Faculty Council Meeting
Minutes for Meeting on November 21, 2005
11:00 AM, Woolworth Room
President: Noreen Naiman Vice President: Julie Graves Secretary: Tamar Castelloe
Attendance:
42 total faculty members, including Faculty Council officers
Jerry Boarman
Steve Warshaw
Tom Clayton
1. Approval of minutes from meeting on October 14, 2005
President Noreen Naiman called for approval of the minutes from the Faculty Council (FC) meeting on October 14, 2005. Jon Miller made a motion to approve, and the motion was seconded. At that time, there were 37 faculty members in attendance, which constitutes a quorum, and the minutes were ultimately approved.
2. Academic Technology-Richard Alston
Richard Alston came to speak about the new Academic Technology Committee (ATC) and its role with respect to the classroom. He referred to the fact that students’ schedules are now available to view by faculty on Uni-Center.
Richard explained that he feels faculty should be involved in making decisions and providing input on the following topics:
· What a student’s schedule should display on Uni-Center
· Electronic attendance and how it should be done
· Software procurement procedures
· Printing procedures
· Classroom support/media
Richard feels that these procedures need to be set and finalized, and the ATC needs to help with this.
Richard addressed the question of how a Technology Task Force differs from the ATC. He answered that a task force’s objective is to address one-time issues, whereas the ATC would work on more long-term issues and procedures.
Richard wants to appeal to the faculty to participate in the ATC, keeping the IT informed about classroom technology needs. Noreen stated that the faculty members serving on the committee this year have already been selected. He mentioned that a faculty member would serve as chair of this committee, as opposed to himself. He will be calling the first meeting before the winter holiday, and the first order of business will be to select a chair.
3. Faculty Contracts
Noreen stated that the recent news of term contracts from Jerry is good news, however it seems that one item contradicts the Faculty Regulations on Employment. She handed out copies of Section II and Section III of the most recent version of the Faculty Regulations on Employment, and she then asked Dot Doyle to talk a bit about the history of the Regulations. (Copies of the handout that Noreen passed out are available on the FC website posted under these minutes.)
Dot explained that near the Spring of 1985, when NCSSM moved from the governor’s office to being a UNC affiliate, there was a committee that met with Chuck Eilber, the school’s director at the time, to develop the Regulations. In the mid-1990’s, John Frederick had interest in revising the Regulations, changing the faculty contract progression to be 2-, 3-, 5-, and then 7-year contracts based on performance. The Welfare Committee at the time met with administrators and ultimately the Board of Trustees (BOT), and it was decided that basing the contracts on performance would be eliminated. It was also decided that the progression in terms of contracts would be 2, 3, 5, 7, and 10 years.
Noreen stated that it seems that, according to Jerry, newly hired faculty members are given 1-year contracts for 2 years, and then the contract term progression would begin.
A faculty member asked, “If someone is hired on ‘soft money,’ then isn’t that a provisional contract?” Another faculty member answered that it is.
A faculty member then asked, “Aren’t we evaluated every year anyway?” She stated that Section III.D. of the Regulations is unclear about this. She also commented that it is concerning that faculty members are being evaluated without receiving constructive feedback that would help them. In addition, this faculty member feels that some evaluators may not always be informed about new technology and educational practices in the field of the individual they evaluate. This faculty member stated that they do not see the evaluation process clearly stated in the procedures.
Another faculty member commented that she remembers being told that if Steve Warshaw, Joan Barber and Jerry Boarman agree that a faculty member would receive a 1-year contract, then this supersedes any regulation that has been spelled out.
Noreen feels that the way Section III.A. of the Regulations is used is different from what was intended and that it is being taken out of context.
A faculty member commented that the Regulations state that if a faculty member is hired by the state, they would have an initial appointment of 2 years, unless they were hired on “soft money.” [Secretary’s editorial comment: After a review of the Regulations, it is necessary to note that while this has been the practice in recent years, it is not what the Regulations state.]
Steve Warshaw explained that the way the policy was implemented in the past (before we went to 1-year contracts) is if a faculty member is hired on hard, state money, then they would have an initial appointment of 2 years.
Noreen mentioned that if she knew that she would have been hired for 1 year, she probably wouldn’t have moved from Virginia to take the position. She is concerned that NCSSM will not have the opportunity to hire the best faculty possible.
Steve expressed that he used to make the same argument but that NCSSM has hired strong people in the past two years on 1-year contracts who did not move for their spouses’ careers or who live in North Carolina necessarily.
Another faculty member expressed her concern that there is somewhat of a “class system” among the faculty, as those who are on 1-year contracts do not have appeal and timely notice rights, while those on permanent contracts do.
A faculty member then stated that he believes that NCSSM has always hired well, but his concern is that the school would not have the pool of applicants it would if permanent contracts were offered at hiring.
