The Citadel Faculty Council
Minutes of the Special Meeting of 7 May 1998
Room 163, Bond Hall, 11:00 AM
1. Professor Hack Ezell, Chair of the Faculty Council, called Faculty Council
to order at 11:00 AM.
Members in attendance: Professors Barrett, Berlingheri, Brannan, Carter, Davis,
Greim, Ezell, Greenawalt, White, Williams, Hoyle, Hutchisson, Lipovsky,
Rushing, Thompson, and Toubiana.
Members absent: Professors Alford, Epple, Gay, Koob, Templeton, Wallace, and
Watson.
Guest: Professor Durgun
2. Prof. Ezell said there was one item on the agenda, post-tenure review. He
recognized Prof. Davis and said there was a motion on the floor to accept the
policy as presented. Prof. Davis said there are three principles involved in
the post-tenure review document: it is not a means for revocation of tenure;
post-tenure review should be a means of recognizing truly outstanding service;
and in those few cases where performance is substandard, there must be a means
to bring the faculty member up to par.
Prof. Greenawalt moved to amend the motion by postponing final approval of the
document until fall 1998 and implementing the following plan: incorporate
changes and re-circulate to the faculty; hold an open faculty meeting; then
approve the document. Prof. Greim seconded the motion.
Due to the amount of discussion about the amendment, Prof. Ezell proposed,
using mutual consent, allowing 30 minutes of discussion then bringing the
amendment to a vote. During the discussion a number of concerns were raised:
* Number of poor ratings required to trigger an unsatisfactory review;
* Recognition of various teaching styles;
* Time at which a mentor or development committee should be brought in;
* Annual assessments should revealing problems;
* Vindictive use of the process;
* Makeup of committee membership (tenured/untenured members, outside member,
inclusion of department head);
* Strengthen the stance that the PTR is not related to revocation of tenure;
* Provide opportunity for faculty member to respond.
After 30 minutes, Prof. Ezell called an end to discussion adding that it is
important for FC to be proactive in this matter. The VPAA has told CHE that a
plan is being developed and department heads are to set up a schedule. Prof.
Berlingheri added that we owe it to those up next year to give them something
with which to prepare.
The motion failed: yes - 3, no - 11.
Prof. Barrett moved that the draft policy, including the concerns expressed in
the discussion (but without the minority report), be sent forward to Academic
Board with the recommendation that Faculty Council and Academic Board to
develop a document as soon as possible. The chair of FC will appoint members to
serve on the joint committee. The concerns to be included are:
1. Teaching be considered important
2. Committees made up of three people, with the possibility of an outside
member
3. Role of untenured faculty members
4. Option of including department head
5. No connection to revocation of tenure
6. Faculty member can choose his/her own committee
7. Opportunity for faculty member to respond to committee
8. Time table for retirement - more firm notice
9. Timing of standard - at least six months to prepare
10. An unsatisfactory rating at six years should be addressed at that point
11. Provide for a quiet way to address problems without invoking a committee
The motion carried: yes - 13, no - 2. Prof. Ezell said could faculty to
continue to send concerns to him.
3. Prof. Barrett moved to commend Prof. Ezell for his work in chairing the
Faculty Promotion and Tenure Task Force and Prof. Davis for his work in
chairing the Post-Tenure Review Committee. Prof. Rushing seconded.
4. Professors Durgun, Greenawalt, Thompson, and Toubiana volunteered to serve
on the joint committee.
Prof. Greim moved that FC elect 3 members to the joint committee, one from each
cluster. Prof. Hoyle seconded. Prof. Lipovsky said that not everyone was
present. The motion failed: yes - 3, no - 10. The chair will take the
nominations and appoint a committee.
5. Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 12:25.
===============================================================================
The Citadel Faculty Council
Minutes of the Regular Meeting of 30 April 1998
Board of Visitors Room, Jenkins Hall, 11:00 AM
1. Professor Michael Barrett, chair of the Faculty Council, called the meeting
to order at 11:05 AM.
2. Members in attendance: Professors Woolsey (for Alford), Barrett,
Berlingheri, Brannan, Carter, Davis, Greim (for Durgun), Epple, Ezell,
Greenawalt, White, Hoyle, Hutchisson, Lipovsky, Rushing, Thompson, and
Toubiana.
Members absent: Professors Gay, Hewett, Koob, Templeton, Wallace, and Watson.
3. Minutes
The minutes were amended to show that Prof. Durgun was present and then
approved.
4. Election of Officers for 1998-99
Prof. Barrett asked FC to consider changing the term for officers to two years
since many issues that come before FC take a long time to resolve or work
through. Such a change would require a change in the by-laws. A discussion
took place on how this change would work with FC terms. Department
representatives serve two-year terms and may serve up to three terms. Prof.
Thompson moved, and Prof. Greenawalt seconded, that FC terms be changed to
three-years with the possibility of one reelection. Prof. Greim said that
elections are staggered so there is never a completely new Council, and that
two-year terms provide more flexibility. Other standing committees carry a
three-year term with the possibility of serving two terms. Prof. Barrett
suggested drawing up a document comparing terms on standing committees and
department representatives take that information to their departments for
discussion. Prof. Rushing moved to table the discussion, and Prof. Lipovsky
seconded. The motion to table carried.
