Faculty Council Meeting of Tuesday, 17 September 2002
President: Joe Liles; Vice-president: John Woodmansee; Secretary: Floyd Bullard
Minutes
Announcements
John Morrison asked a question this morning: Do we automatically as teachers have any liability insurance as state employees? Sandy Rothschild says Yes, we each have $11 million of liability insurance: that's per individual, per occurrence. Q: If we lose, who pays the lawyer? A: I don't know, but I'll try to find out.
Agenda Item 1: Report on this past Friday's Board of Trustees Meeting
The Development committee reported to the BoT about the Odyssey campaign. Carol O'Dell: Nothing much new. We're in the "quiet phase" right now, but they're trying to identify big name and big dollars donors.
Educational Policies and Practices Committee. Mary Roberts: When governance comes up, we should speak with Robert Shelton at UNC. That committee at our school is in a "quiet phase" right now, too. But when that comes to the forefront again, they should talk to Shelton.
Human resources. Julie Graves: An action item was raised for possible future vote, changing the terms of employment of senior administrators. One aspect is changing a group of formerly SPA employees to EPA employees. Also, a change was proposed (and shortly voted in favor of by the Board) giving the BoT the power to give the Executive Director term contracts of three years or more. Joe: much discussion happens in committees. By the time it comes to the BoT, most discussion has happened. Julie: I didn't think there was much discussion even in committee, either in May or this past Friday. I think much happens before it even gets to committee. Joe: the committee members were totally open to what Julie and I had to say at that committee. We spoke more than some committee members.
A faculty member seemed somewhat alarmed and wondered whether the Board had any policy of asking the school community for input. Joe: It behooves the faculty to stay on the ball. Response: We feel disenfranchised and we shouldn't have to "stay on the ball". Part of the Board's job ought to be to inform the school of serious things they're considering and to ask for recommendations.
Joe: Very soon the Board will have a retreat and will start to consider The Future Of The School in a big way. More than one Board member has said they don't feel qualified to examine The Future Of The School without faculty input and they want it. They're going to be studying a strategic plan for the school, examining possibly our mission statement, our charter, our recruiting methodology, the possibility of becoming a three-year school, our governance, the physical plant, the residential atmosphere, our dreams. Joe expressed his belief that they do want our input.
Joe: Those were the high points of the meeting. Q: I thought they were going to write a strategic plan in December. Joe: They will take two days in December to work on this, and I'd be surprised if they can do it in that time. Jerry: They don't plan to micromanage. For example, the question of a three-year school they'll leave up to the Task Force considering the issue and the faculty. They're looking at their own role as a Board, and a broader picture.
Steve: I don't think the Board has two readings on everything they vote on. I don't think that's required in their bylaws. Jerry: It's never required, but they will try to do two readings unless it's an emergency item. One of those could be at the committee level. But this is to give people an opportunity to ask questions, respond to the item, etc. They don't want surprises.
Joe: Here's an example. They're now considering creating a position for an assistant to the Executive Director. If we want to discuss that, we can do so in Faculty Council. We can vote on it even.
Joe: Here's a little more about the multi-year contract for the Executive Director. The Board Chair has asked for Joe to serve as a conduit to gather information from the Faculty and share it with the Board before they consider actually offering a multi-year contract to Jerry. This is by way of the faculty offering our evaluation of the present Executive Director. Joe asked us to make our comments and suggestions known to him before the December Board meeting. He will ask us again by email and give us details as to exactly what the Board wants to know and how our input can be most helpful and constructive. A faculty member commented that our input ought to state whether the comment is based on personal experience, committee work, hearsay, etc. Joe concurred. Q from another: Why would we base our evaluation on anything but personal experience? Joe: We'll ask everyone to report [to Joe, and ultimately anonymously] how they came by their opinion/information.
Announcement
Dot reported that over the weekend the dedication of the Branson Brown Field occurred and was absolutely wonderful. Joe added that the whole weekend (reunions of 1982, 1987, 1992, and 1997) was splendid.
Agenda Item 2: Plagiarism Ad Hoc Committee Report.
Dot, John Woodmansee, and Anita worked with Steve and Richard Alston to write up a proposal which they'll now present. Their proposal is written below.
One faculty member disagreed with item 6, that all teachers agree to use the data base in the same way. What if one C++ teacher wants to use the software and the other doesn't? Why should one person who doesn't want to use the software keep another person from using a powerful tool?
Another faculty member expressed a concern that our first statement is a high-minded statement of an academic culture of honesty, but what we're now discussing (item 6) is legalistic and not about honesty but about narrow-minded legalities. "I'm against this sixth item. I'm opposed to dishonesty, but we all go about dealing with it in different ways, as it should be."
