 16, NO: 0,
ABSTAIN: 2.
5. New Business
Irregularities during a department head search.
Professor Elksnin reported on irregularities during a department
head search. She discussed a summary of events related to Dean
Reilly's involvement with the Department of Education search for a
department head that she felt represented a disregard for Faculty
Manual Guidelines, EEOC Affirmative Action guidelines, and AAUP
Faculty Governance and Affirmative Action Policy. When the Search
Committee unanimously elected by the department failed to include
an internal candidate that they felt was not qualified
(considering position criteria), the search committee was
dissolved and the Dean assumed responsibility. She believed that
by including the internal applicant as a finalist, Dean Reilly has
compromised The Citadel's EEOC/Affirmative Action guidelines: the
preferential treatment given to the internal applicant was not
given to women and minority applicants with superior credentials.
The ad hoc evaluation procedures implemented by the Dean prevented
some members of the department from voting and resulted in
elimination of minority applicants. The Dean is currently
presenting individuals for departmental consideration who have not
participated in established search procedures.
Professor Greim said that the AAUP was involved in the matter, The
Citadel chapter of AAUP has written General Poole, and The Citadel
Affirmative Action officer is questioning the procedures utilized.
Professor McRae moved, seconded by Professor Hutchisson, that FC
censure the apparent violation of the Faculty Manual guidelines
that occurred during the process, that the process of filling the
position be immediately suspended, and that Dean Reilly be
requested to meet with Faculty Council to discuss the apparent
violations. The motion was approved unanimously.
6. Announcements
Departmental representatives should communicate to their
departments that departmental nominations for next year's FC
representatives and Committee on Committees representatives should
be provided to the Executive Committee no later than 1 April.
7. The meeting was adjourned at 12:55 PM.
===============================================================================
THE CITADEL FACULTY COUNCIL
Minutes of the Special Meeting of 7 March 1996
Board of Visitors Room, Jenkins Hall, 11:00 AM
1. Professor John Carter, Chair of the Faculty Council, called
Faculty Council to order at 11:00 AM.
2. Members in attendance: Professors Adelman, Baldwin, Barrett,
Bishop, Bowman, Brannan, E. Carter, J. Carter, Crabtree, Dunlop,
Durgun, Greenawalt, Newman, Rushing, Siskind, Woolsey
Members absent: Professors Bryson, Chandler, Feurtado, Hewitt,
Hutchisson, Leonard
Professor Skow-Obenaus substituted for Professor McRae
3. New Business
Recommended changes in the Faculty Manual
a. Professor Barrett moved, seconded by Professor Rushing, to add the
following to the beginning of the sixth sentence of the second
paragraph of IV(C)(3): "With due consideration for faculty
members' preferences, [academic department heads are responsible
for assigning departmental faculty members to teach courses within
their fields, and advising and counseling departmental students,
as well as appointing departmental committees and defining
purposes and goals.]" (The existing sentence is shown in
brackets.) The motion passed: YES: 16, NO: 0, ABSTAIN: 0.
b. Professor Adelman moved, seconded by Professor Durgun, to combine
Paragraphs (3) and (4) of VI(G)(4)(b) and strike the words
"supervision and" in Paragraph (3). The new Paragraph (3) would
read "Every effort will be made to obtain consistent grading
procedures within each department. This implies departmental
consultation among instructors; however, instructors will not
obtain uniformity of grading by an arbitrary distribution of
grades according to some formula or curve." The motion passed:
YES: 16, NO: 0, ABSTAIN: 0.
c. Professor Greenawalt moved, seconded by Professor Woolsey, to add
"and among departments" to the end of the first sentence of
VI(G)(4)(b)(3) (see item (b) above). Discussion centered on the
significance of this motion, the need for dialogue and faculty
input, and the possibility of addressing this issue in the Grading
(or other) study. The motion failed: YES: 3, NO: 9, ABSTAIN: 4.
Professor Adelman moved, seconded by Professor Woolsey to send
this issue to Subcommittee "C" of the Faculty Council, which is
currently studying the grading system. The motion passed: YES:
14, NO: 1, ABSTAIN: 1.
d. A series of editorial changes were made from pages 70 - 74 in
VI(G) involving the description of "W" and "I" in the grading
system. All references to "W" and "I" being grades were removed:
VI(F)(4)(d): change "the grade of 'I'" to "an 'I'"
VI(G)(2)(a): change "the grade of 'W'" to "a 'W'"
VI(G)(2)(b): change "a grade of 'W'" to "a 'W'"
VI(G)(2)(c), third paragraph: change "the grade of 'I'" to "an
'I'"
VI(G)(4)(c): change "the grade of 'W'" to "the notation of 'W'"
e. Professor Adelman moved, seconded by Professor Baldwin to strike
the second sentence of the first paragraph of VI(J). The motion
passed: YES: 16, NO: 0, ABSTAIN: 0.
f. The language in the fourth paragraph of VI(J) was modified:
"items from" was added to the boldface sentence. The sentence now
reads: "The Faculty Council selected items from the Purdue
University CAFETERIA student evaluation software package...."
The language in the fifth paragraph of VI(J) was modified to read:
"The Academic Board and Faculty Council will periodically review
the evaluation instrument for reliability, validity, and bias, as
well as the formal policies and procedures..."
g. Changes were made in VI(K)(1)(a): change "advisees" to
"undergraduate advisees" in the fourth sentence, and change
"advisee" to "undergraduate advisee" in the fifth sentence.
h. Professor Adelman moved, seconded by Professor Greenawalt, to
strike the boldface sentence at the end of the first paragraph of
VI(M). The motion passed: YES: 13, NO: 0, ABSTAIN: 2.
i. Professor Siskind moved, seconded by Professor Greenawalt, to
modify VII(A) to read:
1. Each faculty and staff member has an opportunity to
participate in the College's public relations program. Only with
the cooperation of the entire campus community can an optimal
public relations program be achieved and maintained.
2. Faculty members are in no way prohibited from talking
with representatives of news media.
3. All public announcements of an official nature must be
released through the Director of Public Relations. Official
contacts with communications media should be made through the
Director of Public Relations.
4. The Director of Public Relations is responsible for
assisting members of the faculty and staff in their efforts to
publicize events and activities and to effect the liaison with
communications media required for the placement of such items.
The motion passed: YES: 12, NO: 0, ABSTAIN: 0.
j. A few other editorial changes were made in VII(B) and VII(C).
4. Announcements
The next regular meeting will be 14 Mar, 1996.
6. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 12:50 PM.
===============================================================================
THE CITADEL FACULTY COUNCIL
Minutes of the Special Meeting of 22 February 1996
Board of Visitors Room, Jenkins Hall, 11:00 AM
1. Professor John Carter, Chair of the Faculty Council, called
Faculty Council to order at 11:00 AM.
2. Members in attendance: Professors Adelman, Baldwin, Barrett,
Bishop, Brannan, E. Carter, J. Carter, Dunlop, Durgun, Greenawalt,
Hutchisson, Leonard, McRae, Newman, Rushing, Woolsey
Members absent: Professors Bowman, Bryson, Chandler, Feurtado,
Hewitt, and Siskind
Professor Hoyle substituted for Professor Crabtree
3. Old Business
a. "Survey of Citadel Faculty Wearing a Uniform"
Professor McRae announced that he and Professor Carter had
received a number of surveys. He encouraged Faculty Council (FC)
representatives to send surveys as soon as they were received
rather than waiting until the deadline.
b. "Survey of Professional Discrimination"
Professor Barrett reported that modifications in the final report
approved by FC at the 15 Feb meeting were made.
4. New Business
Recommended Changes in the Faculty Manual
a. Moved, seconded, and passed: addition of the word "annually" after
the word "evaluated" in paragraphs a, b, and c of IV(A)(2) on pp.
49 - 50.
b. Professor Hoyle moved, second by Professor Adelman that the
following be added to IV(A)(2), paragraphs a, b, and c:
"summarized by faculty council, forwarded to [appropriate
administrator], and communicated to the faculty."
The motion passed: YES: 13, NO: 0, ABSTAIN: 1
c. Professor Woolsey moved, second by Professor Greenawalt to strike
"normally" from IV(C)(1) and IV(C)(2). The motion passed: YES:
14, NO: 0, ABSTAIN: 1.
d. Professor Barrett moved, second by Professor Hoyle, to add the
following sentence to the end of the second paragraph of IV(C)(1):
"Procedures for a second term reappointment will govern."
e. Professor Durgun moved, second by Professor Hoyle, to change the
wording in both paragraphs of IV(C)(1) from "concurrence of a
majority" to "concurrence of a 60 percent majority." The motion
failed: YES: 5, NO: 7, ABSTAIN: 3.
f. Professor Adelman moved, second by Professor Hoyle, to change
VI(A)(2)(a)(1): "When a full-time faculty member is teaching only
undergraduate courses, a one-course overload with pay or a
compensatory one-course reduction the following semester is
acceptable if....." The motion passed YES: 14, NO: 0, ABSTAIN:
0.
g. Professor Barrett moved, second by Professor Adelman, to delete
VI(A)(3)(a). The motion passed: YES: 13, NO: 0, ABSTAIN: 1.
h. Professor Adelman moved, second by Professor Baldwin, to retain
the second paragraph of VI(D)(1) instead of striking it ("The
Honors Council is comprised of at least four current or former
Honors faculty and two Honors students...governance of the
program."). The motion passed YES: 13, NO: 0, ABSTAIN: 0.
i. Professor Rushing moved, second by Professor Baldwin, to add
paragraph (d) to VI(E)(4): "Please adhere to The Citadel's
published class schedule for class dismissal times as a
professional courtesy and so as not to jeopardize student's
attendance records in subsequent classes." The motion passed:
YES: 11, NO: 0, ABSTAIN: 1.
5. Announcements
The next meeting will be 7 Mar, 1996 to continue discussion ot the
recommended changes in the Faculty Manual.
6. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 12:50 PM.
===============================================================================
THE CITADEL FACULTY COUNCIL
Minutes of the Regular Meeting of 15 February 1996
Board of Visitors Room, Jenkins Hall, 11:00 AM
1. Professor John Carter, Chair of the Faculty Council, called
Faculty Council to order at 11:00 AM.
2. Members in attendance: Professors Adelman, Baldwin, Bishop,
Bowman, Brannan, Bryson, E. Carter, J. Carter, Chandler,
Crabtree, Dunlop, Durgun, Greenawalt, Hewitt, Hutchisson, Leonard,
Rushing, Siskind, Woolsey
Members absent: Professors Barrett, Feurtado, McRae, and Newman
3. Approval of previous minutes
Professor Bowman moved, second by Professor Woolsey, to approve
the minutes of the 18 January, 1996 meeting. The minutes were
approved unanimously.
Professor Bowman moved, seconded by Professor Woolsey, to approve
the minutes of the special meeting on 1 Feb, 1996. The minutes
were approved unanimously.
4. Old Business
a. Interim Report on Survey of Professional Discrimination
Faculty Council (FC) discussed the report of Subcommittee A,
"Faculty Survey of Professional Discrimination." A few changes in
the wording were suggested. Professor Adelman moved, second by
Professor Rushing, to adopt the report of Subcommittee A,
including the changes. The motion passed YES: 15, NO: 0, ABSTAIN:
1. The final report will be made available on the VAX by
attachment to the minutes at a later date.
b. Progress Report on the "Survey of Citadel Faculty Wearing a
Uniform"
Professors Carter and McRae have distributed surveys to the Board
of Visitors, administrators, and to FC representatives. FC
representatives will distribute the surveys to departmental
faculty members and to students. The deadline for returning the
surveys is February 29, 1996.
c. Core Curriculum Review
How to conduct the review of the core curriculum is currently
under consideration by BGEN Poole. In particular, one of the main
questions is whether to establish an ad hoc committee to conduct
the core curriculum review or whether to assign the task to the
Curriculum and Instruction Committee (CIC). Professor Adelman
moved, second by Professor Baldwin, that Faculty Council adopt the
following: "As the charge of the Curriculum and Instruction
Committee includes the review of the core curriculum, Faculty
Council is in favor of the Curriculum and Instruction Committee
doing all such reviews." Advantages and disadvantages of
assigning the core curriculum review were discussed. The
disadvantages mentioned included the large workload of the review,
the time required to implement needed changes, and the large
number of individuals rotating off the CIC this year. The need
for broad support for core curriculum changes, the willingness of
the CIC to conduct the review, and avoiding overlap between the
work of an ad hoc committee and the CIC were mentioned in support
of the motion.
The motion passed: YES: 9, NO: 3, ABSTAIN: 4.
5. New Business
Recommended Changes in the Faculty Manual
a. Professor Carter is checking on legality of Paragraph III(B)1 and
has not received an answer. However, FC has voted to eliminate
Paragraph 1 because it was felt that the power was implied in
Paragraph 2.
b. Professor Woolsey agreed to propose wording for Paragraph III(B)4.
c. Professor Carter has not yet received a reply on Paragraph III(B)5
regarding who will pay for advertising.
d. Professor Woolsey moved, second by Professor Rushing, that the
following be added as Paragraph III(B)10: "The person chosen for a
position should be selected from among the names submitted by the
search committee." The motion passed YES: 14, NO: 0, ABSTAIN: 2.
e. It was decided to add "personnel" to III(D), Sentence 1: "in any
of its personnel policies."
f. An addition was made to III(H)1: a new paragraph (d) that reads "A
graduate faculty member is a member of a department that offers
one or more degree programs at the graduate level."
g. The word "annually" in the first sentence of III(I) was changed to
"every three years."
h. Professor Woolsey moved, second by Professor Rushing, that the
third paragraph of III(P)1 be deleted. The motion passed YES: 15,
NO: 0, ABSTAIN: 0.
i. Professor Siskind moved, second by Professor Bowman, that the last
sentence the second paragraph of III(U) be deleted ("Faculty
members who fail to report outside work...the College"). The
motion was amended to also move the phase "only when a reduction
in teaching load is required or requested" be moved to the
beginning of the second paragraph. The motion passed: YES: 15,
NO: 0, ABSTAIN: 0.
j. Professor Carter will work with the Human Resources Department to
make sure that III(Y) contains up-to-date language.
k. Professor Adelman moved, second by Professor Siskind, that
III(Z)1, Sick Leave, be revised to refer to the current state sick
leave policy contained in the Appendix. The motion passed: YES:
12, NO: 0, ABSTAIN: 0.
6. Reports from the Chair
a. Graduate Council Meeting, 1 Feb 1996
i. Angie LeClercq, new Director of The Daniel Library was introduced.
ii. The College of Charleston requested that The Citadel and C of C
have mutual access to student information. The Citadel's
reaction... this isn't likely to happen in the near future.
iii. Ron Zigli proposed that the CGPS develop a system of compensating
faculty who may
(1) develop and grade exams required by academic departments (for
assessment purposes, i.e. CLEP exams); and (2) supervise
independent studies. Ralph Earhart reported that the State of SC
will not allow honoraria and all compensation must pass through
the payroll system. It was decided that individual departments
will work on individual solutions.
iv. Larry McKay will begin coordinating efforts to help undergraduate
and graduate students who may be interested in career services" as
a profession. He will help arrange internships and guest
speakers for CGPS students as well as cadets.
v. There was some discussion (mostly questions) about the intent to
study a system of banking" or credit" for all of the
uncompensated activities performed by professors.
vi. NCATE will not visit The Citadel until approximately Fall of 1997.
vii. This month begins the interviewing process for the selection of a
new Head for Education.
b. Board of Visitors Meeting, Fri/Sat, 2-3 February 1996
i. Catherine Manigold, writer for the NY Times and an author, was on
campus most of the week. She is developing a book on America's
changing traditions and changing times.
ii. Professor Mailloux, General Poole, and the BOV Committee on
Education, Curriculum, and Faculty Liaison" hammered out
compromises on language in the Strategic Planning Document.