Nominations were taken for the office of Faculty Council Vice Chair/
Chair-Elect. Prof. Hutchisson nominated Prof. Lipovsky, and Profs. Epple and
Toubiana seconded. Prof. Ezell moved to close nominations, and Prof. ??
seconded. Prof. Lipovsky was elected unanimously.
Nominations were taken for the office of Faculty Council Secretary. Prof.
Ezell nominated Prof. Carter, and Prof. Rushing seconded. Prof. Ezell moved to
close nominations, and Prof. Rushing seconded. Prof. Carter was elected
unanimously.
Officers for 1998-99: Chair - Prof. Ezell, Vice Chair/ Chair-Elect - Prof.
Lipovsky, Secretary - Prof. Carter
5. Post-Tenure Review
Prof. Davis moved to take the motion to accept the Post-Tenure Review Policy
off the table. Prof. Greenawalt seconded the motion.
Prof. Ezell reported that he would attending a meeting of the Council of
Faculty Chairs the next day, and this group will be discussing post-tenure
review. How and when post-tenure review will take place has not been
determined, and it appears that other colleges and schools in SC have not yet
finalized their policies.
Prof. Greenawalt distributed a list of questions and comments about the
proposed policy from Prof. Moore. She also suggested that a general faculty
meeting to discuss the documents is needed, and that changes or approval not be
made until after such a meeting.
Prof. Barrett said that funding from the state is based on the thirty-seven
performance indicators, and if post-tenure review is not in place the college
could lose part of its funding. Prof. Ezell said that department heads have
been instructed to set up a schedule for post-tenure reviews.
Prof. Greenawalt moved to amend the motion on the floor to delay a vote until
discussion has taken place within Faculty Council and a general faculty meeting
has taken place, and designate the next Faculty Council meeting to vote on the
policy. Prof. Woolsey seconded the motion.
Prof. Woolsey suggested tabling the motion then making a motion to bring the
policy before a general faculty meeting. Prof. Lipovsky said the timing is
hard; it is unrealistic to think we can hold a general faculty meeting and
another FC meeting before the end of the year. Prof. Greenawalt said a general
faculty meeting would give everyone one more chance to voice concerns. Prof.
Greim said this is a very important document, and the faculty as a whole should
have input. Prof. Barrett said holding a general faculty meeting followed by
another FC meeting would work if VPAA Poole is willing to devote most of the 7
May faculty meeting to discussion of the policy. Committee reports would have
to be shortened or submitted in writing. The motion carried unanimously.
Prof. Barrett will work this out with VPAA Poole.
6. Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 12:25 PM
===============================================================================
The Citadel Faculty Council
Minutes of the Regular Meeting of 16 April 1998
Board of Visitors Room, Jenkins Hall, 11:00 AM
1. Professor Michael Barrett, Chair of the Faculty Council, called the meeting
to order at 11:05 AM.
2. Members in attendance: Professors Alford, Barrett, Berlingheri, Brannan,
Carter, Davis, Dornetto (for Epple),Ezell, Moore (for Greenawalt), Grenier,
Hewett, Hoyle, Koob, Lipovsky, Rushing, Rembert, and Toubiana
Members absent: Professors Gay, Hutchisson, Templeton, Wallace, and Watson
Guest: Prof. Gordon
3. Approval of Minutes
Minutes of the 12 March regular meeting - approved
Minutes of the 19 March special meeting - approved
Minutes of the 2 April special meeting - amended to show that Prof. Dorothy
Moore was an invited guest of the Faculty Council and approved
4. Approval of FTPC Task Force document, "Policies and Procedures on
Probationary Reappointment, Academic Tenure, Academic Promotion, and
Termination of Tenured Faculty".
Prof. Ezell reported that Academic Board had discussed several items in the
document, but a vote was not taken. VPAA Poole will continue to take
information on the document through April, then it will become official. He
will first present it to the College's legal counsel, then to the Board of
Visitors. VPAA Poole found no problems with the document.
Prof. Ezell said the items that concerned Academic Board were:
1. Page 10, number 11, location of probationer's file. Academic board decided
to keep the files with the Designated Dean, since the information would be
available to the probationer no matter who maintains the files.
2. Untenured department heads. Faculty Council did not reach a consensus as to
whether an untenured department head was an undesirable thing. If a department
head were untenured, she or he would have de facto tenured status in duties and
responsibilities, and would not be eliminated from the decision making process.
It was noted that this issue had been removed from the document.
Prof. Moore made a motion, and Prof. Durgun seconded, to amend the document by
removing the requirement to include student evaluation of teaching in all
evaluations: probationary reappointment, tenure, promotion, and merit. In
support of the motion, Prof. Moore read the Faculty Council resolution on the
issue. Prof. Ezell said the "Best Practices" guidelines state that SET must be
used, but not how.
Prof. Barrett introduced Prof. Gordon who brought The Citadel AAUP Chapter
resolution endorsing UNC-chapel Hill's position disqualifying student
evaluation of teaching as a tool for official evaluation (attached to minutes).
Prof. Rushing said that VPAA Poole has directed that SET must be used. Prof.
Barrett said the "Best Practices" are used for funding under performance
funding guidelines. A lengthy discussion on the validity of SET took place.
The motion to amend the document did not carry, with a vote of 5 yes and 12 no.
