Faculty Council Meeting of Tuesday, 6 November 2001
President: Joe Liles; Vice-president: John Woodmansee; Secretary: Floyd Bullard
Minutes
At 3:45 Noreen Naiman entered Hill 19, increasing the number of faculty (and indeed of all people) in the room by 33%. At 3:52 Joe Liles remarked that although Chuck Britton was probably not alone in preferring socializing to getting down to business, it was time to begin the meeting.
Announcements
At the next meeting of the Faculty Council, the “Big
Picture” committee will present the proposals in its document and the faculty
will discuss them.
The next meeting of the Faculty Council will be the Tuesday
after Thanksgiving, 27 November, in three weeks. And there will only be one meeting in December.
Agenda Item 0: Voting on last two meetings’ minutes
18 September minutes approved, 2 October minutes approved.
Dan Teague suggested that we go ahead and pass minutes from the current
meeting as well.
Agenda Item 1: Budget
Issues
Ed thanked Delacy for her hard work in researching the
salary supplements that teachers all over the state receive in order to create
the pay scale for NCSSM’s teachers. Ed
also thanked Jerry for maintaining the process for salary increases, and who
considers that a non-negotiable issue in considering NCSSM’s future
governance.
Ed reminded everyone of how NCSSM’s faculty salaries are
determined. We stare with the
overall state schedule of salaries for teachers.
We then add longevity pay, in increments of 10, 15, 20, etc.
years, the same as for public school teachers.
We then survey all public schools in NC to see who has the highest local
supplement. This year, that turned
out to be Charlotte-Mecklenburg for teachers with 0-19 years of experience and
Chapel Hill for teachers with 20+ years of experience.
Ed expressed his regrets that for teachers with 30+ years of experience,
the raise would only be 1.4% since there are no experience increments for NC
teachers beyond 30 years.
Ed explained the salary table that faculty had already
received earlier. He
also commented that the curriculum development money that was used in the recent
past was putting a strain on faculty recruitment dollars.
Agenda Item 2: School Improvement Group (SIG)
Jonathan Bennett distributed handouts, the information in
which was also available on the web. These
were the main ideas behind the School Improvement Plan (SIP), a document that
has grown very large and of which hard copies were available from members of the
School Improvement Group.
Jonathan presented the timeline of NCSSM’s accreditation
process and where we are now. He
then stated that we should think of the process as one not for the benefit of
SACS, but for us. The School
Improvement Plan is intended to be a was for us to review our institution, set
goals, and plan how to reach them. SACS
is more interested that we be following that process than they are in our
“product”.
Jonathan then presented our school profile, mission statement, and goals. Finally, he presented our (SIG’s) recommendations. They were, in no particular order:
Jonathan hoped to receive faculty comment on these recommendations and on the SIP. However, there was not time for such a discourse during this meeting.
Agenda Item 3: Clarification
of our Judicial System
Joe said he would like for the faculty first to address
questions to Jerry about concerns we may have about what had recently gone on in
the judicial system at NCSSM. He
would address those questions and then would give some words of his own.
A comments were made that hearings were excessively long.
A concern was voiced that the students caught with master keys did not go
through the judicial process.
Jerry responded to this by saying that our Level 3
doesn’t allow for the same things that Levels 1 and 2 do. Punishments for Level 3’s usually are comparable to those
for Level 2’s, and students end up staying at NCSSM. Yes, hearings are excessively long, and they become public
floggings, whereas Level 1 and 2’s are treated more discreetly.
Jerry said he handled the key issue personally with each student
involved. For 5-6 years, students
have been passing down master keys to younger students.
The 2 seniors involved this year who had master keys were expelled.
Although they were allowed to appeal the decision, they have not done so.
The other students involved this year had keys to particular areas.
A thorough investigation was done, and it was determined that nothing was
stolen and the students appeared to have done nothing more than pass through the
unauthorized areas. A conference
was held with each of these young men, dealing with the issue privately
Among other things, they were to pay a $500 fine (to help pay for
re-keying the buildings), read ethics books and write a report, and spend two
weekends at home. We wanted “to
look at the process in order to see what to put forward and how to address the
problem to adults.”
A faculty member expressed concern that remained.
That isn’t the process that the student handbook sets out.
For these students, no Level is on record.
Jerry stated that there is probably more documentation with
the process that they followed than there would have been with a hearing.
Also, if students and parents were not happy with the outcomes of the
discreet conferences, they were free to request a hearing and one will be held.
Jerry said that he doesn’t want to remove the hearing process from the
school, but he would like to see an interim step between Level 2 and Level 3.
Some things of a lesser nature than drugs, weapons, etc., don’t
need to go through a five-day process with the students hung in stocks.
Jerry went on to say that the purpose of dealing with
student discipline issues is not retribution, but improved behavior, a better
school, better people. The current
hearing process just leaves everyone feeling bitter. Even if the students are found innocent, they come out
boiling. It’s destructive when
it’s public and not private.
Concerns were expressed by faculty members that we were not
following our own rules. Jerry
agreed with that statement and said he would like to see our rules changed to
become more humane and more expedient. He
reiterated that he did not want to eliminate the hearing process, but wanted the
possibility of having one hearing officer hold a conference with a student, mete
out an appropriate punishment, and then allow for an appeal to a hearing if the
student believes the punishment is not appropriate or insists upon his or her
innocence.
Jerry stated that since the faculty already don’t follow
our own rules, as laid out in the handbook, for Level 1’s and 2’s, then this
was not new for NCSSM.
There was further discussion, with some faculty expressing unhappiness with this idea. Jerry said he would like to present to the Board of Trustees a revised disciplinary action procedure for their consideration during their December meeting, possibly to be approved during their meeting in March.
The Faculty Council Meeting adjourned at 5:09PM.