At Saturday's entire Board meeting, Draft #5 was approved. We
were reminded about staying on course", and not deviating
from the intent of the original language". Gen Poole said that
at The Citadel, we have one faculty, not an undergraduate and a
graduate faculty". The Corps and CGPS should have a complementary
relationship.
iii. Gen Watts introduced Angie LeClercq and Col Kim Flint, new VP for
Institutional Advancement.
iv. Gen Watts challenged everyone to: 1) look back at where you've
been (in the last 6-12 months); 2) focus on planning and
preparing for the next 6-12 months; and 3) pay close attention to
the issues at hand (day-in and day-out).
v. Col Trez: The Corps is on an even keel; the Corps is enforcing
its own regulations". In Fall 1994, we started with 2002 cadets;
in Fall 1995, we started with 1917 cadets. First semester of 1994-1995 AY,
we lost 123 freshmen; to date this school year we've lost
96. Since August 1995, we've lost 212 cadets (17 seniors
graduated in Dec 1995; 14 seniors are finishing their last hours
(12 or less) elsewhere; there have been academic discharges (many
sophomores didn't pass a minimum of 36 hours with a minimum 1.0
GPA in their first three semesters of college); disciplinary
reasons; financial difficulties). Entering Freshmen classes the
last 4 Fall semesters: 627 (1992), 609 (1993), 601 (1994), and 591
(1995). Thirty-six percent (36%) of the 1995 graduating class
took commissions. This AY, Citadel students received $2.1 million
in Dept of Defense military scholarships. There will be an effort
to improve the quality of our summer school program in order to
keep more Citadel cadets here in the summer.
vi. Gen Poole: Fall semester 1995 academic report shows overall frosh
GPAs up slightly, while overall upperclass average GPA fell
slightly. More than 50% of 1As/1Bs had 3.0 or better; 7.5% of
seniors had less than 2.0, while 36% of Frosh had below a 2.0 GPA.
There were 380 Deans List and 122 Gold Star recipients.
Future NCATE visits to The Citadel will attempt to be coordinated
with CHE visits. Fall 1997 should be the next visit. AACSB
accreditation visit for Bus Adm Dept will be Feb 14-15.
ABET accreditation visit will be in Fall 1996 (engineering).
Department Head search for Education continues with candidate
interviews scheduled in Feb.
SACS areas being addressed since their last visit are: planning,
assessment, and budgeting; The Library; and Graduate Program
(primarily professional development courses). These are addressed
by adoption, implementation, and demonstration of the Strategic
Plan.
Including DOD money (ROTC), Citadel students received $11.7
million in financial aid (scholarships, loans) in 1995-1996 AY.
This represents 61% of our billable total.
One-third of entering Freshmen took advantage of this Fall's IBM
computer purchase plan. It probably won't happen that way next
Fall due to problems with IBM. Presently, 480 cadet rooms (960
students) are connected to the mainframe. By Fall 1996, all cadet
rooms should have network hookup capabilities. Gen Poole's goals
include making The Citadel a leader in student computer technology
and having Internet access for all faculty. The Road Ahead by
Bill Gates was recommended if one wishes to see where computer
technology is headed in the next decade.
vii. Col Lyons: All vice-presidents will have a mid-year budget review
in late Feb. Lower cadet retention and greater attrition equate
into lower revenues for the College, athletic dept., dining room,
etc, etc. There is a predicted budget shortfall of $585,000.
Combative measures already implemented include: withholding $90K
to Tomasik/Physical Plant; delayed filling of personnel vacancies
from 8 to 12 weeks; recapturing the President's E & G Funds
($270K); and fencing" $100K of the Library's monies. This
cumulatively saved $539K.
There are 304.33 state-funded FTE positions (supposed to be 80%
funded by the State of SC and 20% funded by the College; in
actuality, they are currently funded at 70%, resulting in a
shortage of $5 million for The Citadel to makeup). There are
239.95 part-time funded FTE positions. Total FTE positions
allowed The Citadel are 544.28.
There are 155-160 full-time faculty (but since we only work Fall &
Spring semesters, it only counts as a 0.75 FTE for two semesters).
The 0.25 FTE leftover from the 3 month summer period reverts back
to a personnel fund. There are 49 adjunct faculty. Currently,
there are 24.2 FTEs VACANT, which translates to 27 VACANT
POSITIONS on our campus. We also pay 55 Graduate Assistants (12
of which are athletic department interns or part-time coaches
which are classified as GAs but may not be enrolled in the CGPS).
Despite newspaper reports, The Citadel Print Shop is very
efficient and always makes a year-end profit. We can do printing
work for state agencies, but no private jobs which compete with
the private sector (the State of SC has a total of 32 state print
shops).
viii. Col Tomasik: The new barracks is 70% complete, and despite
being eleven days behind schedule, the work is progressing
nicely. The current barracks #1 is scheduled for asbestos
abatement in May-June 1996, demolition in July, and
construction will begin in Oct 1996. Barracks #2 will be
closed for maintenance in Summer 1996; all summer school
students and sports camps will be in Barracks #3 & 4.The four
contractors and SCE & G work on the utilities project are
expected to be finished in Summer 1996.
The Summerall Chapel will have an electrical, AC, and lighting
upgrade.
In the planning process (not yet approved by the BOV) is an
upgrade of the post office. Proposed changes include moving the
phone booths to the pool hall, redesign of the pool hall, removal
of arcade games, and expansion of mailboxes for faculty and
students. Expected cost of $150,000 may come from The Citadel's
share of cadet long-distance phone charges !!!
An A&E will be employed to study the proposed conversion of the
National Guard Armory into the Holliday Alumni Center. The BOV is
in charge of this project.
ix. Col Flint: He has responsibility for alumni affairs, public
relations, governmental affairs, CDF, Citadel Development, the
Brigadier Foundation, and fund-raising (to include the legal
defense fund, naming and memorial projects, donor recognition).
It was suggested that the BOV develop an oversight subcommittee
for institutional advancement.
x. Walt Nadzak: The final report of the Football Task Force is
expected to go to Gen Watts very soon. Gen Watts asked the BOV to
again look at the role of athletics within the entire plan of The
Citadel; it is very obvious that we can't continue losing money.
VMI has recently implemented a five-year plan for their athletic
department.
Sept. 7, 1996 The Dogs will play the Miami Hurricanes (football).
The Athletic Dept. has a package for $375 that includes air fare,
tickets, accommodations...only 173 seats left.
In 1996-1997, basketball Dogs play Wake Forest and U.S.C. in
McAlister.
In 1997-98, the Southern Conference expands to take Wofford and
UNCG; the C of C enters in 1998-1999.
In 1998, the Football Dogs are scheduled to play Ga Tech and Wake
Forest.
Contingency plans are developing if females enter the Corps of
Cadets. The startup costs of womens' athletics are estimated at
$250,000; a full-time, complete womens' athletic program is
estimated at $1 million annually.
BUY TICKETS is Walt's answer to the question: How can we help
the Athletic Department meet its goals and obligations ?".
The Baseball Dogs' 1996 season starts the weekend of Feb 9-10-11...they
are scheduled to play 56 games.
xi. Miscellaneous Items:
Any change to the College Regulations (book available at the Human
Resources Office) must be approved by the BOV.
Under study by the BOV include:
changing the mandatory expulsion" language of the zero tolerance"
policy to allow for lesser types of punishments;
the 2.0/2.0 policy (a cadet must have a minimum 2.0 in the
semester and 2.0 cumulative GPA to be eligible for class
privileges);
the relationships between the Corps and the Corps Squad Athletes;
the over-zealous attitudes of some Public Safety officers which
negatively affects the quality of life for members of The Citadel
community.
c. 7 February Meeting of the Departmental Library Liaisons
i. To date this academic year, The Daniel Library has received
$197,000 for purchase of books ($107K from allocated state funds,
$40K from CDF, and $50 K unfenced on 2-7-96).
ii. Rod Welch, Gen Poole, and a private foundation (Cross; Krause ?)
presented the Library with nine (9) new Pentium PCS configured
with CD ROMs.
iii. All library liaisons should poll their departmental members on
exactly which periodicals they require in the Library for those
courses which they teach.
iv. A Daniel Library Friends Society will begin shortly. Membership
will be $25/year. Members will receive a newsletter, and they will
be able to attend outstanding presentations. The first is
scheduled for April 8th with Dr. Richard Maurius (sp?) of Harvard
who will speak on the importance of libraries to higher education.
v. The Library has begun developing a proposal for implementing a
library approval plan". This is a short- and long-term examination
of the monographic collection which profiles every department's
library needs based on what courses are taught, the professors'
preferences, etc.
vi. The Library may be able to save significant dollars in the future
(example: 45%) by contracting for books to be sent automatically
by vendors as they are published. Departments would have the
opportunity to accept or reject these selections; this would take
the place of the much more costly method of ordering titles from
multiple book vendors and publishers.
vii. Under study is a service known as serial vending" whereby, for an
agreed-upon total cost, a certain number of periodical
subscriptions are purchased. Again the principle is that
purchasing through one vendor is less costly than through a
variety of companies example: for $25-30,000, we could subscribe
to as many as 1000 periodicals).
viii. The Multimedia section of the Library is expected to grow
through increased use of video tape and video disk
technology). Technological advances in the Library must
maintain pace with the rest of the world.
7. Announcements
a. Professor Carter expressed regrets to Professor Bowman on his
mother's passing.
b. Professor Carter announced the next General Faculty meeting would
be on 29 Feb at 11:00 in the SCN Auditorium.
c. The next FC meeting will be 22 Feb to continue discussion of
changes to the Faculty manual.
8. The meeting was adjourned at 12:40 PM
===============================================================================
THE CITADEL FACULTY COUNCIL
Minutes of the Special Meeting of 1 February 1996
Board of Visitors Room, Jenkins Hall, 11:00 AM
1. Professor John Carter, Chair of the Faculty Council, called
Faculty Council to order at 11:00 AM.
2. Members in attendance: Professors Adelman, Bishop, Bowman,
Brannan, E. Carter, J. Carter, Chandler, Dunlop, Durgun,
Greenawalt, Hewitt, Hutchisson, Leonard, McRae, Rushing, Siskind,
Woolsey
Members absent: Professors Baldwin, Barrett, Bryson, Crabtree,
Feurtado, and Newman
Guest: Professor Alford
3. Announcements
a. This month is Black History Month. Faculty members were
encouraged to support Professor Feurtado in his efforts associated
with the Black History Month events.
b. All faculty were encouraged to attend the Gold Star Parade on
Friday (2 Feb) if possible.
c. Faculty Council (FC) members were invited to attend the Board of
Visitors (BOV) meeting on Saturday morning (3 Feb).
4. Minutes of the 18 Jan FC Meeting
Minutes of the 18 Jan meeting were distributed and will be
approved at the 15 Feb meeting.
5. Old Business
a. "Survey of Citadel Faculty Wearing a Uniform"
Professor McRae distributed copies of the survey to FC members and
requested that any suggested changes be forwarded to him by
Monday, 5 Feb by e-mail. After comments have been addressed, the
survey will be printed and copies will be distributed to FC
representatives, who will distribute/collect the surveys among
departmental faculty and students. Professor McRae and Carter
will distribute forms to BOV members and administrators.
b. "Survey of Professional Discrimination"
Subcommittee A has met to work on the report on the "Survey of
Professional Discrimination," and subcommittee members and
Professor Carter have continued to provide input by e-mail. As
soon as the report has been completed, it will be distributed to
FC representatives for discussion within their respective
departments.
6. Proposed Changes to Faculty Manual
The primary purpose of this meeting was to consider proposed
changes to the Faculty Manual, Parts I - IV. A summary of Faculty
Council actions are included in this section. However, it is
emphasized that recommendations approved by FC are not final at
this point. After FC has completed its review, all
recommendations will be forwarded to the Academic Board for its
review. Professor Carter will report back to FC all decisions of
the Academic Board. Any recommendations that cannot be resolved
between FC and the Academic Board will not be forwarded to BGEN
Poole, and will be considered "dead."
a. Professor Rushing moved, second by Professor Bishop, that every
tenure/tenure track faculty member be provided with a hard copy of
the current Faculty Manual, including appendices. The motion
passed: YES: 14, NO: 0, ABSTAIN: 1.
b. Professor Woolsey moved, second by Professor Greenawalt, that the
recommended addition in Section III(B)(2) be modified as follows
(by adding "maintain or"): Each request must include an outline of
the department's needs, plans, and expectations for the requested
position and how this position will enable the department to
maintain or improve the quality of its academic programs. The
motion passed: YES: 15, NO: 0, ABSTAIN: 1.
c. Professor Woolsey moved, second by Professor Hutchisson to delete
Section III(B)(1): Each faculty position that becomes available
due to a retirement, resignation, or any other circumstance, will
revert to the Vice President for Academic Affairs. The motion
passed: YES: 16, NO: 0, ABSTAIN: 0.
d. Professor Adelman moved, second by Professor Woolsey to add "by
the appropriate department head" to Section III(B)(4): Each search
must have an identified search committee with an identified chair.
The names of recommended committee members must by submitted by
the appropriate department head to the Designated Dean who will
appoint the search committee. The motion passed: YES: 13, NO: 0,
ABSTAIN: 2.
e, Professor Adelman moved, second by Professor Rushing to move the
last sentence of Section II(E) to the end of the first paragraph
of Section II(E). The motion passed: YES: 12, NO: 0, ABSTAIN: 1.
f. Professor Hutchisson moved, second by Professor Woolsey, to strike
everything in Section III(E)(2) except the first sentence. The
motion passed: YES: 12, NO: 0, ABSTAIN: 0.
7. The meeting was adjourned at 12:40 PM.
===============================================================================
THE CITADEL FACULTY COUNCIL
Minutes of the Regular Meeting of 18 January 1996
Board of Visitors Room, Jenkins Hall, 11:00 AM
1. Professor John Carter, Chair of the Faculty Council, called
Faculty Council to order at 11:00 AM.
2. Members in attendance: Professors Adelman, Barrett,
Bishop, Bowman, Brannan, Bryson, E. Carter, J. Carter, Chandler,
Crabtree, Durgun, Feurtado, Greenawalt, Hewitt, Hutchisson,
Leonard, McRae, Rushing, Siskind, Woolsey
Members absent: Professors Baldwin and Newman
Professor Jerse substituted for Professor Dunlop
Guest: Professor Davis
3. Approval of previous minutes
Professor Bowman moved, second by Professor Woolsey, to approve
the minutes of the 14 December, 1995 meeting. The minutes were
approved unanimously as read.
4. Old Business
a. Interim Report on Survey of Professional Discrimination
Professor Barrett, Chair of Subcommittee A, reported that the
subcommittee received 81 surveys, representing a 43 percent
return. The final report will be distributed to Faculty Council
(FC) members after results have been compiled. Faculty Council
representatives should be prepared to report to FC on 15 Feb as to
their departmental recommendations as to the final format.
b. Progress Report on the "Survey of Citadel Faculty Wearing a
Uniform"
Professor McRae, chair of Subcommittee B, reported that he and
Professor Carter constructed a simpler draft of the survey
instrument. All suggestions from the December 1995 FC meeting
were included in the draft. Approximately 400 student surveys will
be distributed. Surveys will be distributed to students through
FC representatives; each FC representative will distribute 20
surveys to students (e.g., 5 to one class, 5 to another class,
etc.). It was felt that this method of distribution would be
sufficiently random for purposes of the survey and would ensure a
high percentage of returns. Professor McRae will e-mail copies of
the latest draft of the survey to FC members; any comments should
be returned by e-mail immediately. After all comments have been
addressed, the final document will be prepared and sent to the
print shop. Copies will then be sent to FC representatives, who
will distribute/collect the surveys among departmental faculty and
students. Professor McRae and Carter will distribute forms to BOV
members and administrators. February 15, 1996 is the projected
deadline for completing data collection.
c. Progress Report on the "Study of The Citadel Grading System"
Professor Hutchisson, chair of Subcommittee C reported that the
subcommittee had decided to accomplish three objectives in study
of the grading system. First, peer institutions will be surveyed
as to their system. Some of the colleges from the designated peer
group in the recent salary survey will be among colleges surveyed,
as well as VMI and Norwich. Secondly, a review of current
literature on grading systems and rationales will be made.
Finally, a history of the grading issue at The Citadel will be
studied.