The motion to approve the document carried with a vote of 14 yes, 1 no, and 2
abstaining.
5. Post-tenure Review
Prof. Davis moved for adoption of the policy. In discussion, Prof. Davis
reviewed his concerns documented in his minority report.
1. an unsatisfactory rating in one area (particularly teaching) should trigger
and unsatisfactory rating.
2. the six year review should include outside members on the committee.
3. an unsatisfactory rating should trigger an immediate development plan,
rather than waiting another three-year period for the faculty member to improve
on his or her own.
4. concerns about the role of the department head in the process.
5. appeals should be on procedures alone.
Prof. Barrett said he would like to discuss the policy in the meeting with the
idea of taking it back to the departments. Prof. Davis said VPAA Poole had
mandated that post-tenure review will be in effect next year and that
departments are to come up with their implementation (rotation) plans. A
discussion took place about state requirements and how seriously the reviews
will be taken.
Prof. Davis made a motion to table the motion, allowing FC members to discuss
the policy with their departments. Prof. Durgun seconded.
6. Proposal to amend academic requirements for holding cadet rank
Prof. Dornetto, attending for Prof. Epple, made a motion to require cadets to
achieve a 2.0 gpa overall and a 2.0 gpa in the major in order to hold rank.
Prof. Durgun seconded. The motion carried unanimously.
7. Proposal to split Scholarship and Awards Committee
Prof. Barrett presented a proposal from Prof. Woolsey to divide the committee
into two committees, 1) Scholarships and 2) Awards and Post-Graduate
Scholarships (proposal attached to minutes). Prof. Barrett explained the
charge of the committee. Prof. Alford said the committees used to be separate,
and that combined it is a heavy workload.
Prof. Dornetto moved to accept the proposal, and Prof. Hoyle seconded. The
motion carried unanimously.
8. Adjournment
===============================================================================
The Citadel Faculty Council
Minutes of the Special Meeting of 2 April 1998
Board of Visitors Room, Jenkins Hall, 11:00 AM
1. Professor Hack Ezell, Vice Chair of the Faculty Council called the meeting
to order at 11:25 AM.
2. Members in attendance: Professors Alford, Hilleke (for Berlingheri),
Brannan, Carter, Davis, Durgun, Epple, Ezell, Greenawalt, Grenier, Hewett,
Hoyle, Hutchisson, Bell (for Lipovsky), Rushing, Rembert.
Members absent: Professors Barrett, Gay, Koob, Templeton, Toubiana, Wallace,
Watson.
Guest: Professor Moore.
3. Review and discussion of the FTPC Task Force document continued from the 19
March meeting. Page and paragraph numbers refer to Professor Moore's memo of
19 March 1998.
Page 11, III-B-3, second sentence: change to "This non-voting ex-officio member
shall attend all meetings to assure college-wide performance related procedures
(according to this Policy Document) and criteria are followed in the review
process". Delete the last sentence.
Page 12, III-B-4: change "relevant" to "related".
Page 12, III-B-6, sentence 1: add "typed or word-processed" anonymous ballot.
Sentence 3, remove "s" from rationales. Sentence 4, bold statement about all
materials being furnished to each faculty member.
Page 13, III-B-8, last sentence: change last sentence to " Each candidate is
given the opportunity to review all materials pertaining to his or her case
before these materials are passed on to the FTPC Chair by the Designated Dean.
The FTPC Chair and Vice Chair will provide each candidate the opportunity to
review all materials to assure that all materials are in place prior to
distributing packets (prepared by the assessment office) and notifying
committee members that the materials are ready for review".
Page 13, III-B-11: insert the following item as 11, renumber 11 as 12, continue
renumbering. New number 11: The FTPC will forward the tally of the votes by
the committee upon completion of the balloting and prior to forwarding the
complete package of information to the Academic Vice President.
Page 14, III-C: This section spells out procedures for tenure upon appointment.
Prof. Ezell said that a tenured department head is important for the department
head and for the department. The procedure should take place during the hiring
process, i.e., the candidate present documentation for FTPC to evaluate during
the hiring process. A discussion took place as to whether tenure should be
automatically considered or strongly suggested, and whether it might discourage
some applicants. Prof. Ezell said he will take the matter back to the task
force for further discussion.
Page 17, III-D-1, paragraph 2, sentence 4: change to "The candidate and
department head should discuss the selection of an ex-officio non-voting member
from another department within its cluster to attend all meetings and review
process to assure college-wide performance related procedures (according to the
Policy Document) and criteria are consistently followed in the review process."
Delete the rest of the paragraph.
Paragraph 3: after sentence one, insert "The material must include a full
curriculum vitae". Remove the rest of the paragraph, beginning with "The
importance of the written..."
Page 17, III-D-2, paragraph 1: change ex-officio member information to
correspond with page 17, III-D-1, paragraph 2, sentence 4. Remove the
remainder of the next sentence. Change the last sentence to read, "The
department head makes available all performance related materials according to
standards and procedures developed in the department for reviews including
all..."
Page 17, III-D-3: add "The material must include a full curriculum vitae".
Page 18, III-D-4: at end of first sentence add "anonymous typed or
word-processed..."
Page 18, III-D-4: it should be assured that if candidate elects not to go
forward, there is no record of the negative vote.
