Faculty Council Meeting of Tuesday, 19 February 2002
President: Joe Liles; Vice-president: John Woodmansee; Secretary: Floyd Bullard

Note: Floyd Bullard was not able to attend this meeting.  Gretchen Skidmore graciously agreed to take minutes for this meeting.

Minutes

Announcements

Joe Liles: Officers met and will ask Faculty Welfare Committee to take a look at performance – based contracts and make a proposal to the faculty to consider. 

List of members of Faculty Welfare Committee:

The meeting will be held next Tuesday in the ETC conference room at 3:45.

The ad- hoc group of volunteers will meet next Tuesday at 3:45 in Watts 215 to discuss NCSSM teacher recommendation revisions.  Attendees will include Joe Liles, Gloria Barrett, Donita Robinson, Tom Trocano, Gretchen Skidmore, Sally Adkin, and Letita Mason.

Agenda Item 1: Ethical Awareness Group

Trey Wiggs

Charlie Stone

Meredith Tarlton

Brian

Alex Baranpuria

Alex Baranpuria: Reminded faculty that we considered the Honor Code earlier in the year.  In September, 4 seniors did research on Honor Codes at other institutions and considered pros and cons.  (ex. UNC and Davidson)  They were looking for information on how the Honor Code impacted the institution.  They then formed a larger group to get input from the juniors and the faculty and administration.   The group is now 6 seniors and 6 juniors.  Their main objective is to educate and raise awareness about what “honor” is.  Is it feasible to define honor at NCSSM?  At the end of the year, the goal is to have a Declaration of Character.  This could be a springboard for an Honor Code in the future, but they do not necessarily intend for there to be an Honor Code in the future.  The primary responsibility of an honor system is to raise consciousness about integrity for the members of the community.  They view this as a long-term project to develop an honor system. 

Trey:  Students used SL102 (speaker) and SL101 classes and group discussions that included a survey in which students disagreed or agreed with statements.  The feedback also included comments, some submitted at the lunch table by seniors.  Several students also attended a conference in Florida regarding Honor Code issues.  They met with an expert on the issue at the conference and obtained pointers as to how to proceed here at Science and Math.  Input also came from other schools and other students at the meeting.  NCSSM students are meeting regularly in sub-committees, and they are working to keep people informed about the process.  This year’s goal is to write the Declaration of Character, and they hope to get input from admissions and incorporate this into Welcome Day.  The community-written document may lead in the direction of an Honor Code.  Students want to include juniors in the process next year.  They also intend to let the juniors know what the school is about and the serious nature of our academic environment during orientation.  Students would like input from faculty as well.  They have an address _Ethical Awareness on the server.  They may also ask faculty to serve as an advisory group.  Faculty are role models for the students and are encouraged to talk about honor and integrity at the start of the year in addition to having clear policies on joint projects and the use of technology. 

Question: What can the faculty do to promote these ideals? 

Answers from the faculty:

We appreciate what you are doing.

How does the statement of principles compare to the document you are working on?

Students answered that they would like to match their document with what is understood by the entire community.

Wording should be more positive though – “I will.”  instead of  “I won’t.”

Faculty should not assume that everyone understands what behaviors are acceptable. 

Are there examples from other schools?

Students stated that they have indeed looked at other examples and they are working on defining what the core values are at Science and Math. 

Faculty should still be responsible for defining what is a group project and what is an individual project.  

Faculty may be assuming too much that students understand how to proceed on individual assignments and what level of collaboration is acceptable. 

Students confirmed that they really aren’t always sure what is acceptable.

Faculty shared that Honor Codes work best when the community is small and everyone is committed to the process. 

Faculty shared that signing the pledge on every assignment meant that everyone was reminded that you are turning in your honesty with every assignment and then it is a constant presence on campus. 

Faculty shared stories of how pervasive honesty can become on academic campuses. 

Faculty suggested that an honor code needs to become a possession of each individual. 

When people think they are being trusted, they are going to act more trustworthy. 

Faculty should consider being flexible with deadlines to further appropriate behavior. 

Faculty advised that students work first on finding a definition of “character.”

Students solicited volunteers for advisors to the Ethical Awareness Group. 

Minutes from their meetings are posted on At a Glance.

Alex asked that those faculty interested email EAG. 