Professors Hutchisson and Carter subsequently discussed this plan
with Professor Holbein, Chair of the Curriculum and Instruction
Committee. It was confirmed that no such study of the grading
system has been performed.
d. Clarification for 12 October, 1995 Meeting
Professor Carter reported that he had received a letter from Peter
Greim, chair of FTPC requesting that a clarification to the 12
October minutes be made. In a December meeting where general
tenure and promotions procedures were discussed, Professor Greim
questioned BGEN Poole about his statement at the 12 October
meeting that "interpersonal relations should not cloud' the
FTPC's decision-making process." BGEN Poole clarified the remark
in that December meeting: the remark is to be understood as a
general description of how a tenure and promotion committee works;
BGEN Poole did not mean to claim, and did not see any indication,
that interpersonal relations had ever influenced The Citadel's
FTPC.
Professor Bowman moved that a footnote be added to the 12 Oct
minutes, seconded by Professor Woolsey. The vote was YES: 20, NO:
0, ABSTAIN: 1.
e. Core Curriculum Review
Professor Carter reported that although a review of the core
curriculum is expected, some details must be worked out before the
review can begin. One question is whether the task should be
assigned to the Curriculum and Instruction Committee or whether
BGEN Poole should appoint an ad hoc committee, possibly without
representation by all departments. Following initial discussion
of the matter, the Curriculum and Instruction Committee expressed
that they would prefer to be tasked with the review (instead of
the review being assigned to an ad hoc committee). One of the
potential disadvantages with being tasked with the review is the
magnitude of the review and length of time that it may require the
Curriculum and Instruction Committee in conjunction with other
tasks. Several FC members expressed that they would prefer to see
the assignment given to the Curriculum and Instruction Committee
as opposed to forming an ad hoc committee, even if it takes
longer. No one spoke in favor of forming an ad hoc committee.
f. Student Evaluation of Teaching (SET) Review
Professor Carter reported that there are several options as to how
to conduct the Student Evaluation of Teaching (SET) review. For
example the review could be assigned to either an ad hoc
committee, a subcommittee of FC, or the Curriculum and Instruction
Committee. If the Core Curriculum review is assigned to the
Curriculum and Instruction Committee, it may be more appropriate
to assign the SET Review to FTPC, considering the importance of
effective teaching to the promotion/tenure process. Another point
to consider is that individual departments have added their own
items to the original evaluation instrument. Professor Carter
pointed out that the study of the SET instrument currently being
made by Lori Woods may take several more years to reach any solid
conclusions. Another suggestion was that establishment of a
standing committee of the faculty or college for SET be
considered.
g. Faculty Manual Draft
Professor Carter reported that about 75% of the people who
reviewed sections of the faculty manual returned their comments
before Christmas. The draft recently distributed to FC members
contains numerous minor changes and a few substantive changes.
Some major sections such as the part dealing with tenure and
promotion are still being reviewed. FC decided to review the
first 55 pages and discuss the revisions in a special meeting on 1
February.
5. New Business
a. Foreign Study Opportunities
Professor Ed Davis reported on new foreign study opportunities
that are being proposed by the Committee on Foreign Study. The
committee report is attached to these minutes. BGEN Poole has
shown support for this proposal. One question was raised about
whether it would be possible to have a director by this fall.
Professor Davis responded that it was not possible to say for
certain at this time.
b. Channel 5's "Sharing the Dream" Scholarship Effort
Professor Carter reported that as a result of an inquiry from a
Citadel faculty member as to why The Citadel was not a part of
Channel 5's "Sharing the Dream" scholarship effort (apparently
other area colleges are participating), Professor Carter checked
with the Financial Affairs Office and the Admissions Office. The
Citadel has since become a part of Channel 5's "Sharing the Dream"
scholarship effort.
c. Study of Emergency Assistance Program
Currently there is no known program in place to provide assistance
to meet needs of members of the Citadel community in the case of
death, illness, etc., through the Human Resources Department or
anywhere else. Professor Carter reported that he had received a
request to investigate establishing an emergency assistance
program. Efforts have begun to bring together representatives
from Human Resources, The Citadel Employee Relations Committee,
and Cadet Activities to discuss this concern. The Military
Emergency Relief Fund of the Armed Forces may be an appropriate
model.
6. Reports from the Chair.
Notes from the Academic Board Meeting, 23 Jan 1996
a. Goodbyes given to Ron Gaskins.
b. The correct title is "Unorganized Militia of SC" not SC
Unorganized Militia (SCUM).
c. Barbara Zaremba, Nancy Bell, and Keith Knapp were commissioned
into the UMSC.
d. Discussions on "Cadet Attrition." Early indications are that
fewer freshmen have left school during this school year than last
(95 freshmen were not here in Jan '96 who began with us in Fall
'95; ditto for 61 upperclassmen). Thirty-six percent of our Frosh
had less than a 2.0 GPA during Fall '95. Speculation is that our
cadets emulate "normal" college students...leaving school for a
semester to work, finding themselves, or attend another college;
leaving school a semester early to finish their last credits
elsewhere. Presently, Citadel policy says that a sophomore must
pass 36 credit hours with at least a 1.4 by the end of their third
semester or be academically discharged. We are 100-125 cadets
short (of projections) in the barracks.
Good news: The Citadel is second best in the state for total
student attrition (Clemson is best). We have hired one more
financial aid person and two additional admissions folks. A
consultant visited in late Fall to provide insight into the
attrition question as well as recruiting/admissions strategies.
e. Poole: The Citadel's grading system needs study, including ideas
such as the "forgivable "F", the "A-B-C-U", and "no grades in
first semester Frosh core courses." [Carter's aside: how about
studying a "quarter" system versus "semester"?]
f. Pole: Core Curriculum. Employers of the 21st century will demand
liberal arts majors who can learn quickly, communicate
effectively, and have a high degree of technical expertise.
Academic departments need to develop curricula that produce
outstanding majors who have ingredients for success in chosen
career fields (Example: Our CE Department is studying an
Environmental Engineering tract which will have cooperative
(collaborative) links with our Biology and Chemistry departments.
All academic department should take advantage of the Commandant's
efforts to optimize the Corps' living example of a leadership
laboratory by establishing cooperative arrangements within the
liberal arts education.
g. Ed Davis discussed the foreign Studies Program proposal. He cited
VMI's similar program; they generally have between 5-10 students
studying overseas per semester. The Citadel must address who will
be the administrator for this program, and if that position will
be linked with the need for an advisor for foreign students
attending The Citadel?
h. Poole on Final Examinations: How should final exams fit into the
educational process? There are two distinct schools of thought on
this issue": (1) exams are important because they help gage how
far a student has progressed or how much learning occurred; and
(2) exams are not important. Options to final exams include:
every course should have a culminating point/a final grade/a final
product; comprehensive exams can synthesize all data and concepts
to a final point; final exams should be at scheduled times; there
should be no regular tests given the week before finals; each
student should only face one final per day; there should be
reading day (s) before finals commence; finals may consist of
comprehensive take-home exams including extensive writing; a
portfolio approach is a viable alternative; study environments
must be enforced in the barracks; should the library or classroom
buildings stay open all night? eliminate 4-cadet alcove rooms.
i. The Commandant will be invited to become an ex-officio member of
Academic Board.
j. The '96-'97 Academic Calendar will be finalized by Corps Day 1996.
7. The meeting was adjourned at 12:40 PM.
THE CITADEL
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN STUDY
13 December 1995
NEW FOREIGN STUDY OPPORTUNITIES
AT THE CITADEL
The Committee on Foreign Study was established this Fall in order
to explore the possibility of expanding the current limited
opportunities for study abroad.
The current opportunities for Citadel students to engage in
foreign study have been a rather haphazard approach mainly conducted by
a few individuals who have aided those with a special interest in
studies abroad. Among these concerned faculty members, LTC Emory and
COL Tucker have advised students and arranged for a number of these
opportunities. In spite of the great demands which this assistance
requires, these and other individuals have provided aid in addition to
their normal duties. Centrally directed summer courses abroad conducted
mainly by Citadel faculty in Modern Languages, on the other hand, have a
long and successful history as students have traveled to Spain, Austria
or Germany, and France for language courses.
The international scene has now been transformed by major events
in the former Soviet Union and Eastern European states. The small
number of opportunities for graduate study during the Cold War era has
now been replaced by a large number of new opportunities in this and
other areas. Our students should be exposed to this new world scene
since international competition will figure so significantly in future
American business practices and U.S. military personnel continue to be
deployed in various missions.
After several meetings, the Committee on Foreign Study makes the
following proposals:
1. Citadel Cadets will no longer be required to resign from the
Corps of Cadets in order to study abroad for a semester or a
year. A Cadet will be placed in a Leave of Absence status
during this period of overseas study.
2. A central administrative location will be established for all
programs of foreign study to take the place of the current
decentralized and ad hoc arrangements.
(A) The faculty member who will be in charge of this
central facility will be granted release time in order
to deal with passports, shots, and the many other
administrative requirements necessary to send students
abroad.
(B) The current Committee on Foreign Study will be modified
to fill an advisory role and to consider programs
suggested by the central administrator.
3. The central administrator and the Committee on Foreign Study will
begin by linking The Citadel to existing programs administered by
other institutions of higher learning and/or private organizations
which also have existing programs (i.e., the Institute of European
Studies/Institute of Asian Studies, and others). A large number
of programs currently exist, and The Citadel can send students
abroad through them. Strict quality control must be exercised by
The Citadel, however, regarding the nature of the programs and the
transfer of credits.
(A) Some small expenditure of funds will be necessary to join
programs as an associate as well as to purchase needed
materials in this area.
(B) Opportunities will be identified for student participation no
later than Fall 1996. Summer study in selected programs will
begin next summer. Among these Summer programs, the
Committee and central administrator will consider the Clemson
University program in civil engineering at the University of
Bristol (UK) and the South Carolina State University program
in Africa.
(C) The central administrator and the Committee will begin to
look at the possibilities of establishing a few selected
exchange programs. These will be much more difficult to
identify and establish, and there are many problems to solve
(immigration, tuition, and many others). We should probably
look to other male uniformed institutions, but this will take
time and patience to establish.
4. Student eligibility: We propose a minimum 2.5 GPA (higher for
selected programs which require a "B" average), junior standing,
and language ability to benefit from the experience of living in a
non-English language environment. Current Citadel Summer programs
will continue their current standards.
5. The central administrator and the Committee will produce an
information sheet/pamphlet for student distribution in the early
Spring.
SCHEDULE FOR FOREIGN STUDY PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION:
January 15, 1996 Selection of Central
Administrator and location of
Foreign Study Office
March 1, 1996 Selection of Fall programs approved
for Cadet semester study abroad
Selection of Summer programs for Cadet
study abroad
March 22, 1996 Production of pamphlet for
distribution to students with
requirements for participation and
description of approved programs
April 30, 1996 Identification of potential sites for
exchange programs
Summer 1996 Continuation of Citadel Modern
Language Summer programs
Initiation of first approved Summer
foreign study programs
Fall 1996 Initiation of first approved Fall
semester foreign study programs or
year-long programs.
===============================================================================
THE CITADEL FACULTY COUNCIL
Minutes of the Regular Meeting of 14 December 1995
Bond Hall 161, 11:40 AM
1. Professor John Carter, Chair of the Faculty Council, called Faculty
Council to order at 11:40 AM.
2. Members in attendance: Professors Adelman, Baldwin, Barrett, Bishop,
Brannan, E. Carter, J. Carter, Chandler, Crabtree, Dunlop, Durgun,
Feurtado, Greenawalt, Hewitt, Hutchisson, Leonard, McRae, Newman,
Rushing, Siskind, Woolsey
Members absent: Professors Bryson, Bowman,
3. Approval of previous minutes
Professor Baldwin moved, second by Professor Chandler, to approve the
minutes of the 16 November. The minutes were approved unanimously as
read.
4. Old Business
a. Report on the Professional Discrimination Survey - Subcommittee A
Professor Barrett reported on the status of the professional
discrimination survey. Subcommittee A met, finalized the wording of the
survey instrument (attached to the 14 November minutes) and distributed
the instrument to Faculty Council (FC) Representatives in each
department. Departmental FC representatives were requested to
distribute the survey to faculty in their department, collect the survey
and report a summary of the survey to Professor Barrett. A report on
the survey results will probably be available by the January meeting.
b. Report on the Wearing of the Uniform Survey - Subcommittee B
Professor McRae reported on the progress made by Subcommittee B in
developing a survey instrument on the wearing of the uniform. There was
considerable discussion on whether to survey students, whether to
include questions on alternative uniforms and how the questions should
be worded, and the impact of the uniform on teaching effectiveness and
the mission of the college.
Professor Bishop moved, seconded by Professor Chandler to adopt the
survey instrument developed by Subcommittee B and FC Chair John Carter,
as modified by FC during the meeting (attached). The motion passed:
YES: 17, NO: 0, ABSTAIN: 2.
Subcommittee B will finalize the document and distribute it to FC
representatives, who will distribute and collect the survey.
5. New Business
Timing of Potential Leadership Days
Professor Bishop moved, seconded by Professor Barrett, that if there
were a Leadership Day next fall, it would be scheduled the day following
Ring Night. The motion passed: YES: 14, NO: 0, ABSTAIN: 2.
6. Reports from the Chair
a. Minutes of the Graduate Council Meeting (7 Dec 1995)
i. Dr. Anne (Angie) LeClercq has accepted the position of Director,
Daniel Library. She will begin in January 1996. She is coming
from the University of Tennessee at Knoxville.
ii. Ron Zigli will make a proposal in Jan 1996 whereby Faculty may
receive slight compensation for writing and administering
competency exams to incoming graduate students.
iii. Professional Development courses are now coded under special
notation. Unless approved by the Dean, CGPS, PDEV courses are not
used in degree programs of study.
iv. The Graduate Council will make one nomination from their group to
serve on the Budget Review Committee. Jim Leonard is the first
choice.
v. A proposal passed which split the existing ENGL 557 Creative
Writing Course into ENGL 557 (Creative Writing-Poetry) and ENGL
563 (Creative Writing-Fiction).
vi. As a follow-up to joint meetings which have been held periodically
this semester between Citadel, C of C, and MUSC graduate program
administrators, Dave Reilly announced a 9 Jan 96 meeting of joint
program directors. Deans at the 3 schools have discussed a single
administrative structure, joint doctoral programs, and a Low
Country Graduate Center (Naval Base site) if and when the three
graduate programs merge. Gen Poole will address some of these
issues in the Graduate Faculty meeting on 14 Dec 95. General
Watts and the BOV are to be briefed by Reilly before Christmas
1995 in order to define The Citadel's role, philosophy, and
direction. Poole supports the belief that the CGPS be supported
in the manner required to maintain present programs. [It is my
(Carter's) personal evaluation that Planning for the CGPS should
be done simultaneously with Strategic Planning and the Budget
Planning Processes].
vii. Reilly has asked the administration to consider redirection of
that proportion of bookstore profits spent by CGPS students back
to the CGPS, and not for cadet activities or for the athletic
department.
viii. CHE materials to Reilly's office include a concept letter for a
BS in International Business from the C of C.
b. Minutes of the Academic Board Meeting (13 Dec 1995)
I. Gen Watts congratulated the Faculty on one of the finest semesters
since he's been here. The trial was postponed (stayed) because
the U.S. Justice Dept. filed an appeal with the U.S. Supreme Court
in the VMI case on the basis of strict scrutiny". The VMI case
is to be heard on 17 Jan 96 with a decision coming in February-June
1996. If strict scrutiny is upheld by the Supreme Court,
then The Citadel probably doesn't have a prayer; if intermediate
scrutiny" is upheld by the Supreme Court, The Citadel has a chance
at winning their case.
ii. Col Gordon presented a draft of the 1996-1997 academic calendar
(first half only). Academic Board input was solicited..they will
vote on it at the Jan or Feb 1996 meeting. I have copies as does
your department head, but some highlights: Knobs 2-day academic
orientation is 24-25 August (it was 12-13 August 1995); day
classes for all cadets begin Wed, 4 Sept; Parents' Weekend appears
to be the 12-13th of October 1996; Monday the 21st Oct-Fall Study
Preparation Time...upperclassmen off/freshmen not; Tuesday Nov
5-election day-no classes; Wed, 27 Nov at noon-Thanksgiving Leave
begins; there will be classes on Mon. 2 Dec.; Day classes end at
noon on Fri 13 Dec with an afternoon reading period; morning
reading period on Sat the 14th, with exams starting on Sat at 1PM;
exams over on Fri the 20th or Sat the 21st of Dec 1996.
iii. Milton Boykin, Political Science Dept.: Of the current 300 cadets
majoring in Pol Sci, 67% have expressed interest in Criminal
Justice careers. In South Carolina, criminal justice
professionals (practitioners) express needs for professional
development; and the academic community has failed to supply
continuing education for their profession. SC high school seniors
have greater desires for criminal justice majors in college. The
Citadel Pol Sci Dept proposes a name change to The Department of
Political Science and Criminal Justice, with a BS degree in the
same. Concept letters have already gone to CHE for an
undergraduate evening and graduate evening programs, as well as
for a summer institute based on continuing education courses (3
weeks) for credit called The Citadel Criminal Justice Command
College.