Page 18, III-D-6, sentence 1: after "reviews these materials" insert "to assure
that all parties-the faculty member, department head, and department promotion
committee-have met their respective responsibilities and that all necessary
materials have been provided. Each candidate is given the opportunity to
review all materials pertaining to his or her case before these have been
passed on to the FTPC Chair."
Page 18, III-D-7: insert the following item as number seven and change number
seven to number eight. Renumber remaining paragraphs accordingly. New
III-D-7: The FTPC Chair and Vice Chair will provide each candidate the
opportunity to review materials to assure that all materials are in place prior
to distributing packets (prepared by the assessment office) and notifying
committee members that the materials are ready for review.
Page 19, III-D-9: insert the following item as number nine and rename number
nine as ten. Renumber remaining paragraphs accordingly.
New III-D-9: The FTPC will forward the tally of the votes by the committee upon
completion of the balloting and prior to forwarding the complete package of
information to the Academic Vice President.
Page 24, D-1: amend to read, VPAA "has five working days to inform the faculty
member... If the VPAA takes no action within five working days after the
conference with the faculty member, the matter shall be considered ended."
Page 24, D-3, sentence 2: add "within five working days".
Page 24, D-3, paragraph 2, sentence 3: change to read, " if such removals and
challenges reduce the membership of the appeals committee below five, the Vice
President for Academic Affairs after consultation with the Chair of the Faculty
Tenure and Promotion Committee (FTPC) will appoint from the eligible faculty
recommended by the Faculty Tenure and Promotion Committee at the time of the
establishment of the appeals committee sufficient..."
Page 25, D-4-c: add "and/or legal counsel..."
Page 25, D-4-d: amend to read "transcribed on the written request of the
faculty member, the Vice President for Academic Affairs, or any member of the
appeals committee."
Page 25, D-4-f: change "administration" to "Vice President for Academic
Affairs".
Page 25, D-4-h, sentence 3: amend to read," If the witness cannot or will not
appear, but has a signed written statement, the committee... (If the written
statement is admitted as evidence, the Committee will then identify the
witness) at its discretion, the appeals committee may seek out the authorship
of any document submitted in evidence and, if possible, provide for
interrogatories."
Page 25, D-4-j: Insert the following text as item j. New j: If legal advice has
been sought by either the administration or the faculty member, at its
discretion the appeals committee shall be allowed to consult separate legal
counsel. All costs of such counsel shall be born by the College." Re-label old
j and k accordingly.
Prof. Hoyle suggested that "and Termination of Tenured Faculty" be added to
the title of the document.
4. Post Tenure Review
Prof. Davis distributed copies of Subcommittee B's report on Post Tenure
Review. He summarized the thinking of the committee that the process should be
seen as a method of faculty development, not a means of dismissal. A detailed
procedure is not included, as that needs to be worked out by each department.
The documents "Best Practices for Post Tenure Review" and "Best Practices for a
Performance Review System for Faculty" were used as guide. Prof. Davis said
the document includes a minority report, which covers his concerns about the
document.
5. Campus smoking policy
Prof. Greenawalt presented a motion to restrict smoking on campus. Prof. Moore
seconded. Prof. Hoyle expressed concerns about private residences and
designating outdoor areas; the motion was amended to delete "only' from section
(c ) and all of section (d). Prof. Grenier asked if the College can restrict
smoking in the student's residences. The motion carried with 10 in favor, 2
opposed, and 1 abstaining.
6. Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 12:30 PM (?)
===============================================================================
The Citadel Faculty Council
Minutes of the Special Meeting of 19 March 1998
Board of Visitors Room, Jenkins Hall, 11:00 AM
1. Professor Hack Ezell, Vice Chair of the Faculty Council, called the Faculty
Council to order at 11:05 AM.
2. Members in attendance: Professors
3. There was not a quorum, but Prof. Ezell asked that non-binding discussions
proceed in order to provide input to the Task Force.
4. Approval of Minutes
Since there was not a quorum, Prof. Ezell deferred approval of minutes until
the next meeting.
5. Update on FTPC Task force document
Prof. Ezell reported that the document had been presented to Academic Board,
and that group had provided some clarification, which should help in Faculty
Council's deliberations.
Prof. Rushing asked if page 3, paragraph G should be amended to cover the
eventuality that the department head does not support a candidate. Prof. Ezell
said that Academic Board also addressed this concern. Their answer was that if
this occurs, then the department was not doing its job during the probationary
period. Prof. Rushing said an example would be someone who comes up for tenure
and promotion after one or two years. Prof. Ezell said the task force would
try to handle this concern editorially. Both FC and Academic Board felt this
was a rare occurrence, but the document needs to cover the eventuality.
Page 4, no.1, paragraph a: Prof. Ezell said that Dean Metts asked that "student
evaluation" be changed to "data from The Citadel's student evaluation of
teaching". Prof. Moore said this is a policy document and that there could be
exceptions, such as new people bringing evaluations form other institutions.
Prof. Lipovsky asked if Dean Metts needs a formal document on student
evaluation of teaching to send to CHE. Prof. Ezell will clarify with Dean
Metts whether other sources of information could be used (e.g., letters,
evaluations from other places).
