Faculty Council Meeting

Minutes for Meeting on September 11, 2006

11:45 AM, Woolworth Room

President:  Dan Teague              Vice President:  John Woodmansee        Secretary:  Tamar Castelloe

Dan Teague opened the meeting by presenting a list of issues Faculty Council may consider addressing this year and opened the floor to discussion about which topics faculty were most interested in addressing in our meetings this year.  The list included topics discussed last year as well as those that several faculty indicated they were interested in addressing.  Dan summarized each of the topics:

Items from last year:

One-year contracts:  Dan presented an excerpt from the Faculty Council meeting on June 12, 2006. 

Minutes from Faculty Council meeting on June 12, 2006

"Jerry will be meeting with the BOT Executive Committee in July and stated that he will discuss the Regulations on Faculty Employment with them to get clarification on what they would like the document to state with regard to the new faculty contract progression."

He added that the faculty requests that Jerry discuss this issue at one of the upcoming faculty meetings.

Shared Governance:  Dan clarified that Shared Governance means that the faculty and administration would share in some of the decision-making that affects our institution.  He stated that the Faculty Council officers met with the officers of the UNC Faculty Assembly shortly before school started this Fall to open up communication lines and learn more about the issues involved in Shared Governance.  Dan commented that the Faculty Council may want to explore such questions as what Shared Governance would mean to us and what our responsibilities would be.  Dan presented an excerpt from the Faculty Council meeting on May 18, 2006, to remind the faculty of a vote and some of our discussion last year on the subject.

Minutes from Faculty Council meeting on May 18, 2006

“The following motion was made: 

Endorse the Standards of Shared Governance and accept the responsibilities inherent in them.

The motion was seconded, and the voting (administered by secret paper ballots) results were as follows:

                                             Yes:  34                          No:  1              Abstain:  0

A suggestion was made that after a vote on this issue, an ad-hoc committee could be formed to consider what adopting the Standards would mean for us (look closely at our regulations as well as the BOG regulations) and report back to us at the beginning of the next school year.” 

A committee has not yet been formed. 

A link to the Standards of Shared Governance document is available on the Faculty Council website at:  Standards of Shared Governance

New items:

Graduation Requirements:  As Dan wrote, “when the new graduation requirements were promulgated, it was decided that no alternations would be considered for three years.”  Dan stated that the Faculty Council could reevaluate the report written by an ad-hoc Faculty Council committee and presented to the faculty in 2005.  We could determine whether we want to make any revisions or changes to the recommendations made.  The report is available on the Faculty Council website at:                 Report on Graduation Requirements

It was stated that the administration’s review of the report was postponed at the time until the 3-year review period of the trimester system was complete.  Dan pointed out that this is the third year of that period, so we may consider reevaluating the report this year in order to recommend appropriate changes to the administration.

Admissions:  Dan announced that, after the recommendation from the faculty last year, Admissions has moved the review of applicants’ folders to the first three days of Mini-term in order to accommodate faculty’s schedules better and give more of them the opportunity to serve on the admissions committee.  It was stated that one of the issues we could explore is whether, through the current process, we believe the students admitted are the students we really want.

Hiring Process:  Dan proposed that we could look into setting up a formal hiring process that could be used across all disciplines and talked about whether we feel it is an issue for the Faculty Welfare committee or the Faculty Council at large to investigate.

Academic Program:  Dan posed the following questions:  “Does the faculty want to do its own evaluation of our academic program?  Are the questions being asked and the information being gathered by the school’s evaluation team sufficient?  Are they targeted at the issues we view as most important?”

Equity Issues in Faculty Workload:  Dan presented the following ideas:  “A reduction in faculty workload was one goal of our schedule revision.  Has it worked?  Are the inequities in faculty workload increasing or decreasing?  What can be done to even out the workload at NCSSM among faculty in the same discipline and among faculties in different disciplines?  Is participation in Faculty Council a part of our workload?”

Appropriate Role of AP Courses:  Dan presented the following ideas:  “When NCSSM first started, AP courses played an important, but small role in the overall program.  A Faculty Council statement on the issue was,

‘We must be a force for change.  If AP courses dominated our curriculum and our philosophy, it would become considerably more difficult to take innovative approaches, to teach new materials or to question outdated curriculum…. Governor Hunt stated in founding the school that it should “lead the way toward improvements in science and mathematics instruction throughout our public education system.”  It would be inconsistent with the mission of the school to adopt a standard curriculum developed externally.  It is important, rather, for us to develop curriculum and try to influence testing agencies to modify their instruments so that they reflect what is most important and effective in education.’

Is the present role AP courses play in our curriculum and in evaluating our progress appropriate for our charge as change agents for NC schools?  How is the two-week AP testing schedule working for us?  Are students taking ‘practice exams’ conflicting with the rest of the academic program?  Do we need to regulate our preparation in some way?”

Academic Honesty:  Dan posed the following questions:  “What is the present state of academic honesty on campus?  What can faculty do, working with administration, staff, and students, to improve the level of academic honesty on campus?”

Jerry Boarman is planning a Task Force on this issue for this school year, so it was said that we can decide whether we want to have our own separate discussion from this Task Force.

Faculty Discussion:

With regard to the graduation requirements issue, some faculty stated that they would like clarification from Jerry or the BOT as to what “no alterations would be made for three years” means; i.e. when any changes could be instituted.

A faculty member suggested that all similar issues on the list could be looked at by a committee of the Faculty Council to narrow the discussion for the group at large.  A number of faculty expressed that a number of the items are related, and discussions on the issues would naturally include discussion of some others.  A faculty member suggested that the Faculty Council focus on just three items for this year.  She recommended that the Academic Honesty, Equity Issues and AP items be cut from the list for this year. 

A faculty member asked whether we want to continue pursuing Shared Governance if the administration does not endorse it.  Dan expressed that our role in Faculty Council is to try to articulate what we are interested in and give recommendations and arguments as to our reasoning.  There was discussion about the level at which the administration is interested in adopting the Standards of Shared Governance.  Dan encouraged us to try to define as a group what the faculty means by Shared Governance and communicate that to Jerry. 

A faculty member suggested that we wait on addressing the 1-year contract issue until we hear Jerry’s report from his correspondence with the BOT on the issue.  She also felt that the Admissions issue needs to be dealt with quite soon since it is a timely issue.  Another faculty member felt that the Faculty Council needs to first identify the problems for each issue and then make our decisions as to what to discuss this year.  Another suggested that we form an ad hoc committee to do that work and report back to the Faculty Council.

A few final comments were made by faculty members before Dan concluded the meeting.  One faculty member believes that it is important that the Academic Honesty Task Force being formed by Jerry meet with the Faculty Council before they make any decisions.  Another faculty member proposed that an ad hoc committee be formed to fully investigate the Standards of Shared Governance and what they mean to us.

Dan announced that he would send the faculty an e-mail asking for volunteers willing to serve on an ad hoc group to investigate the Admissions issue, make a proposal to the Faculty Council, and pass their recommendations on to the administration.  He added that a group will also be formed to look at the existing report on graduation requirements from the Faculty Council ad hoc committee in 2005 and determine whether they propose any changes.

The meeting adjourned at 12:40 P.M.