Course content will include race relations, drug and violence
issues, and critical thinking issues. Success in this endeavor is
dependent upon CHE approval and accreditation by pertinent
national associations. Investigation of a 2+2 concept with
Trident Tech is underway.
It is possible that Freshmen and Sophomores could be enrolled in a
Core Curriculum for their first two years, with major courses in
criminal justice, international (foreign) studies, etc. done
primarily in the 3rd and 4th years.
iv. Ed Davis spoke on the proposed Foreign Studies" program under
study by the Committee of the same name. There would be a central
administrator. There would be opportunities for foreign travel in
Summer 1996 by cadets and CGPS students. There are possible
exchange programs. Language screening tests, a B" average,
current/updated resume, and a minimum 2.5 GPA are included as
requirements. The Citadel will become a member of the Council of
International Study Exchange Programs.
It is expected that Academic Board will vote on this proposal in
January 1996.
It might be a good idea to link the central administrator" with
that person responsible for the foreign students enrolled at The
Citadel.
v. Col Gordon: There is an ad hoc committee of the college (Bill,
Spike, Ben Legare, Jack Rhodes, Brent Stewart) studying
internships and how they can be used more effectively with our
students. The Charleston AFB wants to improve their academic
ratings, and we're working with them to establish more cooperative
internship opportunities.
vi. Dean Reilly: Defining terminology for graduate students was the
topic. Academic Discharge" means a one semester discharge;
Academic Dismissal" means indefinite withdrawal from school;
Academic Warning" means a two semester warning is in effect;
Academic Probation" means that the problem is GPA-based;
vii. A draft has been proposed for policies and procedures for the
special services department" (per Barbara Zaremba). Everyone is
asked to review prior to the January meeting with BZ (at Academic
Board) and submit comments to Reilly or Zaremba.
viii. Spike: We need to consider to what extent the Student
Evaluation of Teaching (SET) is to used for promotion and
tenure (see rewrite of Gen Order #15, #20).
ix. Spike: The new matrix on The Citadel's Assessment Plan is on
reserve in the Library. Are we (College, Departments) doing what
we say we're doing toward assessment ?
x. Spike: Dec 8-10 was the SACS meeting. We can expect a
reaffirmation visit to the College in October 1996 to examine: (a)
planning & assessment; (b) The Library; (c) CGPS Professional
Development Courses (PDEV); (d) institutional support (Library,
computer links) between distant learners. PDEV courses must be
used on official transcripts as this course does not apply to any
program requirements", or this course applies to the () degree
program".
xi. Procedures for the Core Curriculum Review are expected to be
formalized in Jan 1996.
xii. Jan 1996 Academic Board will address the inquiry what part of
the educational process should (do) exams play ?"; what is the
educational philosophy of final examinations?"
xiii. Jan 19 & 20, 1996: The SC College & University Environmental
Impact Conference. The Citadel (1 faculty + 7-8 students) will
join approximately 60 others from SC State, Winthrop, Lander,
FMU, Coastal Carolina, & C of C and students from SC high
schools.
c. Minutes of the Graduate Faculty Meeting (14 Dec 1995)
I. Concept letters have been sent to CHE on behalf of proposed
masters and evening undergraduate programs in Criminal Justice.
ii. The CGPS continues to study/compare enrollments versus
resources...it is a balancing and shaping process over the next
few years.
iii. CHE and the SC State legislature will be studying a state
education plan for graduate education in SC" over the next 1-2
years.
iv. The CGPS is involved in tying together the Budget Review Committee
Process, Strategic Planning, and Assessment.
v. Reilly and Poole's approach is proactive for institutional support
of graduate education. We need direction for program development.
Reilly is developing a set of recommendations for Poole and Watts.
vi. For the next 1-2 years, you can expect much cooperative talk
(action ?) between MUSC, Citadel, & C of C as they move toward a
University of Charleston graduate Center for the Lowcountry.
There will consider one administrative structure, centralized
location, coordinated curriculum, graduate faculty status, and who
gets the FTE credit ?
vii. Poole: Graduate students should be afforded graduate
opportunities to which they are entitled . Faculty must be
engaged in the process of running this school; we need to reason
together in order to move forward; I believe in openness".
viii. Poole: The Project Liaison Committee of CDF has said to Poole
(in Spring '95) that monies from CDF was originally intended
for cadet programs' support, and that faculty research money,
faculty travel money, and GA support money was not the #1
priority, even though they would continue to support those
items.
7. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 12:50 PM.
PROCEDURES
On 20 April 1995, The Citadel Faculty Council passed a resolution
authorizing Council to conduct a survey of various Citadel constituencies to
determine possible relationships between the requirement for Citadel Faculty
to wear a uniform and several variables, including the mission and character
of the College, teaching effectiveness in a military college environment, the
Faculty's professional image, and perceptions of Citadel Faculty by Armed
Forces uniformed personnel. The resolution is attached. Faculty Council
charged its Subcommittee B with preparation, dissemination, and evaluation of
a survey instrument which met the resolution's demands.
Faculty Council members are asked to distribute the survey among
departmental Faculty. Each Faculty member (tenure, tenure-track, ROTC,
contract, adjunct, temporary) should be asked to complete the survey and
return it to the departmental Faculty Council representative NLT 1 February
1996. Responses should be anonymous and kept confidential.
Should a Faculty member elect not to participate, he or she should so
inform the departmental Faculty Council representative. The number of Faculty
who decline to participate should be noted, but NOT the names. Council
representatives should collect completed surveys, tally results, and return
them to the chair of Subcommittee B with the number of departmental Faculty
who choose not to participate.
Subcommittee B will be responsible for random selection of individuals
from remaining constituent groups (Administrative staff, BOV members, Citadel
cadets). Subcommittee B is also tasked with administration, collection, and
consolidation of survey materials from all respondents.
At the February meeting of Faculty Council, Subcommittee B will share
the results with the entire Council. No action will be taken at that time.
Faculty Council representatives will be asked to share findings with
departments. After discussion within departments, representatives will move
action as directed or appropriate. The Chair of Faculty Council will share
survey results with the administration.
For Subcommittee B.
Chris McRae, Chair of Subcommittee B, Faculty Council
John S. Carter, Chair of Faculty Council
1 January 1996
RESOLUTION
The staff and faculty wear the uniforms of the Unorganized Militia of
South Carolina during the performance of their duties...". On campus,
officers of The College will be in uniform at all times when they are on duty,
except for when the Corps is on leave. The faculty is considered to be on
duty between the hours of 8 AM and 4 PM, Monday through Friday, and at any
other time the faculty member is meeting with cadets in an official capacity.
The general philosophy is that faculty serve as role models for members of the
Corps of Cadets and should be in proper military uniform while contact with
cadets is likely" (Faculty Manual, draft, 1995, pp 29-30).
The Citadel should study the relationship between the military and
academic roles of the Faculty, especially in regard to the appropriateness of
requiring Faculty to wear the uniform" (The Citadel Self-Study, 1993, chapter
VI, p 11; SACS recommendation).
Because faculty are currently expected to wear the uniform and conform
to military standards of grooming, these requirements are openly discussed at
an early stage of the recruitment process so that all short-listed candidates
or interviewees are fully aware of them. Although some applicants have been
deterred, the pool of potential candidates has in the past been sufficiently
large so that there were always well-qualified individuals who have accepted
the requirements" (The Citadel Self-Study, 1993, chapter VI, pp 6-7).
The Citadel should provide greater incentives to retain outstanding
faculty" (The Citadel Self-Study, 1993, chapter VI, p 11).
Be it resolved that The Citadel's Faculty Council develop, distribute,
and collect a survey of what members of various Citadel constituencies think
about Citadel Faculty members wearing a uniform.
Upon approval by the entire Faculty Council no later than 31 March 1996,
a final report will be distributed to The President and Vice President for
Academic Affairs of the College, the Board of Visitors, and each Faculty
member.
SURVEY: WEARING OF A UNIFORM BY CITADEL FACULTY MEMBERS
(1 January 1996)
If you elect to participate in this survey, please answer each question
as accurately as possible. Please complete the survey and return it to your
department Faculty Council representative or to Professor Chris McRae, Dept.
of Modern Languages, Capers Hall, NLT 1 February 1996. Do not indicate your
name on the form, however please identify the Citadel group that you wish to
represent:
active duty member of the ROTC faculty and/or department
adjunct faculty
administrative staff
Board of Visitors member
Citadel cadet
temporary faculty
tenure/tenure-track faculty
I am a member of this Citadel group:____________________________________
Do you have prior or current military service ? Prior___Current___None___
Number of years in the Armed Services:_____
Do you anticipate that you'll have future military service ? No___Yes___
Undecided___
I am an alumnus of The Citadel: No___ Yes___
1. Do you believe that all Citadel Faculty should be required to wear a
uniform ?
No___ Yes___ Undecided___
If NO" or UNDECIDED", do you think Citadel Faculty should have
an option of wearing a uniform ?
No___ Yes___ Undecided___
If YES", what should be the Faculty uniform ?
a. the current modified-S.C. National Guard/U.S. Army uniform a. ___
b. a modified Citadel blazer b. ___
c. undecided c. ___
d. other (please describe)__________________________ d. ___
_______________________________________
If NO" or UNDECIDED", should Faculty be required to adhere to a
dress code ?
No___ Yes___ Undecided___
2. Do you believe that wearing a uniform by Citadel Faculty is germane or
relevant to the mission of The College ? No___ Yes___
Undecided___
3. If the requirement to wear a uniform was deleted or made optional for
Faculty at The Citadel, do you believe that such a change would affect the
character of the College ?
No___ Yes___ Undecided___
4. Do you believe that a Citadel Faculty member's teaching effectiveness is
enhanced, diminished, or unaffected by the current requirement to wear a
uniform ?
Enhanced___ Diminished___ Unaffected___
5. Do you believe that a Citadel Faculty member's morale is enhanced,
diminished, or unaffected by the current requirement to wear a uniform ?
Enhanced___ Diminished___ Unaffected___
6. Do you believe that a Citadel Faculty member's professional (professorial)
image is enhanced, diminished, or unaffected by the current requirement to
wear a uniform ?
Enhanced___ Diminished___ Unaffected___
7. Do you believe that by wearing a uniform, Citadel Faculty members enhance
(complement), diminish (detract from), or have no effect on the wearing of
service uniforms by active duty, reserve, or retired members of the Armed
Forces ?
Enhance___ Diminish___ Have no effect___
8. Please indicate any other comments that you have regarding the issue of
Citadel Faculty wearing a uniform.
Thank you for taking the time to complete this survey. Please return
NLT 1 Feb 1996 to your departmental Faculty Council representative or to
Professor Chris McRae, Department of Modern Languages, Capers Hall, The
Citadel, Charleston, SC 29409.
===============================================================================
THE CITADEL FACULTY COUNCIL
Minutes of the Regular Meeting of 16 November 1995
Board of Visitors Room, Jenkins Hall, 11:00 AM
1. Professor John Carter, Chair of the Faculty Council, called Faculty
Council to order at 11:00 AM.
2. Members in attendance: Professors Adelman, Baldwin, Barrett, Bishop,
Bowman, Brannan, Bryson, E. Carter, J. Carter, Chandler, Durgun,
Feurtado, Greenawalt, Hewitt, Hutchisson, Leonard, McRae, Rushing,
Siskind, Woolsey
Members absent: Professors Crabtree, Dunlop, Newman
Guests: Professors Greim, D. Moore
3. Approval of previous minutes
Professor Bowman moved, second by Professor Chandler, to approve the
minutes of the 28 September and 12 October meetings. The minutes were
approved unanimously as read.
4. Old Business
a. Ron Doyle s Citadel Staff Council Proposal
There is currently a proposal under consideration by the administration
for a Citadel Staff Council. The concept has been endorsed by all Deans
and Vice Presidents and has been forwarded to President Watts. In
general, the Staff Council would be a mechanism to discuss issues; it is
likely that there would be some cooperative efforts with the Faculty
Council (FC). Professor Carter explained that Ron Doyle had asked FC to
endorse the concept. One question that arose was what the relationship
would be between the Staff Council and FC. Professor Carter said that
there would be none. Professor Adelman pointed out that the Staff
Council would promote a voice by the staff, strengthening democracy on
campus.
Professor Greenawalt moved to table any action by FC, seconded by
Professor Rushing. The motion failed: YES: 4, NO: 13, ABSTAIN: 2.
Professor Chandler moved to endorse the proposal, seconded by Professor
Feurtado. The motion passed: YES: 17, NO: 2.
The chair has sent a letter on behalf of Faculty Council to President
Watts (copies to BGEN Poole, Ron Doyle) endorsing the Citadel Staff
proposal.
b. Campus Affairs Committee: Campus Housing Policy Draft #4
Professor Carter asked if there were any comments concerning the 13 Nov
meeting on campus housing sponsored by Physical Plant. Professor
Rushing said that he objected to only four copies of the "Draft #4,
Campus Housing Policies and Procedures Manual" being placed in the
library and that the document was not distributed to everyone.
Professor Hutchisson said that he felt it had been a useful meeting, but
noted that 1-1/2 hours of the two-hour meeting had been used to discuss
the new seniority/dependents matrix for assigning housing; he had been
under the impression that at least half of the meeting would be used to
discuss deferred maintenance problems and the imbalance between rent
revenue and maintenance demands. He had been particularly interested in
whether a system could be devised to notify residents of the status of
work orders. Professor Carter said that apparently Physical Plant was
working with ITS to develop a better system for submitting, logging, and
tracking of work orders by computer. Professor Carter announced that
the Campus Affairs Committee and Campus Residents Association would
again meet with Physical Plant personnel on 14 Nov continue revising the
draft document of the housing policies/procedures.
c. Study of the Grading System
Professor Carter reported that in an Academic Board meeting a motion had
been made to eliminate the "D" grade. Suggested options included: "A,
B, C, F;" "A, B, C, U;" and "A, B, C, F, no credit." The motion was not
seconded and therefore died. However, General Poole asked Professor
Carter to see if the faculty wished to study the grading system at this
time.
Professor Bishop moved, seconded by Professor Woolsey, that FC study the
grading system. The motion passed: YES: 17, NO: 0. The task of
studying the grading system was assigned to Subcommittee C, with
Professor Hutchisson serving as the chair of this effort. Professor
Bishop also agreed to assist.
d. Proposed Survey: "Effect of the Single-Gender Education Issue on Citadel
Faculty"
Initially, Professor Carter provided some background information on the
proposed survey. In the September 1995 FC meeting, Professors Zigli and
Vosikis proposed a resolution. Two motions involving modifications of
the resolution failed to carry. Dialogue continued on the issues among
the faculty. The AAUP entered into the discussion. Professor Carter
eventually spoke to General Poole regarding possible evidence in the
faculty community that discrimination had been made against faculty
members; i.e., faculty members may have been turned down for grant
awards, publications, and presentations for simply being "Citadel
faculty". General Poole is currently in favor of a survey to study this
issue. Poole further offered to present the results of the survey to
the BOV or the President, or to write letters to any individuals who may
have shown bias in professional reviews, etc.