In the same paragraph, Prof. Ezell provided clarification on "peer review
through classroom visits". This statement means each course is evaluated one
time during the probationary period. Further, Academic Board was not concerned
if a course "disappeared". In such a case, it would not be held against the
professor. Prof. Moore suggested leaving out "each" to read "visitation of
courses taught". Prof. Ezell said "each" might be in the CHE document.
In all sections relating to service, Prof. Ezell will make sure "faithful
attendance" is changed to "attendance and participation" and that "service to
the community may be evidenced by, for example..." is changed throughout the
document.
Page 5, section 3, paragraph a: Prof. Durgun suggested deleting "significant".
Prof. Berlingheri concurred, saying it is redundant; "importance" should be
enough. It was agreed to remove the word throughout the document.
Page 7, paragraph 1: Prof. Moore said, "service to the mission of the
department and college"
is difficult to judge and could change over time. It was decided to end the
sentence with "sharing ideas and insights with colleagues."
Page 7, section D, paragraph 2, last sentence: changed to read "or mentorship
to colleagues."
Page 8 section A, paragraph 1, last sentence: changed to read "scholarly
activity, and a willingness to serve..."
Page 9, paragraph 3 (just before 4): paragraph reduced to read "Documentation
in the dossier is to include a copy of all publications and materials
referenced. All candidates must furnish a complete curriculum vitae". The
first sentence of the paragraph was kept.
Page 9, paragraph 4, sentence 2:changed to read, "Each year, therefore, the
department head makes available all relevant performance related materials
according to departmental standards for review. This also includes items
presented by..."
Page 9, paragraph 6: deleted.
Page 9, paragraph 7, sentence 1: the phrase "typed or word processed' was added
after "anonymous", and also changed throughout the document.
On page 10, paragraph 11: Designated Dean was changed to department head. FTOC
only looks at material submitted candidate.
6. Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at12:20 PM.
===============================================================================
The Citadel Faculty Council
Minutes of the Regular Meeting of 12 March 1998
Board of Visitors Room, Jenkins Hall, 11:00 AM
1. Professor Hack Ezell, Vice Chair of the Faculty Council, called Faculty
Council to order at 11:05 AM.
2. Members in attendance: Professors Alford, Berlingheri, Brannan, Carter,
Davis, Durgun, Epple, Ezell, Greenawalt, Grenier, Hoyle, Lipovsky, Rushing,
Toubiana, Porcher (for Wallace), Watson.
Members absent: Professors Barrett, Gay, Hewett, Hutchisson, Koob, Rembert,
Templeton.
3. Approval of minutes
Minutes of the 12 February meeting were approved with the correction that
paragraph six, sentence three should read "PSTF" rather than "PFTF".
4. Report from the Professional Standards Task Force
Minutes from the General Faculty Meeting of 27 February were distributed, and
Prof. Ezell reviewed the process and discussion that took place at the meeting.
Prof. Rushing presented a motion, seconded by Prof. Porcher, that the last
sentence of section G, page 3 be amended to read (changes in bold):
"Furthermore, it is incumbent upon the department head in his or her
presentation of a candidate for tenure or promotion to the Faculty Tenure and
Promotion Committee to effectively communicate the relationship between the
departmental and college-wide standards and criteria so that the FTPC can make
a recommendation from a college-wide perspective based on the departmental
standards." Prof. Grenier proposed an amendment that promotion be added also
to sentence 2 of the same paragraph. The amendment was accepted and the motion
carried unanimously.
Prof. Greenawalt moved that "departmental standards be no lower than college
standards". Prof. Ezell said the document states that departmental standards
must be in compliance with college standards, and Prof. Rushing said that
acceptance of departmental standards by Academic Board means they are in
compliance. Prof. Ezell reiterated that FTPC is not intimately familiar with
departmental standards, and where they differ from college standards, it is up
to the department head to explain what the difference is and how it relates to
college standards. The motion was not seconded.
Prof. Greenawalt moved to amend paragraph G to read that the department head
has primary responsibility for insuring continuing review... (change in bold).
Prof. Alford said policy cannot be written to cover all exceptions. Those must
be dealt with case by case. The motion was not seconded.
Prof. Hoyle said that page 4 paragraph A was unclear about procedures for
evaluation. Prof. Ezell will make an editorial change to clarify by adding the
word standards. Also in paragraph A, Prof. Greenawalt suggested using wording
similar to that used in "Best Practices for Promotion and Tenure". Prof.
Ezell said the "Best Practices" are suggestions, not requirements. Prof.
Greenawalt suggested dividing the items listed into what is required and what
is not. Prof. Grenier said the Task Force felt it was not a good idea to have
student evaluation of teaching as the only required item. Prof. Greenawalt
withdrew the proposal. Prof. Ezell will make an editorial change to clarify
the statement about procedures for evaluation of students and grading.
Prof. Lipovsky said that at the general meeting it was suggested that a vita be
included with promotion documentation. Prof. Ezell will make an editorial
change to make sure it is included.
Prof. Hoyle asked why the section on service (page 4 c) is so much longer than
the sections on teaching and scholarship. Prof. Lipovsky said there are so
many ways to provide service and the Task Force wanted to recognize that and
clarify the kinds of activities, but not to limit. Prof. Grenier added that
the intent was to assure that service is recognized and not seen as vague. The
sections on service are written to indicate that different levels of service
are expected at different ranks.