Jerry Boarman stated that it is true that the procedure used in faculty appointments has changed. Faculty members who will be completing their second year on 1-year contracts will be given a 2-year contract next year whether they were hired on soft or hard money. He added that most institutions have a 1-, 2-, or 3-year period before faculty members are considered for a permanent contract. He explained that at NCSSM, if new faculty is successful after two years (as measured by the review process), they will be given a 2-year contract. Jerry continued by saying that it is clearly stated that a new hire is considered a faculty member, however they would not have the rights mentioned earlier. He explained that every faculty member hired this past year has been clearly told that the “1-yr, 1-yr, 2-yr…” contract is the contract progression if funds are available.
A faculty member commented that the current contract issue is a concern when it comes to retention of teachers.
Noreen asked whether the issue of the contract procedure should be considered by the Faculty Welfare Committee (FWC), since the original document on procedures was created by that committee.
Lisa Nanney moved that the issue be dealt with by the FWC, and the motion was seconded. A vote was taken, and the results were as follows:
· Yes: 32
· No: 3
· Abstain: 1
The motion was passed, and it was determined that Don Houpe would call the first meeting of the FWC.
4. Number of faculty work days
Noreen stated that there are 198 faculty work days this year, including inservice days, “welcome” days, and classroom
days. She will be discussing the issue of faculty work days with Joan Barber at a later date.
5. Exam Schedule
Noreen explained that Steve Warshaw and Tom Clayton were overwhelmed with students who needed to reschedule some of their exams during finals week last trimester. She stated that the deans and Instructional Council discussed the idea of expanding the exam schedule to include 10 periods instead of the current 9. The deans were asked to get feedback from their department members regarding their feelings about forgoing the half-day of classes during exam week and to report back at the next deans meeting.
One faculty member commented that the 3-exam period day creates a lot of pressure for students. He feels that a 4-day exam period would be helpful and proposed the idea that the extra exam day could fit in the calendar if one of the staff development days could be eliminated, so as to not lose any instructional days.
Another faculty member commented that the half-day of classes that we had in the Fall trimester this year was a bit of a waste, as it was a Monday. However, she argued that if faculty loses the half-day, then the full class day that precedes the first day of exams would become the “wasted” day. She stated that this would simply shift the “less productive” day to a full day of classes.
This faculty member added that in this year’s Fall trimester, the first and last exam periods were largely less populated than the others. So, we were essentially distributing most students among 7 exam periods as opposed to 9. She expressed her concern that this past exam period was perhaps a particularly difficult one and that long-term changes may not need to be made. She believes that the issue may be that the exams need to be better distributed among the 9 periods as opposed to sacrificing something for 10.
Another faculty member proposed that exams should be administered in a common room, such as the PEC, with a common proctor. Another faculty member agreed that it may be something worth trying and added that some of her students had difficulty with evening exams. A comment was made by another faculty member that the idea is an interesting one, but he is concerned about students “drifting in and out” of the exam room, which would cause a distraction to other students. Another faculty member felt that the idea is something that should be seriously considered but that it is extremely important to her that every student exam be proctored closely, unless there is a sort of honor system in place. She likes to be able to “watch” her students take her exams. One instructor mentioned that the AP exam season will give us “practice” with administering common exams.
Noreen stated that she would be willing to look at the number of students who are taking common exams and work with Tom Clayton and Kathleen Allen on spreading the exams well among the 9 periods.
Another instructor commented that 3 exam periods a day make scheduling tutorials difficult. She proposed the idea that if there are 10 periods, one of them could be an “open” period in the middle of finals week as a kind of “reading” or “study” period, during which tutorials can also be offered.
John Kolena moved that the faculty vote on 2 items (specified below). The motion was seconded, and a vote was taken:
1. Vote “yes” if you would like to increase the number of exam periods from 9 to 10.
· Yes: 21
· No: 11
· Abstain: 7
2. Vote “yes” if you would like the final instructional day before final exams to remain a half-day of classes, where the first exams administered would begin in the evening on that day. A vote of “no” indicates that you would like to forgo the half-day of classes before final exams begin.
· Yes: 14
· No: 13
· Abstain: 9
6. Board Liaisons
Noreen explained that in the past, FC appointed individuals as liaisons to the BOT. In reading the BOT bylaws, however, she found that it states that the president of the school appoints the liaisons. She called Brock Winslow, Chairman of the BOT, to ask about the function of the liaisons. At the time of this meeting, she had not heard back. She announced that the liaisons have been chosen by Jerry Boarman as follows:
Personnel Committee: Mary Roberts
EPPC: Jim Litle
Development: Scott Laird
Noreen provided a portion of the bylaws that refers to the liaisons and the process under which they are chosen. (This portion of the bylaws is also provided on the FC website, posted under these minutes.) A comment was made that it isn’t clear what the role of the liaisons is and whether they represent the faculty or the president. In the interest of time, the issue was not discussed further.
7. Research Experience
Due to time, this issue will be scheduled to be addressed at the next FC meeting.
Noreen reminded the FC that the next meeting is scheduled for December 12th at 12:00 PM in the Woolworth Room.
The meeting adjourned at 12:15 PM.