In consideringwhat action to take on this issue, there was much
discussion on whether to conduct an opinion survey or a fact survey,
whether confidentiality could be maintained, whether credible
information could be obtained from a survey that attempted to maintain
confidentiality, and how to ensure valid statistical results.
Professor Adelman moved, seconded by Professor Baldwin, to support the
resolution involving conducting a survey (attached). The motion passed:
YES: 18, NO: 0, ABSTAIN: 2.
5. New Business
a. Report on Black History Month preparations by Professor Feurtado
Professor Feurtado reported that preparations were well under way for
Black History Month, which is to take place during February. The
keynote address will be by Rev. Michael Dyson. Other speakers include
Joseph Shine (second African-American graduate of The Citadel; now
general counsel for the State Budget and Control Board), Dr. Delaney
(head of the Avery Center at the College of Charleston and Director of
Black Studies), a Panel on Law, Justice, and African-American culture
(coordinated by Ted Tucker), local attorneys and police, panel
discussion moderated by former Citadel graduate Craig Burgess. There
will also be a Bazaar, the Gospel Choir, and tours to important sites
(free of charge). Professor Feurtado asked all faculty members to
encourage students to attend as many events as possible. Faculty
members are also encouraged to implement lessons from African-American
culture across-the-curriculum.
b. Faculty Manual Revisions
The Academic Board approved the procedures for updating the Faculty
Manual as developed by FC. COL Metts and BGEN Poole have endorsed those
procedures. FC can now proceed with revision of the Faculty Manual.
Professor Carter emphasized that the timetable for making revisions was
tight: all comments for recommended changes are needed by 20 Dec. FC
will vote on all recommendations in Jan/Feb. Professor Carter will
present to the Academic Board later in February all recommendations
considered by FC; he will inform Academic Board of FC's decision on each
recommendation. Professor Carter will report back to FC all decisions
of the Academic Board. A final FC meeting will be held in February to
discuss any disagreements with Academic Board. Any recommendations that
cannot be resolved will not be forwarded to BGEN Poole; i.e., any
potential change that does not have approval of both Academic Board and
FC will be "dead." Professor Carter will present all recommendations to
Poole by 1 Mar. Poole and Metts will review the recommendations in Mar
and Apr. FC will have one more opportunity to consider changes before
the document goes to the printer prior to the beginning of the next
school year.
To facilitate the review and ensure that all sections are appropriately
considered, Professor Carter has contacted 20 people on campus to
address sections of the Faculty Manual (for example, COL Bingham of
Public Safety has agreed to look at the sections related to Public
Safety and Security). FTPC has agreed to address sections dealing with
probationary appointment, tenure, academic promotion, and General Orders
15 and 20. This does not exclude any faculty member, dean, staff
member, or anyone else from making recommendations. There are copies of
the 1993 Faculty Manual in the library and anyone who wants a copy can
request one from COL Metts or Professor Carter.
In response to a question regarding the necessity for approving bolded
sections of the 1993 version of the Faculty Manual, Professor Carter
replied that bolded sections were recommended changes made by COL Metts,
FC, and others that would need to be approved by both FC and Academic
Board before forwarding to BGEN Poole. Another question was raised
about how a recommendation becomes "dead." Professor Carter responded
that during the special February meeting, FC would consider any
recommendation not approved by Academic Board. FC can then either
adjust its recommendation to the suggestions made by Academic Board or
allow the recommendation to die by not agreeing with a given suggestion.
Another question raised by Professor Dot Moore was why both FC and
Academic Board had to approve a point before it could be considered by
BGEN Poole. The response was that if only one recommendation were
required, changes could be adopted without the approval of Faculty
Council or the Academic Board. The primary reason was to provide the
best opportunity for making changes that best represent the interests of
the faculty.
c. Tenure and Promotion Policy
Professor Woolsey moved for FC to endorse a position statement regarding
tenure and promotion policy that had been previously approved by the
Department of Business Administration; seconded by Professor Siskind.
(It should be noted that similar position statements have recently been
endorsed and forwarded to BGEN Poole by th AAUP and the FTPC.)
Questions that arose included why FC should endorse the position
statement without first responding to BGEN Poole's recent directive (16
Nov) to study revisions of General Orders 15 and 20 as part of the
faculty manual review and whether it would be worthwhile to endorse the
statement now since it would not impact anyone involved in this year's
tenure and promotion process. A number of FC members felt that
endorsing the statement now could be a positive contribution to the
tenure and promotion process.
The motion passed: YES: 17, NO: 0, ABSTAIN: 0.
6. Reports from the Chair: Minutes of Academic Board, 14 Nov 95
General Watts expressed appreciation for faculty's role during
Homecoming. He reported that alumni are very interested in the academic
progress of cadets and how Faculty achieves this #1 goal of academic
excellence.
COL Gordon:
An undergraduate newsletter has begun; issue #1 will be placed in cadet
mailboxes over Thanksgiving; cost is approximately $240 for 3000 copies.
Faculty and departments are urged to contribute (articles,
announcements) to this functional, student-oriented, communication
vehicle.
Faculty, company faculty academic advisors, and academic department
heads are encouraged to submit recommended changes to the Cadet Blue
Book, especially the chapter on Academic Policies.
An International Studies Committee has been formed (standing committee
of the College) and will be initially chaired by Ed Davis. Ed will make
a presentation at the December meeting of Academic Board, and Gen Poole
suggested that he be invited to do the same at Faculty Council (he will
do so in Jan 1996). Col Gordon has solicited help from VMI, SC State
U., Clemson, etc. in the formation of this concept. Citadel cadets will
be involved to a great extent.
BGEN Poole:
Review of evaluation, tenure, & promotion procedures: all department
heads should re-examine departmental evaluation criteria this AY, and
begin integrating the departmental document into the one, unified,
synthesized school-wide document (combined revisions of General Orders
#15, #20, and Evaluation Procedures). Department heads need to discuss
academic standards with department members. Evaluations need to be fair
and adequate (as judged by accrediting organizations).
The President expects the BOV's comments on the Strategic Planning
Document this month, and approval by the BOV no later than January 1996.
It will then probably take 12 months to incorporate the working plan
into the operations of the College.
The Faculty Council will be asked to appoint a Core Curriculum Review
Committee (ad hoc) to study the core curriculum; it is anticipated that
it will take 12 months to review. The standing committee of the faculty
(the Curriculum & Instruction Committee) will help in this endeavor, but
they have their own workload. Academic Board and Faculty Council should
be prepared to assist in this effort by ensuring that Strategic Plan
recommendations with respect to curricula are implemented.
Beware! Anyone needing Poole's signature or approval of grant
applications had better have department head signatures and give Poole
at least a week's notice for him to be able to read/study the proposal
thoroughly before he can decide.
The Citadel decided not to participate in an initiative by FMU and MUSC
to get federal grant $ to study disposition of spent fuel rods from the
Savannah River Plant. The reason not to participate was because cadets
would be overpaid ($10-12 per hour) to simply set up chairs for town
hall meetings on the subject. The complex pedagogical issues were not
addressed. This was an ethical decision by The College not to
participate in this grant venture.
Professors and dept heads should strictly hold the line on classes for
Mon, Nov 20.
The presence of The Faculty Scholarly Activities (1994) helps The
College spread the good word about how productive many of our Faculty
are; it also acts to motivate those who are not (productive). If
departmental secretaries would keep a properly-formatted diskette
throughout the year on Faculty Publications, etc., then the end-of-the -
year report to Edith will be a simple down-load of information from a
disk procedure.
In answer to an inquiry, to Poole's knowledge, there is no link between
The Citadel's ratio of adjuncts : tenure- track faculty and our slight
fall in ratings by US News & World Report.
As an information point, an offer has been tended to Dr. Angie LeClercq
for the Daniel Library Director position, and negotiations are currently
underway.
7. The meeting was adjourned at 12:40 PM.
POSITION STATEMENT REGARDING TENURE AND PROMOTION POLICY
We endorse General Poole's directive to all academic departments to develop
written standards and criteria for tenure and promotion. The standards and
criteria recently approved by the departments provide guidance to faculty and
insure that those making recommendations and decisions will employ appropriate
procedures. To insure a fair, consistent, and visible promotion and tenure
policy, and in the spirit of continuous improvement, we propose that the
following procedures be adopted to assure equitable treatment to all
candidates in the review process.
1. Those who make recommendations and decisions regarding tenure and
promotions must use written and publicly available standards and
criteria. Private, secret, subjective or unpublished criteria are
damaging to the integrity of our academic programs, to the
development of our faculty, and contrary to the legal guarantees
provided for protected classes. Continuity of standards as
applied across candidates is an important measure of a fair and
equitable performance system. Standards subject to modification
with each new candidate are professionally and legally
unacceptable.
2. Common criteria should be developed across departments through
consultation and dialogue so that all candidates anticipating
tenure or promotion can develop realistic expectations about how
judgments of their performance will be determined. Standards and
schedules should be published and distributed in hardcopy in a
timely manner to all candidates as well as all faculty and
administrators involved in the review process. It is through this
kind of equitable treatment of all faculty that the goal of
academic excellence at The Citadel will be achieved.
3. The existing approach of initiating the process in the departments
allows for the variation necessary to account for differences in
the disciplines. Written policies and procedures at The Citadel
currently require that promotion standards and criteria be
presented by each department to the Academic Board. The standards
then go forward to the Faculty Tenure and Promotion Committee for
consultation. According to college policy, the standards also go
to the Faculty Council for approval. Given that the Deans make
recommendations to the Academic Vice President and he, in turn,
makes recommendations to the President for decisions regarding
tenure and promotion, it becomes imperative that the Academic Vice
President participate in an open dialogue with faculty in
developing objective standards which measure performance reliably
and which are understood clearly by all involved in the process.
When the process is complete, all faculty, those who are
candidates, those on departmental promotion and tenure committees,
those on the Faculty Tenure and Promotion Committee, the Cluster
Deans, the Vice President of Academic Affairs, and the President
of the College, should be evaluating each candidate with the same
set of approved standards.
4. The statement in the Citadel Policy Manual that The Citadel, as an
affirmative action employer, supports the rights of all protected
classes must be applied by everyone involved in the review
process. Thus, as specified in the Uniform Guidelines (orig.,
1978) all selection decisions at The Citadel, including
performance and promotion, and termination, are to be based on and
justified by application of objective, valid, reliable, and
published standards that are made easily accessible to all
candidates in advance of the review period in which the candidate
is being considered for promotion, tenure or any other performance
award.
Resolution
On behalf of The Citadel Faculty, the Faculty Council expresses its dismay and
concern over any overt or covert discrimination which has taken place against
members of The Citadel Faculty. This distress results from reports that some
referees, reviewers, and representatives from professional organizations,
journals, and foundations have denied applications for grants, proposals for
presentations, and manuscripts for publication as a method of retaliation
against The Citadel for its legal position on single gender education.
Be it resolved that The Citadel Faculty Council conduct an internal fact-
finding survey of how The Citadel's well-publicized fight to maintain single
gender opportunities in higher education may have affected The Citadel Faculty
in their roles as teachers, scholars and professionals.
The purpose of this survey is to gather facts which may enable an evaluation
of damages occurring to faculty members and academic departments as a result
of The Citadel's legal issues.
Upon approval by the entire Faculty Council no later than 31 March 1996, the
final report will be distributed to the President and Vice President for
Academic Affairs of the College, the Board of Visitors, and each faculty
member.
SURVEY
If you elect to participate in the survey, please answer each question as
accurately as possible. The value of the survey will be increased with its
specificity, but we will respect your wish not to reveal your department or
any professional relationship (organization, journal, etc.) if you so desire.
Please complete the survey and return it to your department faculty council
representative NLT before leaving for the Christmas holiday.
____ I desire any/all responses to remain confidential.
1. Publications: Has any manuscript you have submitted since 1993 for
publication been rejected, in your opinion, due to The Citadel's legal
struggles? Please tell us how. We ask that you be as specific as possible,
citing from letters or conversions. Again, you do not have to reveal
confidences, but the more detail we get, the more accurate the survey.
2. Presentations: Has any manuscript, abstract, or paper you have submitted
since 1993 for presentation at a professional association been rejected, in
your opinion, due to The Citadel's legal struggles? Please tell us how. We
ask that you be as specific as possible, citing from letters or conversations.
Again, you do not have to reveal confidences, but the more detail we get, the
more accurate the survey.
3. Grants: Has any proposal you have submitted since 1993 for a grant from
an external funding source been rejected, in your opinion, due to The
Citadel's legal struggles? Please tell us how. We ask that you be as
specific as possible, citing from letters or conversations. Again, you do not
have to reveal confidences, but the more detail we get, the more accurate the
survey.
4. Awards & Honors: Since August 1993, have there been awards, prizes,
honors, or positions denied you based in part on your faculty affiliation at
The Citadel?
5. Collegial Relations: Has the college's litigation affected your
professional relations with colleagues at other academic institutions or
associations since 1993? This area might include, for example, a speaker
refusing to come to The Citadel. Again, please explain in a detailed manner as
possible.
6. New Faculty: If you have joined the faculty since the spring of 1993, we
would especially like to hear how/if The Citadel ' legal battles affected your
decision to accept employment. What did your colleagues think of your
accepting a position at this institution?
7. Please relate any other observations which reflect upon perceived or real
changes in The Citadel's academic reputation as a result of the litigation.
===============================================================================
THE CITADEL FACULTY COUNCIL
Minutes of the Regular Meeting of 12 October 1995
Board of Visitors Room, Jenkins Hall, 11:00 AM
1. Professor John Carter, Chair of the Faculty Council, called Faculty
Council to order at 11:00 AM.
2. Members in attendance: Professors Baldwin, Barrett, Bowman, Brannan,
Bryson, E. Carter, J. Carter, Chandler, Crabtree, Dunlop, Durgun,
Feurtado, Greenawalt, Hewitt, Hutchisson, Leonard, McRae, Siskind,
Woolsey
Members absent: Professors Bishop, McColluhs, Rushing
Professor Briggs substituted for Professor Adelman
Guests: BGEN Poole, Dennis Rhoad (Board of Visitors)
3. Questions addressed to BGEN Poole. Most of the questions were sent to
BGEN Poole prior to the Council meeting; some were asked during the
course of the discussion.
a. How can we build further on your new academic initiatives
(colloquy, convocation) to enable The Citadel to look and act
more like a College? How can we change our students' (cadets)
attitudes and perceptions that academics/learning are #1?
BGEN Poole said that previous colloquies had not been as
successful as hoped. He foresaw continuing the colloquies by
bringing in experts to speak or stimulate debate on issues of
interest to faculty. He mentioned that future colloquies would
probably be shorter in length than the Fall 1995 colloquy.
The purpose of the convocation was to highlight academics more,
from the freshman level up, with a celebration at the beginning of
the academic year involving the entire academic community. Prior
to the first convocation, essentially only seniors at graduation
saw the faculty as a faculty. A number of positive comments were
received from cadets following this year's convocation.
Other programs include selection of senior cadet academic
officers. The chief academic officer for the school, David
Martin, has done an excellent job. A tutoring system has been set
up in the barracks. There are strict criteria for tutors. A
reward system for tutors has been set up in which tutors can earn
a Charleston pass.
Another indication of the academic atmosphere changing in a
positive direction is the academic orientation held this year.
This was supported fully by the Commandant's office and the cadet
cadre. Poole plans to survey selected faculty and students on the
two-day academic orientation.
Regimental Commander and Corps leadership have designed a
Regimental Essential Task List (RETL). Improving academic
performance is first on the regimental essential task list. The
task list is developed during a planning process at the beginning
of the academic year. The regimental staff has resisted changing
the high priority assigned to academics. The Commandant's office
has also strongly supported academics.
Poole's charge to all faculty: "Behave like college
professors"... i.e., don't be too sympathetic to cadets' excuses
and "whinings"...don't make too many concessions to cadets,
especially upperclassmen. ESP is a time wasted by many cadets.