Prof. Toubiana said that the way peer review of teaching through classroom
visitation is written (page 5, paragraph 3 a) could become an administrative
nightmare to enforce. Also, faculty members could be caught by not having an
infrequently taught course peer reviewed, e.g., a course taught before a
faculty member decided to apply for promotion.
Prof. Greenawalt pointed out that page 4 paragraph 2b and page 5 paragraph 3b,
"Clear and documented evidence of scholarly activity..." needed clarification.
Prof. Ezell will check for clarity of wording.
5. Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 12:30, with plans to meet again on Thursday 19 March.
===============================================================================
The Citadel Faculty Council
Minutes of the Regular Meeting of 11 December 1997
Board of Visitors Room, Jenkins Hall, 11:00AM
1. Professor Michael Barrett, Chair of the Faculty
Council, called the Faculty Council to order at 11:00AM.
2. Members in attendance: Professors Alford, Barrett,
Berlingheri, Carter, Davis, Durgun, Epple, Ezell, Gay,
Greenawalt, Grenier, Hewett, Hoyle, Lipovsky, Rushing,
Rembert, Wallace.
Members absent: Professors Brannan, Hutchisson, Koob,
Templeton, Toubiana, Watson.
3. Approval of minutes
Minutes of the 11 November meeting were approved with a
correction to the spelling of Professor Durgun's name.
4. ADA Compliance
Professor Greenawalt discussed concerns about The
Citadel's ADA compliance based on her first-hand
experience with the College's disabled access. Prof.
Greenawalt provided an overview of the problems she
encountered, whom she dealt with, and resulting actions
and inactions, and provided Council members copies of
this information, background information on the ADA and
its impact, and a list of points for resolution or
actions to be taken.
Prof. Greenawalt said she found that since no single
individual had been designated to handle the needs of
faculty or other employees with disabilities, it was
exceedingly difficult to get information or advice about
such matters as accessing Bond Hall and her office while
she had limited mobility or to have assistance in
advocating for necessary changes on a timely basis. She
pointed out that, while her mobility problems were
temporary, the same type of situation would face anyone
else who is disabled in trying to access Bond Hall (the
main administrative building) and other campus buildings.
She also learned that The Citadel's policy for compliance
is that new construction will comply with the law and old
buildings will be updated as needs are demonstrated. It
is her understanding, based on information from VP
Tomasik, that certain modifications, such as door
openers, will be made to make the doors at the designated
disabled entrance at the rear of Bond Hall more easily
accessible; changes for the Capers Hall disabled entrance
were being considered.
Prof. Greenawalt made a motion that the points for
resolutions or actions to be taken be implemented. Prof.
Ezell seconded. In discussing the motion, Prof. Ezell
said that an ADA committee was formed in 1990. This
committee conducted a study of the campus, but not all
recommendations have been implemented. Prof. Rushing
said the first thing to do is designate a person to be in
charge of ADA compliance. Prof. Lipovsky said Faculty
Council should not have responsibility for
implementation. The motion was amended to say that a
person should be appointed to be in charge and that the
1990 study should be resurrected and examined, with
special attention given to heavily used buildings such as
Mark Clark Hall, large academic buildings, and the
Library.
The amended motion reads:
That The Citadel comply with both the letter and the
spirit of the law with respect to the ADA.
That a person be designated to coordinate needs and
determine the extent of access problems/concerns in existing
campus facilities.
That the 1990 study be resurrected and examined, with
special attention given to heavily used buildings such as
Mark Clark Hall, large academic buildings, and the Library.
That since the institution is not aggressively ensuring
that the entire campus is accessible, that a plan for such
be developed and implemented.
That sensitivity and common sense be used in dealing
with persons with special needs.
That priorities include adequate handicapped parking,
accessible entrances in suitable location, and handrails for
all stairs.
Motion carried
6. Subcommittee C (summer school)
Prof. Lipovsky reported for Prof. Hutchisson. The
subcommittee supports the recommendations of the Dean of
Graduate and Professional Studies. In addition,
departments should be given some autonomy to decide about
individual classes as long as they stay within budget.
However, departments should offer courses likely to make
and that are innovative and attractive to students.
The Subcommittee recommends that DGPS get the course
schedule out early and change the schedule to be
compatible with other schools. They also recommended
that classes meet four days per week, evening classes
meet twice per week, and the barracks be open to male and
female boarders.
Prof. Barrett asked what the committee thought of Prof.
Comer's memo on summer school compensation. Prof.
Lipovsky said that pro-rating compensation gets
cumbersome, and the committee felt it was better to let
departments decide.
Prof. Hewett suggested that classes not be closed until
after drop/add. Prof. Greenawalt suggested that Faculty
Council sponsor and open forum for input from the faculty
at large.
Prof. Barrett asked the subcommittee to look at some
alternative sources of compensation.
7. Colloquy, Part II
Prof. Barrett said that Faculty Council voted to bring in
the Sadkers for several sessions. They will be returning
in January, and they could assist in the study of a post-
tenure review instrument. The session is scheduled for
the afternoon of January 13.
8. Other Business
Prof. Ezell said that Subcommittee A (student evaluation
of teaching) is meeting and making progress. They are
working as part of the Joint Committee, whose deadline is
17 January.
Prof. Barrett reported that Faculty Council's resolutions
regarding morning PT are on the agenda for the next
Academic Board meeting.
9. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 12 Noon.