Volunteers: Trocano, Link, Hudson, Nanney, Clayton, Chan, Keohane

Agenda Item 2: Student Fee

Opening remarks by Joe Liles: Jerry Boarman is philosophically against the student fee.  He was open with that when speaking with Joe Liles.  Joe encouraged people not feel fearful of stating controversial positions and to speak freely on the student fee. 

Comments from the floor:

School needs to be very careful about how this is communicated to the public. 

Article sent to newspapers all over the state did not state that there were waivers.

Will middle income parents use this as a reason not to send their kids?

Is there a budget where the money is going?

There would be waivers of fees for people who had hardships in the family.

Is this too subjective? 

Flexibility must be in place the first year. 

Student Life division is running very low on funds currently. 

Fees exist in most public schools. 

No question that it would be nice to have more money, but what will it cost in terms of admissions. 

Why aren’t other ways of raising money from parents actively pursued? 

Could we be more specific about what could be said to parents in terms of what the school needs?  Does that violate respected fundraising practices?

Will a fee change the level of expectations?

Will it change the attitude of the parents toward the faculty?

What will change as a result of this?

In actual dollars, the fee only really pays for meals for one student for one month. 

Jerry Boarman: Actually, the money is only sustaining us.  Funding has not been sufficient for us to keep up. 

Some suggested that there has been a decline in activities in Student Life.

Earlier, there were more informal activities that were much less expensive that took place on campus.

Perhaps there could be cheaper activities that we could pursue?

This is a fundamental change in the school and should be seen as a last resort. 

Talking with parents should happen first. 

Why are we suddenly out of money?

Why can’t the state respond?

Should students pay for services as they go?

We will need faculty at the end of the year to help with student activities because the budget is gone.

It may not be advisable for one man to be in charge of waivers.

Waivers are private but actually everyone knows.  This is harmful to the environment in general.

We already have a system in place for helping out kids financially.

It is individual.  The source of the funds is not clear but they are available in cases of hardship. Do we need to know more about that?

What does it cost for students to live here/ per week?  Per month?

Dr. Barber:  The numbers of students who request financial assistance has actually declined over the last couple of years.

Dr Boarman: 

This institution has not received any increases in its budget.  Cost of living increases match inflation.  Our costs increased, the budget has not changed.  The contractual costs are increasing.  (Food service, bus, gas, etc)  We can maintain through Foundation funds but that has to come from other sources.  Jerry requested $2.2 million increase in our budget from the legislature this year.  We were not granted an increase.  The student fee will allow us to filter in money to academic programs.  Departments will get 30,000-40,000 dollars for academic needs.  The budget will include funds going to academic programs, counseling, student life, etc.  Dorms also need to be repaired.  Repair and renovations funds have been taken back. ($950,000) Student fees can give breath back into the campus and allow new initiatives.  Parent council voted 22 to 4 after Jerry spoke with them.  Alumni voted in favor of it.  This institution is broke.  We are going further in the hole.  Ed McBride met with parents about the budget of the school.  Although there were 2 complaints, most felt that the fee was reasonable.  Jerry welcomes assistance of how to decide who is in hardship but the process needs to remain confidential.  We may be losing students because we lack facilities.  Students need services and equipment.  Technology enhancement funds need help – they are about to run out.  The state will not be sending more money in the near future.  He is not alarmed with the make-up of the student body.  If they don’t come because of the fee, then how will they get into college under those circumstances.  The fee will allow us to send money into many exciting programs.  With no funds from student fees, the picture is grim.  How can we keep going for 10 years with no inflationary increases?  Some indirect cost money was spread from Distance Learning but NOW grant is running out.  Without an infusion of funds, we have severe difficulty in maintaining what we had now.  This institution should be the finest in NC in every respect – it is in terms of faculty and students and not in terms of building and supplies.  We need more money to provide the best.  We tried to explain the needs and then people understand. 

Final comments from the floor indicated concern about obvious building renovations and recent expenditures on faculty laptops that may indicate to people that the school is indeed, not broke, but making poor choices about allocating funds.

Jerry Boarman reminded faculty that these were specially earmarked funds and that they would not always be available. 

Ballot will be put in faculty mailboxes soon.

Submitted by Gretchen Skidmore

(Substitute Faculty Secretary)