Make sure and enforce deadlines for assignments. Don't let
upperclassmen sleep in class. Enforce your high professional
standards.
b. What can we as faculty do to persuade the administration that the
Daniel Library needs greater revenues, especially for
technological advances? Please discuss the concern over the most
recent "freezing" of $100,000 of the library's budget for this
academic year.
BGEN Poole responded that the money had not been removed from the
library, it had been "fenced" (delay in spending until the fourth
quarter) in order to manage cash flow. The President said when he
agreed to this that he did not want the money to be taken from the
library. BGEN Poole said that we cannot afford to take money from
the library. There should be more than $261,000 in the annual
book budget. "The library is understaffed and underbudgeted."
Poole will let every member of the Library Services Committee and
the Library Director Search Committee know that these are General
Watts' and his feelings. No one should misunderstand - The
Citadel is in the midst of serious financial challenges; if we
don't find real solutions, Reductions in Force (RIF) are a
possibility.
Poole thought that it would be good if money were still available
in the library budget when the new head librarian came on board
(hopefully around the first of the year) so that the new head
librarian could influence the spending of a portion of the budget.
Concern was expressed that the misunderstanding about the fencing
of the funds might be perceived negatively by candidates for the
head librarian position. BGEN Poole said that although he felt
that this information had been communicated properly to
candidates, he would recommunicate the information.
c. What should professors tell student-athletes who complain that
they don't have adequate time to prepare for course requirements
because athletic practices last so long...there is little time
left for study or class preparation?
It's the student's problem, not the professor's problem.
d. What should professors do about students who miss class due to
guard duty?
Cadets should only miss 1 - 2 classes per semester due to guard
(if there are an average of 450 cadets per battalion with 6 of
those cadets assigned per day, then that would result in about 75
days between shifts on the average). Again, is this a professor
problem, an "inconvenience to effective classroom management", an
organizational/scheduling problem of the Commandant's office or
the Corps chain of command, or is it simply a student problem? If
the faculty really think it is their problem, Faculty Council
should draft procedures or ideals to present to the VPAA or the
Commandant. Cadets should not miss exams for guard duty.
Perhaps the Cadet Regimental Academic Officer can offer insights
and/or suggestions for change. Poole will look into the frequency
of guard duty with the Commandant. Also, faculty members could
possibly share specific data (in the form of class records when
and how often cadets miss their classes because of "guard duty.").
e. Please speak to the issue of lab fees. What are the percentages
returned to various departments from which assessment fees are
generated?
Collected lab fees are returned to departments based on need. In
1993, BGEN Poole asked department heads: "How much does it
reasonably cost your department per student to 'run' your labs?
I'll get you those funds." He said that he had not yet heard from
department heads (Oct, 1995).
One concern that was expressed is that science and engineering
students may be "hit" more heavily than other students because of
lab fees. Also, technical schools and some high schools are
better equipped than some of our laboratories. One solution
mentioned by Poole was grant money. There is a Citadel Lab Fee
Pool available if the requests are justified. The VP for Finance
& Business (COL Lyons) and the BOV Subcommittee on Finance make
the decisions regarding lab fee increases.
It was pointed out that the only practical source for equipment
money is CDF; there is little departmental money
budgeted/available for equipment. BGEN Poole noted that if The
Citadel received higher formula funding, this would probably not
be a problem. He also noted that we may see more equipment money
in 1995 - 1996.
f. How does the Information 2000 concept look for becoming a viable
plan? Do computers on every freshman's desk look feasible for
Fall of 1996? Could you comment on how the installation of
computers for the most recent freshman class has progressed?
The Info 2000 project has been endorsed by ITS, the Strategic
Planning Committee, BOV, and the CDF Board. This fall's entering
freshman class was given an opportunity to join a volunteer
effort, and approximately 135 of 591 entering freshmen took
advantage of it. This number may increase after Parent's Day.
However, IBM has not come through on many promises...IBM has been
slow delivering the hardware, and has resisted financing and loan
programs promised long ago. Required computers for entering
freshmen in the Fall of 1996 will not happen! The BOV is
reluctant to increase fees to finance the project. But Poole has
not given up, and he is working on a new plan for implementation
on an incremental basis...the concept is not dead, just delayed.
In response to a question about computer technology in the
classroom, BGEN Poole pointed out that students of today are
learning differently and if monies exist or can be secured,
faculty and/or departments can certainly begin upgrading visual
presentations and computer integration into classroom
applications.
g. How do you reconcile faculty empowerment and the advisory role of
standing committees of the faculty? It often appears that advice
of faculty committees (i.e., Campus Affairs, Tenure & Promotion)
carries little weight in final administrative decisions. A
somewhat related question: there has been some discussion about
the appointment of an ad hoc committee (committee of the College)
to study and assess the core curriculum; why not assign the task
to the Curriculum & Instruction Committee?
BGEN Poole denied that advice of faculty committees carries little
weight. Faculty and standing committees of the faculty are
recommending bodies, just as the Deans are. Everyone is a
contributor in the decision-making process, but the President of
the College is the final decision-maker. The VPAA is a
recommender, although recommendations of the VPAA probably carry
more weight than the Deans, for example. Sometimes the President
and VPAA agree and sometimes they do not agree. But the faculty's
recommendations do carry significant weight with administrative
decisions.
On the subject of evaluations (tenure/promotion), the evaluation
process is different, dependant on the level of decision-making.
If a person is going to achieve tenure and promotion,
administrators must look at them as potential contributors to the
College throughout their career (past, present,
future)...individuals must be evaluated with a "horizonal
approach." The VPAA would like to support the sound, valid,
professional recommendations of the faculty (departments,
department heads, FTPC), but if not, please believe that there are
very good reasons why. The FTPC needs to be thorough with these
critical issues and with critical decisions...interpersonal
relations (how long/well they have known the candidate) should not
"cloud" their (FTPC) decision-making process***.
Poole sees the faculty as the guardian of the porthole for tenure.
Faculty recommendations for tenure should carry a lot of weight.
He sees his office as the guardian of the porthole for full
professor - not that faculty recommendations are not important,
because they are. He noted that there is nothing wrong with
professional people who are not full professors...there is nothing
wrong with tenured terminal associate professors...full professors
should be the true leaders of the faculty...when it come to the
full professor decision and promotion to associate professor
decision, he will evaluate scholarship, but he does first and
foremost recognize that this is a teaching institution..the
highest weight is given to teaching. However, the three areas,
teaching, scholarship, and service, are important for promotion
and one entire area cannot be ignored.
Poole has been working with academic department heads to develop
written standards expected by each department on tenure,
promotion, and merit pay. Recommendations by the Strategic
Planning Committee on organizational changes and publishing of
standards by departments will necessitate changes in General
Orders 15 and 20 (General Orders on promotion and tenure).
Faculty Council will receive at some point in the future a
memorandum from BGEN Poole requesting that the Council look at
this (although note that the Strategic Plan has not yet been
approved by BOV).
Every faculty member does not have to look exactly the same;
instead, the faculty must be looked at as a portfolio. Portfolios
must be developed by department to maintain the highest level of
quality and accreditation standards. Departments may have
standards that are somewhat different; however, there has to be a
minimum level of quality that is acceptable in any of these areas.
Departmental standards are MINIMUM standards...a "punch list"
approach will not be appropriate for tenure or promotion to
associate or full professor. It may be more appropriate to
develop tenure standards based on clusters' criteria. The FTPC
must realize that there are slight nuances between departments and
clusters, and that each person is different...allowing for
departmental differences should be encouraged.
When asked about Campus affairs (such as removal of trees,
advertising Citadel apartments "as is," and the responsibility of
Physical Plant to maintain quarters), Poole responded that housing
problems seemed to be driven by money. There are no refurbishing
or renovation monies available...from now on, until money becomes
available, apartments will rent "in as-is condition." Campus
housing is in a state of crisis. COL Tomasik, VP of Facilities &
Administration, has agreed to join LTC Langsdorf, the Campus
Affairs Committee, and the Campus Residents Association to work on
possible solutions.
h. The following questions were among the questions sent to BGEN
Poole prior to the Faculty Council meeting, but the questions
could not be addressed because of time constraints. BGEN Poole
offered to return at a later date to address additional questions.
Do you think that The Citadel's legal battles have damaged the
College? If so, would it be prudent or valuable to
assess/evaluate the damage in an attempt to better plan for future
issues? How should faculty members resolve conflicts that have
occurred from lost research grants (due to public perception of
The Citadel's legal stand) and failure to get promoted because of
diminished scholarly opportunities and output, or discrimination
suffered at the hands of professional colleagues or organizations?
What is your view of a proposed survey by Faculty Council on
whether or not faculty should wear THE uniform?
4. New Business
a. Library Services Committee Response to Memorandum from COL Lyons
A response (attached) has been prepared by the Library Services
Committee to a memorandum from COL Lyons regarding the library
budget. Professor Briggs moved, second by Professor Durgun that
the Faculty Council endorse the response. There was some concern
that the response had incorrect statements in light of BGEN
Poole's explanation that the budget had not been cut but that the
money had been fenced (delayed until the fourth quarter). After
further discussion, the motion was amended to include a cover
letter (attached) to be sent with a general endorsement of the
principles contained in the response. The amended motion passed.
b. Proposal by Ron Doyle to form Staff Council
Due to the lateness of the hour, it was decided to delay
discussion of this proposal until the next meeting.
5. Reports from the Chair
a. Ron Doyle requested that Faculty Council enter into its minutes a
reminder that a proposed "Citadel Staff Council concept has been
endorsed by all Deans and Vice Presidents. Is Faculty Council willing
to endorse such a proposal to President Watts?
b. The Campus Affairs Committee (chair: Tom Dion) and the Campus Residents
Association continue to work with LCOL Langsdorf (Physical Plant
Director) and COL Tomasik (VP, Facilities & Administration) on revisions
to Draft #4 of the 1993 Campus Residents Housing Policies (copies of
which are now in the Daniel Library for review). Recent obliteration of
campus foliage (tennis court area) has been added to a growing list of
concerns discussed with the physical plant (BGEN Poole expressed the
sentiments of several residents in a recent letter to COL Tomasik et
al.). NOTE: 3 Nov is the deadline for suggestions to the Draft #4
document...please forward to Tom Dion, Hack Ezell, or John Carter.
c. The issue of a survey of various Citadel constituencies to determine
opinions about our faculty wearing of THE uniform is still alive. Does
there need to be a strategic development plan before the survey is
conducted, along with procedures for administration, and a list of
constituencies (and random names)?
d. The Graduate Council asked for a list of agenda items and priority
issues for this academic year. Please ask your departments to submit
issues through departmental representatives to Graduate Council or
directly to Dean Reilly.
The 5 Oct Graduate Council meeting discussed the widening gap between
resources/expenditures for quality graduate education and increasing
student enrollment in the CGPS. Where's the support (human resources,
library, budgets, equipment, recruitment $) to come from which is
commensurate with expectations of the College for graduate education?
Departments with CGPS programs should present realistic requirements (in
terms of resources) necessary to bring their programs in line with
respective enrollments.
e. Carter, along with Poole, Metts, Reilly, and Gordon attended a joint
meeting with significant others from the College of Charleston to hear
Dr. Gail Morrison, Academic Affairs Coordinator with CHE on 17 October
1995. Items discussed included: an overview of Morrison's position with
CHE, purposes of CHE guidelines for submitting plans for new programs of
study, and a forecast of 1996 SC State legislation re: higher education.
Faculty, students, and students' parents need to write or call local
legislators re: how much higher education in SC means to them; CHE
committees worked diligently during 1994-95 to defeat a proposal to end
tenure at higher education institutions; SC is second only to VA as a
"high tuition, low student aid" state; SC taxpayers are demanding
accountability and effectiveness from education; there may be $138
million coming forth from the state to students in the form of need-based
student aid; the practice of undergraduate students "dragging"
graduation requirements and programs of study past 4-5 years is costly
to higher education and contrary to efficient money management (SC state
assembly will probably not fund students beyond 120-140 semester hours);
SC Council of Faculty Senate Chairs is publishing an information sheet
on tenure which defines tenure as "the end of a probationary period for
faculty", but "post-tenure evaluations" (periodic reviews) are "in"; CHE
and the Council of College Presidents will create a database on
college/university faculty demographics; in attempts to reduce waste,
all "adult education" (continuing or developmental education) should be
in technical colleges; remedial education (basic skills) should not take
place at 4-yr. institutions; where needs exist, 4-yr. colleges should be
partners with 2-yr. schools; new college programs of study should be
narrow and mission-specialized; CHE will soon have "speedy express"
which will enable rapid transmission of transcripts; CHE has a grant $
pool which provides matching funds to match public and private grant
awards; CHE does not encourage doctoral programs unless a unique need is
met or new programs are configured/linked to other dynamic programs;
except for joint degree programs, new programs will probably be approved
on a trade-off basis (in order to add a program, something must be given
up); it is easier for CHE to fund ongoing programs than to sponsor new
programs; it may be possible for The Citadel, C of C, and MUSC to meet
the needs of Low Country citizens through EdD and PhD programs;
legislators are concerned that there are faculty in higher education who
only teach 1-2 courses (below workload standards).
f. Carter visited ITS and Administrative Services in September at the
request of Faculty Council to ascertaining the feasibility of starting a
Gopher to replace the Daily Bulletin and an electronic bulletin board to
display "for sale" items. The Daily Bulletin is a State of SC
requirement and must be in hard copy for the state archives. There is
no additional manpower available for management of an electronic
bulletin board (additions, deletions). Administrative Services stated
that Faculty Council could help the most by asking each department to
"cut" their distribution requests by 50% (to save time, money, and
manpower). Can't most academic departments just get one copy to post in
a central location?
g. Gardel: How can Faculty Council be more involved in Black History Month?
h. Faculty Council procedures for upgrading the Faculty Manual were
accepted by Spike Metts and approved by Academic Board on 24 Oct. On
a related matter, all Faculty Manual revisions are due NLT 1 March 1996
to the VPAA, including revised "procedures for probationary
reappointment, tenure, and academic promotion." Faculty Council must
decide the best way to approach the Faculty Manual review... options
include Faculty Council Subcommittee assignments; delegation of certain
sections to appropriate standing committees of the faculty; or
delegation to individuals directly responsible for specific
responsibilities. All suggestions, additions, deletions, and changes
should be submitted to Faculty Council NLT 20 Dec 1995; Faculty Council
will devote the Jan and Feb 1996 meetings to review/approval/disapproval
of all suggested changes. At the Feb Academic Board meeting, Carter
will present all suggested changes to Faculty Manual which have been
submitted to that point, along with Faculty Council's decisions on each.
If Academic Board disagrees with any of the points or votes of Faculty
Council, that specific issue will be sent back to Faculty Council with
specific concerns. A special Feb 1996 meeting of Faculty Council would
be called to resolve Academic Board's concerns and resolutions would be
reached before the 1 Mar submission date to the VPAA. If agreements
cannot be reached between Academic Board and Faculty Council, that issue
or concern is "dead."
Heads up to Faculty Council and Academic Board: Poole and Metts will be
forwarding a request to both bodies to submit revisions and comments to
the "merged document" of "Evaluation Procedures for Probationary
Reappointment, Tenure, and Academic Promotion" + General Orders #15 and
#20 (part of Faculty Manual review process.... the FTPC will primarily
be in charge of this section).
I. Academic Board Minutes of 24 October 1995
Gen Watts: Parents' Weekend '95 was the best since Gen Watts has been
President. Faculty did a very good job with parents and visitors. THE
TRIAL is scheduled to begin on 13 Nov. Gen Watts will be traveling
extensively in the next months attempting to raise $1 million for legal
expenses and reimbursement of unrestricted funds accounts.
Gen Poole: A motion was made and passed unanimously to accept the
procedures for updating the Faculty Manual as approved by Faculty
Council and Dean Metts' Office. Gen Poole stated that he is very
pleased with the administrative role of Faculty council the last two
years. He also reported to Academic Board on his Q & A session with
Faculty Council on 12 Oct. COL Lyons has set a Nov 15th meeting with
the VPAA, VPF&A, Library Director, Library Services Committee Chair, and
Faculty Council Chair to "explain" the library budget, and address
library repair/ needs. Gen Poole also is working with Dave Reilly to
gather data on the effect that litigations have had on grant monies.