================================================================================
The Citadel Faculty Council
Minutes of the Regular Meeting of 20 November 1997
Board of Visitor Room, Jenkins Hall, 11:00 AM
1. Professor Michael Barrett, Chair of the Faculty
Council, called the Faculty Council to order at 11:00 AM.
2. Members in attendance: Professors Alford, Barrett,
Brannan, Carter, Davis, Durgan, Epple, Ezell, Gay, Sparks
(for Greenawalt), Grenier, Hewitt, Hoyle, Hutchisson,
Lipovsky, Rushing, Templeton, Toubiana, and Wallace.
Members absent: Professors Berlingheri, Koob, and Rembert
Guest: Gen. Mace
3. Approval of Minutes:
Minutes of the 8 May and 11 September meetings were
approved.
4. Prof. Barrett said discussion of the College's
compliance with ADA would be postponed until the next
meeting.
5. Morning PT
In response to faculty concerns on the effects of morning
PT in the classroom, Prof. Barrett asked faculty members
to gather data on the issue, and he invited Gen. Mace to
attend the Faculty Council meeting to discuss the issue
and answer questions.
Gen. Mace began by describing the PT program and its
purpose. There have been some recent changes to morning
PT. The runs start later, so students are no longer
getting up at 5:30AM.
Gen. Mace said last year's PT situation was a double
standard. Only freshmen were required to participate,
and upper class participation was voluntary.
Consequently, many upperclassmen were out of shape. This
year all cadets take part in three PT sessions per week
and one PT test per month. Those who do not pass are
classified as physically deficient and put in remedial
training. Gen. Mace explained that it is necessary to
have three PT sessions per week to achieve adequate
physical fitness, but he is not locked in to any
particular times. When concerns about the effect of
early morning PT surfaced, he offered to move it to MWF.
Feedback from cadets indicates that Tuesdays/Thursdays
are their "light" days. A survey of the Corps showed
that half prefer afternoon PT and half prefer morning PT.
The chain of command prefers morning PT.
Gen. Mace said morning PT should not prevent students
from getting to class on time, as they finish well before
8:00AM. Also, they stay up late at night, which may
contribute to their sleeping in class.
In response to suggestions that PT be moved to
afternoons, Gen. Mace said that would interfere with labs
and intramural sports.
A good discussion followed with pros and cons being
aired, split opinions on the value of PT and its impact
on sleeping in class, and concerns that time management
is the issue (especially use of ESP and staying up late).
From the discussions, the following motions emerged:
Prof. Barrett would present faculty concerns about
tardiness, absence, sleeping in class, and desertion to
the administration. Prof. Durgan moved, and Prof. Davis
seconded, to add "S" (sleeping) to the class absence
reporting system. Motion carried unanimously.
Prof. Hoyle moved, and Prof. Gay seconded, to add "D"
(desertion) to the class absence reporting system.
Motion carried unanimously.
Prof. Hoyle moved, and Prof. Durgan seconded, that the
Chair of Faculty Council talk with Gen. Poole about
mandatory midnight lights-out, and switching morning PT
to Monday/Thursday/Saturday. Motion carried with 18 in
favor and 1 opposed.
Gen. Mace concluded his remarks by saying that last year,
students were involved in twice as many activities. This
year, leaves and weekends have been cut so the chain of
command is present on campus. There is now 24 hour, 7-
day supervision in the barracks. His plan incorporates
the previous four studies and enforces existing rules and
regulations. He feels that progress is being made. Gen.
Mace said the biggest problem on campus now is alcohol.
Students are coming to college with alcohol problems.
So, he is starting an AA program on campus.
6. Subcommittee C Report (summer school)
Prof. Barrett will forward copies of the subcommittee's
report to FC, for discussion at the next meeting. He
also distributed copes of a memo from Prof. Comer to
Academic Board on summer school compensation.
7. New Business
Prof. Ezell discussed the Joint Committee on Student
Evaluation of Teaching. This issue has also been
assigned to a FC subcommittee, which is represented on
the Joint Committee. He will keep FC posted as work
progresses.
Prof. Davis said that Subcommittee B (post tenure review)
has received copies of requirements from the state and
relevant information from other colleges and is
consolidating input from committee members. Prof.
Barrett said he hoped to use the Sadkers, on their follow
up session, to work with the post tenure review
instrument.
8. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 12:06 PM.
===============================================================================
The Citadel Faculty Council
Minutes of the Regular Meeting of 11 September 1997
Room 165 Bond Hall, 11:00AM
1. Professor Michael Barrett, Chair of the Faculty
Council, called the Faculty Council to order at 11:00AM.
2. Members in attendance: Professors Alford, Barrett,
Berlingheri, Brannan, Carter, Davis, Durgan, Epple, Ezell,
D. Moore (for Greenawalt), Grenier, Hewitt, Hoyle,
Hutchisson, Koob, Lipovsky, Rushing, Clees (for Templeton),
Toubiana, Watson.
Members absent: Professors Gay, Rembert, Wallace
Guests: President Grinalds, Dean Reilly, Professor
Elksnin
3. Prof. Barrett introduced the new members of Faculty
Council.
4. Prof. Barrett announced that he will send reports from
the chair, via e-mail, to Faculty Council members prior to
meetings.