John Woodmansee stated that this was mainly an issue to math teachers, who have similar writing assignments due year after year and in many different classes.
Steve Warshaw said that with item 10 being about possible expulsion of students--a very serious consequence--then fairness becomes quite crucial. If a student in one class is exposed to a rigorous check for plagiarism and a student in another section of the same class is exposed to a much lighter check for plagiarism, that's not fair.
A faculty member responded that students learn a lot from us in how we handle these situations. And they can learn the truth that the risk is not the same everywhere. Sometimes you can get honesty out of kids by expecting them to be honest, and in some classes you can't. I think creating the database is one thing and expecting everyone to use it the same way is something else.
Discussion continued in which some people voiced support for the document and others voiced their dissatisfaction with item 6. One faculty member repeated his opinion that we seem to be discussing being policemen rather than raising honest students.
One faculty member issued a plea that we stop addressing how to deal with plagiarism without considering its causes. "We can't discuss what to do about this problem without discussing its causes."
Another faculty member expressed concern that item 10 sounds like it mandates expulsion. Another faculty member said that it should.
More discussion ensued.
A motion was made and seconded to accept the document as written. The person pointed out that item six allows the teachers of a course to "duke it out" among themselves. One person was clearly and vocally very unhappy with item 6, apparently fearing that his (or her) colleagues might want to randomly search papers using an electronic medium and that he (or she) would have to do the same.
It was pointed out that item 6 (creating a database) was mainly for math teachers and item 5 (using turnitin.com to search papers without necessarily having your own database) was mainly for everyone else.
A motion was made to table the vote and was seconded. The original motion was withdrawn. It was suggested that people who are unhappy with the wording email Dot, Anita, or John with suggestions for changes.
Joe announced that this item would begin the next FC meeting (and would be only 5 minutes) and then we would discuss Discovery Day.
Jerry wanted to voice his comment that evaluations of the Executive Director ought to come only from personal experience, not from hearsay.
The meeting concluded at 5:10.
Proposal by the ac hoc committee on dealing with plagiarism:
1. As faculty members of an academic institution, we recognize that academic honesty is the foundation on which learning takes place. We want students to appreciate the importance of integrity both at NCSSM and in their futures.
2. Faculty members need to make their expectations regarding academic honesty clear to their students and remind them of these expectations regularly.
3. Teachers will instruct students how to document the sources of their ideas and words by using the standards set forth in their disciplines.
4. The faculty agrees with the Ethical Awareness Group’s position that, “it is better for the school to maintain an environment where students reciprocate their teacher’s trust rather than one where students refrain from plagiarism only to avoid being caught and punished. . . .We think that this software [turnitin.com] can be a valuable resource in the effort to promote academic integrity. In cases where a teacher suspects there is a possibility of dishonesty, the software can be a valuable tool to determine guilt or innocence. However, we do not feel that the software should be used on every assignment for every class. That would erode the sense of trust between teacher and student that is ultimately the best guarantee against cheating.”
5. Faculty members should investigate all cases in which they think academic dishonesty has occurred. For plagiarism teachers should use turnitin.com and other search methods.
6. Disciplines reserve the right to create a data base of student work in turnitin.com, if all the teachers of a course agree that it is important to the learning process and if those teachers agree to use the data base in the same way. Teachers may randomly search a class section for plagiarism. If they find that there is a case of dishonesty, all papers in that class will then be searched with the data base.
7. Faculty members should report all cases of academic dishonesty to the Assistant Director of Academic Programs. Cases that have documented evidence or witnesses will be handled through the judicial process. The prosecution of all cheating--whether on homework, research papers, big and little assignments--is necessary because the hearing process keeps track of repeat offenders, something that individual faculty members might not be aware of.
8. For faculty to feel confident reporting all cases of academic dishonesty, those cases need to be handled through a consistent judicial process. Handling all cases through the same process also ensures greater equity for students.
9. How the institution handles these cases of academic honesty is at the core of our mission as educators. In keeping with this mission, we recommend that for all level 3 academic integrity violations the hearing officer will consult with a panel of experts. The panel will be comprised of 3 teachers from the department in which the violation occurs. The Assistant Director of Academic Programs and the Department Head will chose the 3 teachers. The panel will advise and make recommendations to the hearing officer before a final decision is made
10. The faculty recommends that the institution take cases of academic dishonesty very seriously and that multiple violations by the same student and aggravated cases should result in expulsion from NCSSM.