Gen Poole will be requesting Faculty Council to appoint an ad hoc
committee to initiate a comprehensive review of The Citadel's Core
Curriculum as set forth in the Strategic Plan of 1995-1996. The
Curriculum & Instruction Committee will also be asked to work with this
ad hoc committee.
Gen Poole spoke to the procedures on Faculty Fellow Nominations and
faculty Achievement Awards. These were last revised in 1992 (?),
however the last couple of years have brought some criticisms about the
selection/award process. If anyone has suggestions for changes, get
them to Gen Poole ASAP.
Department heads were also asked to hold professors accountable for
leave time requested during scheduled class periods. Departmental
limits and guidelines must be established.
Gary Wilson (HPE) proposed that The Citadel eliminate the letter grade
of "D", as is the trend at some colleges. Options (without a "D")
include "A, B, C, F, no credit;" "A, B, C, U;" and "A, B, C, no credit."
The motion died because it was not seconded. Gen Poole asked if
Faculty, at its Nov meeting should see if there is sufficient interest
among the faculty to study this issue.
Col Gordon:
CHE has initiated several avenues by which faculty members can become
more involved in the strengthening of economic and cultural alliances
between SC and Germany. One such program is "German Initiatives;" The
Citadel will help design faculty exchange programs.
CHE has also formed 6 task forces to study the issue of standardized
courses taken at 2-yr institutions being mandated for transfer to 4-yr
schools in SC. Standardized course syllabi, course names, and course
numbers are on the horizon for 100- and 200-level courses. The Citadel
will attempt to stipulate that a specific % of core courses must be
taken at The Citadel or home institution. A subcommittee of Academic
Board is expected to study this issue of transfer credits and mechanisms
required.
j. Carter met with Teri Siskind to discuss the next phase(s) of the Student
Evaluation of Teaching (SET). Lori Woods, Director of Institutional
Research, supplied Faculty Council with SET scores by department for
Spring 1995 sessions. Do we delegate the revisions, assessments, and
"teaching effectiveness weight" to the Curriculum & Instruction
Committee, or to a subcommittee of Faculty Council?
k. The Communication Across the Curriculum (CAC) Fall Conference was held
on Friday, 6 Oct. 1995 in conjunction with the cadets' leadership day.
The Conference was held at the Woodlands in Summerville and Dr. Robert
Jones of Arizona State University's CAC/Writing Center was facilitator
for approximately 35 of our faculty, staff, and graduate assistants. It
was excellent. The next CAC luncheon is Thursday, 9 Nov as COL Trez and
regimental cadet leadership begin "building the communication bridges
between academics, the Corps, and Jenkins Hall."
l. Barbara Zaremba, David Reilly, Woody Holbein, and Carter met on 28
September to formulate strategies for writing procedures and policies
for how to most effectively help our students with learning problems.
Carter has given Barbara two pages of questions from faculty members
which she will address as policies develop. Barbara is planning a
workshop for faculty during the Spring 1996 semester.
m. The Scholarships & Student Awards Committee chaired by Mike Barrett
helped make Scholars Day on 7 Oct a relatively big success as they
assisted Ron Gaskins and his staff. Several faculty and department
heads also interviewed candidates and lunched with parents and guests.
n. Dave Trautman, chair of the Undergraduate Admissions Committee and
Carter met with Ron Gaskins to discuss faculty contributions to
recruitment and retention efforts (beyond Parents Day, weekend visitor
program, and athletic recruitment meetings). Enrollment Services may
develop a "faculty resource pool" to invite interested faculty to visit
with cadet recruits inside and outside the campus.
o. Carter met with the BOV's Committee on Education, Curriculum, and
Faculty Liaison on Thursday, 26 Oct and with the entire BOV on Friday,
27 Oct. Items of interest included: increased human resources for
Admissions and Recruiting to compete effectively for the best of a
dwindling pool of capable young men desiring a military college career;
planning for adoption of a $40 per student computer laboratory fee which
will be proposed for the 1996 AY and will pay for additional ITS
personnel; initial discussion of The Citadel's proposed Strategic
Planning Document, Draft #4...overall, the reception by BOV members is
very positive. Gen Watts has asked each BOV member to return comments
to him NLT 7 Nov 95, and the Board is expected to give final reviews by
early 1996. Peter Mailloux will present the revised, revised copy to
the entire BOV in Nov or Dec 1995. The College's final response to the
SACS review was submitted 1 Oct 1995.
Col Jones, chair of the BOV, invites any faculty member who would like
to attend a BOV meeting to please feel free to do so. The BOV is
adamant in its appreciation and respect for our faculty, and the BOV has
a desire to increase communication and liaisons between the two groups.
The Citadel will soon announce a joint effort fund-raising campaign with
CDF, BOV, and led by the President's Office. Expect to see several
cooperative efforts between Converse & the SC Institute for Leadership
and The Citadel and the cadets (initiated by The Citadel Alumni
Association).
Gen Watts: cadet strength is 1832. Attrition rate so far is 11.2% as
compared with 13.8% last year. Total applications and Black applicants
are even with this time last year.
The BOV Finance Committee reported that $100,000 of the Riverview Room
renovation will be paid for by the Association of Past Regimental
Commanders who earn a commemorative plaque and other small perks for
their gracious gift.
The freshmen have given the new religious orientation a good evaluation;
corps leadership this year has been exceptionally strong; the attrition
rates are significantly lower than civilian colleges. The Citadel's
graduation rate is in the 70% range, while national public schools
average 48%, and private colleges are at 67%. Black student graduation
rate at The Citadel is 67%, while the national average at public schools
are 26%, and 46% at private.
There are a series of articles on The Citadel and Converse College which
began in The State newspaper on Sunday, 22 Oct 1995. The apparent intent
is to follow two freshmen from each of the two colleges for a year or 4
years.
The Brigadier Club Foundation and its memorial scholarships foundation
have contributed nearly $790,000 to the Athletic Department in the last
year.
6. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 12:35 PM.
*** BGEN Poole clarified this remark in a December 1995 meeting: the remark is
to be understood as a general description of how a tenure and promotion
committee works; BGEN Poole did not mean to claim, and did not see any
indication, that interpersonal relations had ever influenced The Citadel's
FTPC. [See 18 January, 1996 minutes for additional information.]
Cover Letter to BGEN Poole
Regarding Endorsement of Library Services Committee Response
to COL Lyons Memorandum
Dear General Poole:
On behalf of the Faculty Council, thank you for taking time from your
schedule to talk with us at our 12 October meeting. After you left, we
addressed one issue that coincidentally dealt with one of the concerns which
you discussed...The Daniel Library.
Attached is a letter from the Library Services Committee expressing
their feelings over "cuts" to the library budget. Faculty Council realizes,
after listening to your explanation, that "budget cut" is incorrect, and that
it is your intention to hold certain funds until 4th quarter.
Nevertheless, Faculty Council voted unanimously to endorse the spirit
of the Library Services Committee letter in order to express our united
concern
that the Daniel Library has been chronically under funded, and that the
library
will be spared any budget reductions. We are confident that this is your
intent as well.
Thank you again for visiting with us on the 12th,
Sincerely,
John S. Carter, Chair of the Faculty Council
October 12, 1995
TO: BRG R. Cliff Poole, Vice-President
Academic Affairs
COL Calvin G. Lyons, Vice President
Finance and Business Affairs
FROM: Library Services Committee
SUBJ: Budget Reductions
The new academic orientation and repeated assertions from the
administration that academic excellence is the college's top priority have
encouraged faculty and students about our college's direction. The improved
budget allocations for the library this year made manifest the college's
commitment to academics, for Gen. Poole has written, "I do not think that any
among us will argue that the library must serve as the center of every
academic institution or that the quality of the academic programs and the
intellectual life of the college are directly and profoundly influenced by the
services and support provided by the library." Therefore, the members of the
library services committee were greatly disturbed by the budget reduction plan
stated in Col. Lyon's recent memorandum which was sent to the faculty.
It was good to note that the library budget was the last item suggested
for a cut, but we are concerned about the commitment to maintain a good
library and that a false impression may have been given about the increase in
the library budget. The $250,000 which you mentioned with respect to the
library budget was not new money, but rather a restoration of previous levels
of funding which had been eroding since 1989-90. We trust that the funds were
restored to the library budget because they were sorely needed, and not just a
place to hold them for a possible reduction of the overall budget. This is
money which the library allocates to departments for the purchase of new
books. The $250,000 is the minimum needed to maintain our library at its
current level. In comparison the University of Charleston had approximately
$464,000 allocated for books last year. At The Citadel, last year's
allocation had been reduced to 18% of the 1989-90 allocation and none of that
was distributed to departments. Since nothing was allocated to departments
for new books last year, they are currently trying to cover two years of book
purchases with one year's money. If the library budget is cut by $100,000,
this will mean that the departments will be trying to order two years of new
books with about 30% of the funds needed. This in conjunction with inflation
in the printing industry will cause our library and college to continue in a
backward direction.
The timing of this announcement could not have been worse for the
library and college. Currently, a search is underway for a new library head.
We were unable to hire a new head last year and it has not been easy to
attract good candidates for this position. However, the current search
committee believes this budget cut, which does say something about our
priorities, will be one more obstacle to overcome in trying to convince
candidates to accept this position.
We appreciate the efforts you have made to avoid personnel reductions.
If the budget reductions reach the point that the $100,000 that has been
suggested to be taken from the library budget is needed, the committee
strongly urges that you reconsider the various reductions and at the very
least reduce the library budget by considerably less than $100,000. There
are several areas, such as athletics, noticeably missing from the list of
possible reductions.
Charles E. Cleaver
Chairperson
===============================================================================
THE CITADEL FACULTY COUNCIL
Minutes of the Regular Meeting of 28 September 1995
Board of Visitors Room, Jenkins Hall, 11:00 AM
1. Professor John Carter, Chair of the Faculty Council, called Faculty
Council to order at 11:00 AM.
2. Members in attendance: Professors Adelman, Baldwin, Bishop, Bowman,
Brannan, E. Carter, J. Carter, Chandler, Crabtree, Dunlop, Durgun,
Feurtado, Greenawalt, Hewitt, Hutchisson, Leonard, McRae, Rushing,
Siskind
Members absent: Professors Barrett, McColluhs, Woolsey
Professor Holder substituted for Professor Bryson
Guests: Dennis Rhoad (Board of Visitors), LTC Langsdorf, Professor
Zigli, Professor Vozikis, Cadet David Martin
3. Approval of previous minutes
Professor Bowman moved, second by Professor Chandler, to approve the
minutes of the 24 August 1995 meeting.
4. Old Business
No old business was discussed.
5. New Business
a. Campus Housing
Professor Carter invited LTC Langsdorf to discuss campus housing policy.
LTC Langsdorf summarized revisions in housing policy during the last few
months and the need for additional funds for making repairs. During the
discussion that followed, it was pointed out to LTC Langsdorf that all
of the recommendations (22) made by the Campus Affairs Committee in the
Spring of 1995 had been rejected by the administration. The importance
of providing sufficient explanation in any memoranda to the residents
was stressed. Professor Carter urged that housing policy be developed
by working closely with the the Campus Affairs Committee and the Campus
Residents Association.
b. Vozikis/Zigli Resolution
Professors Vozikis and Zigli discussed with Faculty Council the long-term
strategic and financial implications (for the educational mission
of the school) associated with legal battles fought over the past two
years. They expressed concern over potential long-term impacts on the
quality of education and on faculty that may result from on-going legal
issues. They asked Faculty Council to consider making a statement for
the faculty and presented a draft resolution for review by the Council
(attached).
In the lengthy discussion that followed, a number of Council members
expressed concern over issues raised by the resolution. Other
discussion centered around whether to study the issue further, vote on
the resolution now, forward the resolution to the entire faculty for a
vote, or delay vote by Faculty Council until members had discussed the
resolution with their departments.
Professor Greenawalt suggested that Point (1) in the resolution
(original draft resolution attached to these minutes) be modified to
specifically state that the primary purpose of The Citadel is to educate
undergraduate and graduate students. Professor Bowman then moved that
Faculty Council vote on the modified resolution as individuals.
Professor Bishop seconded the motion. The vote was YES: 5, NO: 7,
ABSTAIN: 5; the motion failed to pass.
Professor Greenawalt then moved, second by Professor Hewitt, that the
resolution be modified appropriately to remove "Faculty Council" and
forwarded to the entire faculty for a secret vote. The motion failed:
YES: 4, NO: 5, ABSTAIN: 8.
6. At 12:30 Professor Rushing moved, second by Professor Bowman, to
adjourn.
Draft Resolution
We, the members of The Citadel Faculty Council, resolve the following:
1) that the primary purpose of The Citadel is educating students;
2) that the efforts of the past 2 years to maintain The Citadel's
all-male identity have diverted substantial energy and crucial
resources from this purpose;
3) that there are serious long-term strategic and financial
implications for the educational mission of the school if the
legal battle is extended for an indefinite time; and therefore,
4) that the attention and resources of The Citadel should be
immediately and completely returned to its educational mission for
cadets and the programs of the Graduate and Professional Studies,
and this educational mission should be reaffirmed as the college's
highest priority.
===============================================================================
THE CITADEL FACULTY COUNCIL
Minutes of the Regular Meeting of 24 August 1995
Board of Visitors Room, Jenkins Hall, 11:00 AM
1. Professor John Carter, Chair of the Faculty Council, called Faculty
Council to order at 11:00 AM.
2. Members in attendance: Professors Adelman, Baldwin, Barrett, Bishop,
Bowman, Brannan, Bryson, E. Carter, J. Carter, Chandler, Crabtree,
Dunlop, Durgun, Feurtado, Greenawalt, Hewitt, Hutchisson, Leonard,
McRae, Rushing, Woolsey
Members absent: Professor McColluhs
Professor Brown substituted for Professor Siskind
3. Approval of previous minutes
Professor Bowman moved, second by Professor Adelman, to approve the
minutes of the 11 May 1995 meeting.
4. Reports from the Chair
a. 30 May 1995, Deferred Maintenance Meeting (standing committee of the
college).
The Citadel has substantially more projects to accomplish than it can
realistically fund in the foreseeable future.
b. Summer 1995, The Facilities Planning Board (standing committee of the
college)
This Board will again be chaired by Tom Dion of the Civil Engineering
Department for the 1995 - 1996 academic year.
c. 1 August 1995, Carter Meeting with General Poole
i. General Poole: "Faculty Council (FC) should be the united voice of
the faculty and an equal partner in the College."
ii. FC should invite younger/newer/interested faculty members to FC and
BOV meetings.
iii. Carter has invited BOV members to the FC meetings during 1995 -
1996.
iv. FC should encourage all faculty to be a more visible force at our
College; be involved with students outside the classroom, including
Graduation and Parades (namely Gold Star/Deans List, Faculty Retirement,
and Faculty Honor).
v. Continue progress on Student Evaluation of Instruction (and
Instrumentation employed).
vi. Tenure & Promotion Committee should examine the feasibility of
standards, criteria, and evaluation procedures for promotion and tenure
which may reflect departmental and/or cluster guidelines. In addition,
the time periods for probationary periods should be studied. Faculty
should delay as long as possible in order to strengthen their individual
cases.
vii. General Poole will call the first and last faculty meetings of
each academic year; FC should call all others, at which time General
Poole will attend (if invited) in order to address any concerns or
questions.
viii. General Poole: At the last faculty meeting of each school year,
all standing committees of the faculty should submit written summaries
in some standardized format and present committee activities.
ix. FC and the Committee on Committees should examine and make
recommendations re: the structure of the standing committees of the
faculty.
d. 14 August 1995, Academic Board Meeting
i. The Curriculum and Instruction Committee (CIC) will address several
major issues this academic year: departmental combining of
"stray/extra" hours into "free" or "approved" electives; expansion of
the A, B, C, or U grading philosophy/practice to other core courses,
i.e., Modern Languages; development and implementation of policies,
procedures, and education of faculty for special services for students
with learning problems.
ii. Woody Holbein will chair The Citadel Writing Conference which will
have 4-6 successful, professional writers conduct workshops on April
11-12, 1996.
iii. General Poole may propose a new standing committee of the college
to study the Core Curriculum as relates to the new Strategic Plan for
the College.
iv. Dr. Barbara Zaremba comes on board as the Director of Special
Student Services. Her office is 102 Thompson Hall, 3-1820/1822. She
plans to meet with as many departments as possible as she develops
policies, procedures, and student and teacher workshops so that we may
all cope more effectively with special student needs re: learning.
v. The Dean of Planning & Assessment will begin a 4-year trip around
the assessment cycle with selected departments.
vi. There are approximately 14 full-time temporary faculty this Fall
1995.
vii. The Search Committee for the Director of the Daniel Library, under
the direction of Bob White, hopes to have recommendations to the VPAA by
1 January 1996. A nationally recognized consultant with college
libraries visited with Daniel Library personnel in August, and he will
return in September to complete a project initiated by the
administration.
viii. The Library Services Committee is encouraged by General Poole's
desire for a more action-oriented, assertive committee in 1995-1996.