Prof. Barrett discussed the charges of the three
subcommittees, and reiterated that the subcommittees will
handle most of the business undertaken by Council, then
report findings back to the Council as a whole for
action. The subcommittees should report back to Faculty
Council in the next few months.
5. President Grinalds spoke to Faculty Council about his
goals for the College. The President said he is committed
to acquiring a reputation of national excellence for the
College and that he needs faculty help to do it. The
Citadel should be known as a place where intellectual
development works hand-in-hand with leadership development.
He plans to revise the dates and benchmarks of the Strategic
Plan as the blueprint toward attaining his Goals 2000.
When asked about his plans for the graduate program,
President Grinalds said there is tremendous opportunity
in both graduate study and professional development. The
Strategic Plan will guide the implementation.
6. Termination of graduate programs in Education (Special
Education and Curriculum and Instruction).
Prof. Barrett said Vice President Poole asked Faculty
Council to look at the issue. Prof. Barrett then asked
Dean Reilly and Prof. Elksnin to address Council.
Dean Reilly said that a suit has been brought by Prof.
Elksnin, and that Prof. Robert Carter was not present on
advice of attorney. Dean Reilly said he would make a
presentation, but would not answer questions on advice of
attorney.
Dean Reilly said that Graduate Council, on his
recommendation and that of the Education Department,
voted to terminate two graduate programs, Curriculum &
Instruction and Special Education. The impetus came from
a desire to re-allocate resources to programs that
enjoyed better enrollment.
Dean Reilly said the program terminations were not taken
lightly. The issue began in 1992 with concern over
faculty resources. Fifty percent of classes are taught
by adjuncts. Curriculum and Instruction had three
students per year, and Special Education (a joint program
with the College of Charleston) has ten students per
year. Dean Reilly also stated that Special Education
was now off the state's critical needs program and that
the College of Charleston and USC are planning to offer a
joint Ph.D. in Curriculum and Instruction. Only Prof.
Elksnin and Prof. Robert Carter (part-time) teach Special
Education. The Education faculty did not give either
program priority.
Dean Reilly suggested that Faculty Council consider
delaying action until after the lawsuit is settled.
Prof. Elksnin said that the bigger issue is how the
program terminations were done. Last spring the
Education Department voted not to terminate either
program. Prof. Elksnin said the Faculty Manual states
that program termination must begin at the department
level, but that this issue did not. Prof. Elksnin said
the proposal was presented to Graduate Council by an
interim department head, and there was very little
discussion.
Prof. Elksnin addressed the issue of whether or not
Special Education was on the state's critical needs list
by saying that the discipline is and always has been on
the list of critical subject fields for South Carolina
Student Loan Corporation and teacher loan cancellation
(see page 25 of Prof. Elksnin's handout). Prof. Elksnin
said the argument had been made the cancellation of these
programs would help with NCATE accreditation, but that
the Special Education program is already accredited
through NCATE. Finally, Prof. Elksnin said the Education
Department is understaffed by six full time faculty
members.
Prof. Barrett asked Prof. Hewitt if she wished to
comment. She said that her area, Curriculum and
Instruction, is different. She was told eight years ago
that the program would probably be terminated. She and
Prof. Clees revised the program several years ago, but
the department did not have the resources to teach the
necessary classes.
Prof. Elksnin said that last year the Education
Department passed a resolution calling for careful study
before cancellation of a program. She also said the
department has been told not to enroll students in the
programs, and the College of Charleston has been told the
programs are cancelled.
Prof. Ezell moved that Faculty Council reiterates its
position of 24 April 1997, namely that policies and
procedure for terminating programs be followed, and that
Faculty Council not take a position due to the pending
lawsuit. Prof. Rushing seconded.
Discussion: Prof. Lipovsky said we don't have enough
information to do anything. Prof. Moore distributed
information on cancellation of programs at other
colleges, and said that regardless of the case, there is
a fundamental issue at stake - if policies and procedures
are not applied, we are all vulnerable. Prof. Barrett
said no one will lose his or her job, but the opportunity
to teach in one's specialty will not be there. Prof.
Hoyle said the department and the administration are at
odds; the administration is making decisions the faculty
should be making. Prof. Barrett qualified that the
unanimous vote in the Education Department last spring
was actually non-dissenting. Prof. Elksnin said the
department did not initiate the closure, the acting
department head did. The department voted unanimously
not to proceed, and wanted to study the issue further.
Prof. Rushing said Faculty Council asked to be able to
comment and asked if Council has a right to comment on
Graduate Council matters. Prof. Barrett said Faculty
Council has a right to take a position, but he is not
sure if it is binding or not. However, Faculty Council
has never limited itself to undergraduate matters. Prof.
Barrett also said Faculty Council asked to be able to
comment - so we should. Prof. Moore said the lawsuit
should have no bearing on Council's position.
Prof. Barrett proposed amending Prof. Ezell's motion to
be more specific, i.e., that program termination should
be initiated by the department. Prof. Ezell accepted the
amendment.
Motion: Faculty Council reiterates its position of 24
April 1997 that policies and procedures of the Faculty
manual were not followed, and urges that the issue be
returned to the Education Department for resolution
following procedures spelled out in the Faculty Manual.
Motion carried 18 - yes, 0 - no, 1 - abstaining.
7. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 12:55 PM.
Approved 20 November 1997