Strong representation from every academic department is sought.
ix. 591 freshmen reported in August. Scholars Day is scheduled for 7
October; honor program cadets will head up the day's activities; 50
young men will be invited to the day's festivities, and the Scholarships
Committee (Mike Barrett) will help Ron Gaskins's efforts.
x. Specially selected sophomore cadets have a new rank - recruiting
NCOs, who will travel with Citadel recruiters throughout the southeast.
xi. Faculty advisors to sophomore cadets are alerted that sophomores
are re-evaluated for academic continuance after their third semester;
they should be pro-active in the their Fall semester. Seniors need to
be reminded that their core curriculum should be complete before their
last Spring semester...this includes history (2 sem.) English (4 sem.),
modern language (2 sem. of same), math (2 sem.)and science (2 sem.
same).
xii. Procedures for Faculty Manual revisions are near completion.
xiii. Dean Reilly is formulating a proposed policy on transfer credits
for core curriculum courses.
xiv. The SC Higher Education Consortium is studying how core curricular
courses at colleges in SC could be standardized, i.e., syllabi for 100
and 200 level courses would be virtually equal.
xv. Poole in order to stop cadets from abusing their privilege while
involved with internships, Col Gordon's office will require a signed
agreement from each intern. Misbehaviors will result in loss of the
internship for the cadet.
xvi. Standards for evaluation, promotion, and tenure continue to be
discussed by departments and clusters.
e. 1 Sept 1995 - The BOV Committee on Faculty, Academics and Curricular
Liaison
i. General Poole reported on faculty productivity and justified release
time for Fall 1994 and Spring 1995 semesters.
ii. General Poole submitted a report by Dean Reilly on Graduate
Assistants which explained their assignments, responsibilities, and
funding through CDF rather than by the State of SC.
iii. An academic overview of the 1994-1995 academic year was presented,
including number of degrees conferred, honors achieved by students,
cadet accomplishments, and statistical data. The most alarming
statistics were that nearly 25% of the Corps did not have a current or
cumulative GPA above a 2.0, while 40% of the freshmen did not have a
current or cumulative 2.0 GPA. Possible solutions include the 2-day
academic orientation begun this year for freshmen, increased emphasis by
company academic officers and faculty advisors on ESP adherence, and
more attention paid to sophomores' academic progress.
iv. Summer sessions I & II, 1995 showed enrollment increased by 11%
overall (cadet enrollment was down 3%, other undergraduate enrollment
dropped 21% , and graduate students increased 19%).
v. As of 29 August, 49 freshmen withdrew (from the 591 who started).
There are 30 MECEP/ECP students, 146 undergraduate and 850 graduate
students enrolled in the CGPS, while there are 587 graduate students
enrolled in off-campus courses.
vi. General Poole pointed out advances that Columbia College is making
with acquisition of cutting edge computer technology.
f. 2 Sept. 1995 - The BOV Meeting
i. Harvey Dick (gallbladder surgery) and Margie Dick (foot surgery) are
home rehabilitating after recent hospitalizations.
ii. The Finance, Budget, and Scholarship Committee reported the
establishment of a minority business administration plan, whereby
approximately 10% of business expenditures are earmarked for minority
businesses.
iii. The Daniel Fund (BOV managed) is appreciated by the many students
who receive funds.
iv. In addition to items discussed Friday, 1 Sept in the Committee
meeting, the Liaison Committee on Faculty, Education, and Curriculum
reported that there were 1854 cadets presently enrolled on 1 Sept 1995;
the number used for planning and budgeting purposes for 1995-1996
academic year was 1860, so we are "behind the curve" early. Of course,
the state monies received (and FTEs) by the College are based on a "3
year rolling enrollment," but the poor enrollment/retention years are
too frequent.
v. Computers in cadet rooms were discussed. The cost is estimated at
$3000 each (computer, monitor, printer, modem, connect fee,
software)...how will parents deal with this on top of escalating
tuition? Col Jones, BOV Chair stated that "every entering freshman in
Fall 1996 will buy a computer through The Citadel."
vi. Faculty, alumni, administration, and the Citadel Family Association
have opportunities to help in recruitment and retention by being
available to talk with students and parents.
vii. Walt Nadzak and the Athletics Committee reported that the Southern
Conference is discussing the addition of 4 schools when Marshall leaves.
This would probably lead to two divisions. The January 1996 NCAA vote
on restructuring and the "6 wins over Division IA schools" rule for
bowls will impact on The Citadel's decision to stay, or move up (or
down) in the NCAA structure. A July 14th article highlighted overall
Citadel graduation rates at 70%, for all Citadel athletes (75%), and
footballers' graduation rates at 92%.
viii. The Grounds, Maintenance, & Landscaping Committee reported total
losses by theft in the barracks during the 1994-95 academic year was
nearly $13,000. Most occurred during the lunch hour. Public Safety and
the Commandant's Office continue investigations, surveillance, and
preventive measures. The phrase "door locks" was overheard during this
discussion.
ix. General Watts reported that during September 1995, the SC Budget &
Control Board will (1) transfer the title to the Haygood Avenue National
Guard Armory to the Citadel, and (2) approve $1.3 million for the
demolition of Barracks #1. A candidate for the position of VP,
Institutional Advancement will interview in September. A 1969 alumnus,
Sandy McPhereson, will be recommended for the Professor of Military
Science position. Faculty and staff are encouraged to join cadets for
meals in the dining room more often. Faculty academic officers are
encouraged to visit the barracks more frequently during ESP.
x. Dawes Cook, lead attorney for The Citadel in the single-gender
issue, discussed the legal wars at length. Converse College,
strategies, the State of SC, the Attorney General, SC taxpayers, public
perception of our institution, publicity, and the costs to everyone
involved were among the topics.
g. 7 Sept 1995 - The Graduate Council Meeting
One of the most important things discussed was that over the next two
weeks, members of the Graduate Council were asked to submit agenda
items/issues of concern to David Reilly. These concerns will be
prioritized at the October meeting of the Graduate Council, which will
set the tone for the 1995 - 1996 academic year.
5. Old Business
a. Faculty Manual
Professor Carter reported that the Dean of Planning and Assessment has
proposed to give responsibility for maintaining and upgrading of the
Faculty Manual to the Faculty Council. In the past, this was the
responsibility of the VPAA. He pointed out that the question before the
Council was whether to accept the proposal as written in Points 1 - 5
contained in a memorandum from Dean Metts dated 11 May 1995. In
response to a question about the beginning date for the three-year cycle
(given as 1994-95 in the memorandum), Professor Carter stated that the
idea as he understood it was to submit revisions/changes by Parents
Weekend, 1995. A three-year cycle for review would begin at the point
of VPAA approval (estimated to be January, 1996).
Professor Barrett moved, second by Professor Adelman, to accept Points 1
- 5 of the memorandum.
A question was raised as to the meaning of the word "review." It was
generally agreed that review involved responsibility on the part of the
Faculty Council to examine the manual and make appropriate changes but
final authority would rest with the VPAA. Some concern was expressed
that the Faculty Council did not have final authority, but it was
generally agreed that providing the Faculty Council with greater
responsibility for the Faculty Manual was a positive step.
Concern was expressed as to the amount of administrative and clerical
assistance needed in preparing the document. Production and
distribution of the document and review of other documents affected by
changes in the Faculty Manual require substantial amounts of time and
other resources. Involving appropriate college committees was suggested
as a means of efficiently reviewing relevant documents.
It was suggested that a five-year cycle length might be a more practical
time period to accomplish the review in contrast to the three-year cycle
proposed in the memorandum. It was further suggested that based on the
five-year cycle and the last printing of the Faculty Manual in 1993,
that 1998 be the target year for the next Manual. This would also
provide sufficient time for the review process. Another concern was
that hard copies be supplied to individuals upon request.
Following the discussion, Professor Barrett amended his motion to
reflect several changes in the memorandum. Professor Adelman seconded.
The motion was to accept the memorandum, with revisions. The revised
approach for reviewing the faculty manual is shown below. (A copy of the
original memorandum is attached to the minutes placed on the VAX.)
1. Responsibility for updating and revising the Faculty Manual
rests with the Faculty Council of the College and specifically
with the Chair of the Faculty Council. The Office of Planning and
Assessment will provide the Faculty Council with administrative
and clerical support in these efforts and will print and
distribute hard copies.
2. While changes may be made at any time, the Faculty Manual is
to undergo a complete review on a five-year cycle beginning with
the 1997-98 academic year. At the closure of the complete review
cycle, Faculty Council will deliver the revised manual not later
than 30 May to the Dean of Planning and Assessment for printing
and distribution not later than 25 August.
3. Changes to the Faculty Manual may be suggested by any member
for the faculty or staff or by any organization of the College.
Suggested changes must be presented in a format that would allow
incorporation in all affected sections of the current version of
the Faculty Manual by additions and/or deletions to that version.
That is, it is the responsibility of the individual or
organization making a change to present not just the change
itself, but also all subsequent changes that may be necessary
throughout the document.
4. Regardless of its source, any suggested change, revision,
addition, or deletion must be approved by the Academic Board and
the Faculty Council.
5. Recommendations are made by the Academic Board and the
Faculty Council to the Vice President for Academic Affairs who is
responsible for final decisions regarding changes to the Faculty
Manual. Changes in the Faculty Manual that will require
corresponding changes in College Regulations will be presented to
the Board of Visitors by the Vice President for Academic Affairs.
6. The Faculty Manual is to be made available on the VAX, one
hardcopy is to be placed on file in the Library, one hardcopy is
to be placed in each academic department, and hardcopies will be
provided upon individual request.
The motion passed with 22 yes, 0 no, and 0 abstain.
b. Faculty Council Meeting Dates
The proposed meeting dates are:
1995: 24 Aug, 28 Sept, *19 Oct, 16 Nov, 14 Dec
1996: 18 Jan, 15 Feb, 14 Mar, 25 Apr, 9 May
*One change in the schedule would be necessary to accommodate General
Poole's schedule to allow him to attend the Council meeting in October.
He would like to attend and respond to questions from the faculty at
that time. The Faculty Council agreed to change the meeting date to
October 12.
c. Questions for General Poole
To permit General Poole to have sufficient time to consider questions,
council members were asked to submit any questions they have or that
members of their departments may have by email to either Professors
Carter, Leonard, or Brannan. This does not mean that General Poole will
not respond to other questions from the floor on 12 October.
d. Uniform Policy Survey
Professor McRae's subcommittee has begun work on the survey and is
planning to continue work on the survey this fall.
e. Standing Committees of the Faculty
There is a need to examine the structure, responsibilities, memberships,
and usefulness of the Standing Committees of the Faculty. Professors
Carter, Tucker, and General Poole are working on this. Any other member
of the faculty and staff is invited to join these efforts or make
suggestions for change.
6. New Business
a. New/Interested Faculty Visit to Faculty Council or Board of Visitors
Meetings
Professor Carter asked Faculty Council members to let him know of any
new/interested faculty members who wish to attend either Faculty Council
or Board of Visitors meetings. Professor Carter will send them an
invitation.
b. Other New Business
Professor Adelman pointed out that on the day that MUSC held their
commencement on our campus, all parking spaces disappeared. He felt
that the situation should be checked (in light of potential violation of
various rules/regulations) to see if an appropriate response has been
made. The chair of the Faculty Council has informed the Director of
Citadel Public Safety of the concern.
Professor Adelman proposed that a daily electronic bulletin board be
established to relieve VAX users from the large volume of announcements,
etc. via email. Professor Carter has met with Rod Welch (ITS)
concerning this suggestion.
Professor Adelman suggested that the time of the convocation be examined
and suggested that daytime hours be considered. Other members pointed
out that the convocation occurred on the first day of graduate/evening
classes and that in some cases notes had to be left (rather than
announcing in class) to inform classes of the convocation. Some classes
had to be dismissed early to provide time to attend. The Chair will
communicate this concern to the VPAA and Dean of Undergraduate Studies.
A question was raised regarding whether rules for the faculty
achievement award changed since the announcement; specifically, the
number of award recipients and the amount of the award fluctuated from
Spring, 1995 until August, 1995. The Chair will communicate this
concern to the VPAA.
7. At 12:15, Professor Bowman moved, second by Professor Bishop, to
adjourn.
OFFICE OF THE DEAN OF PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT
MEMORANDUM
TO: Members of the Faculty
FROM: Spike Metts
DATE: 11 May 1995
SUBJECT: Faculty Manual
Included is the DRAFT document I described at the Faculty Meeting on
Thursday morning. I have included my cover memo to the Academic Board, and I
will outline again the steps that have been taken thus far relative to
revising the current "Faculty Manual 1993."
The version of the Faculty Manual that is currently on the VAX was
prepared for the SACS Reaffirmation Visit. Before this version was placed on
the VAX, it was distributed in hardcopy to each department and placed on
review in the Library. The entire document was reviewed by the Faculty
Council, and all suggestions made by the Council were incorporated in the
document. That version has been designated "Faculty Manual 1993."
As a result of the SACS visit and report and to reflect certain changes
in title (e.g., College of Graduate and Professional Studies, etc.) and to
address certain issues that have presented themselves, "Faculty Manual 1993"
has been updated as "DRAFT Faculty Manual 1995" which has been distributed to
the Academic Board and is included.
To keep the Faculty Manual up to date and accurate, I would suggest the
following approach.
1. Responsibility for preparing, updating, and revising the Faculty
Manual rests with the Faculty Council of the College and specifically
with the Chair of the Faculty Council. The Faculty Manual is to be made
available on the VAX, one hardcopy is to be placed on file in the
Library, and one hardcopy is to be placed in each academic department.
The Office of Planning and Assessment will provide the Faculty Council
support in these efforts.
2. While minor changes may be made at any time, the Faculty Manual is
to undergo a complete review on a three-year cycle beginning with the
1994-95 academic year.
3. Changes to the Faculty Manual may be suggested by any member for
the permanent faculty or staff or by any organization of the College.
Suggested changes must be presented in a format that would allow them to
be incorporated in all affected sections of the current version of the
Faculty Manual by additions and/or deletions to that version. That is,
it is the responsibility of the individual or organization making a
change to present not just the change itself, but also all subsequent
changes that may be necessary throughout the document.
4. Regardless of its source, any suggested change, revision,
addition, or deletion must be reviewed by the Academic Board and the
Faculty Council.
5. Recommendations are made by the Academic Board and the Faculty
Council to the Vice President for Academic Affairs who is responsible
for final decisions regarding changes to the Faculty Manual. Changes in
the Faculty Manual that will require corresponding changes in College
Regulations will be presented to the Board of Visitors by the Vice
President for Academic Affairs.
I have recommended that the Academic Board and the Faculty Council
review this DRAFT document and make recommendations to the Vice President for
Academic Affairs by Parents' Day next fall. I have also recommended that the
process outlined above be adopted for all future changes and revisions. Each
department head has a copy of this document (one more change--Vice President
for External Affairs is now Vice President for Institutional Advancement), and
I urge that you review the DRAFT and make suggestions to your department head
or Faculty Council representative. Thank you for your help in this important
effort.
ISMJr:ism