APPALACHIAN STATE UNIVERSITY
FACULTY SENATE MINUTES
January 12, 2004 (approved)
At 3:20 p.m. on January 12, 2004, Chair Gates convened the Faculty Senate meeting
in the University Conference Room (224 I. G. Greer Hall).
I. ANNOUNCEMENTS
A. Chair Gates welcomed visitors and asked that they introduce themselves.
(See voting sheet for visitors’ names.)
Gates noted that several senators planned to attend the Faculty Senate meeting
but the meeting coincided with the first day of classes. Regrettably, those
senators who could not make it to the meeting found themselves, obliged to mend
hectic first-of-the-semester classroom-related problems and to help students.
Gates also noted that Dr. Peacock could not attend the meeting because he was
at a fundraising meeting but Dr. Burwell would sit in on his behalf. Gates also
announced and asked senators to let him know if they would like to attend the
Chancellor Advisory Committee meetings scheduled for February 2, 2004 and April
5, 2004 at 3:00 p.m. Senators who volunteered to attend either one or both of
the CAC meetings included: Moore, Weitz, Simon, Hall, McGarry, Lambert, Muir,
Marking, McCaughey. There were no visitor announcements.
II. MINUTES – December 8, 2003
Gates noted that the minutes included hard copy attachments from Dr. Peacock’s
report at the December meeting. Senator Anderson and Senator Koch asked for
clarification on under heading V. concerning a discussion about DPC reform.
Senator Anderson said the wording should be changed to read: “The joint
committee is committed to the issue of DPC reform, but it was pretty clear that
the COC only reluctantly entered into this joint committee to study the issue.”
Senator Moore suggested striking the word “unproductive” from the
third sentence. Senator Anderson responded, “The joint committee met one
time and that the COC did not like the Senate’s proposal and that they
(COC) voted against it and did not want to address it again and only reluctantly
agreed to a joint COC/Senate Committee.” A brief discussion transpired
about the COC’s voting process and procedural issues. Senator Anderson
pointed out that there is no official voting record at the COC (unlike the Faculty
Senate which records its votes). Senator Simon had concerns about the most recent
resolution passed by the Senate regarding DPC reform. She said that not sticking
to procedure, miscommunications, lack of rationale, and hasty discussions about
the DPC proposal, made convincing the COC to approve the Senate’s DPC resolution
futile.
Senator Anderson disagreed with the notion “that there was nothing that
preceded this motion that reflects the sentiment of the Senate and I would even
say a larger number of faculty.” She noted that DPC reform had been raised
often over the past 10 years, “So there’s plenty of context…more
than enough context” and preparation. Anderson said that her belief was
that the COC did not want to hear this anymore. “They’ve heard it
in the past. It has been presented with motions about DPC reform, in the past
plenty of times.” Most COC members had been members of COC for several
years and knew that DPC reform had been on the table repeatedly.
Senator Hall noted that in section V.A.2. under Rationale the word “amount”
needed to read “amounts.”
Senator Koch moved and Senator Hall seconded to approve December 8, 2003 minutes
as amended.
VOTE 1. Motion approve the December 8, 2003 Minutes (as amended).
17 YES 0 NO 2 ABSTAIN
The motion passed.
III. MOTIONS/RESOLUTIONS STATUS – Gates noted the motions and resolutions
were up-to-date and available online.
IV. PROVOST’S BUDGET AND RESOLUTION STATUS REPORTS
Associate Vice-Chancellor Tim Burwell noted that so far there is no request
for further reversions of money to the state. He said that the provost’s
office was being conservative with this year’s budget as it awaits developments.
Senator Waring asked Burwell about the status of funding new teaching positions.
Burwell replied that there was hope for an increase in enrollment funding.
Chair Gates brought Senate up-to-date about the chancellor search process and
on-campus meetings with candidates.
V. DISCUSSION OF GOVERNANCE ISSUES & DISCUSSION OF
SENATE ELECTIONS
Chair Gates raised concerns about the willingness of faculty to serve on university
committees and even the Senate. He noted that in faculty elections “have
a small number of votes cast. We often have, unopposed candidates. We have people
elected by a few write-in votes. Of course, worst of all, we have Senate positions
filled by Chair appointment, which flies directly in the face of a democratic
process. It has to be done but such appointments are certainly a last resort.
What can we do to make the system work better?”
Senator Waring thought that changing representation on the Senate to department
representation instead of college representation would get more involved and
at least the views of departments would be represented.
Senator Yaukey expressed concern at the lack of information about candidates,
since there is no longer a biography or statement of position included with
candidates names for faculty consideration. She also warned that department
representation might result in chairs appointing a Senator, which would unnecessarily
politicize the process.
Senator Rardin expressed concern that departmental representation might only
increase departmental influence at the expense of faculty influence. He said
that faculty often have different concerns than departments and that Senate
must represent faculty as a group. Rardin suggested making service on Senate
more rewarding by putting on the annual report a line saying, “Did you
serve on the Faculty Senate.” Several other senators supported this idea.
Senator Weitz noted that the ad-hoc Committee on Faculty Governance had motions
ready for presentation at the next Faculty Senate meeting dealing with improving
faculty communication and addressing issues of faculty governance.
Senator Lambert noted that it seemed difficult for faculty to get information
about serving on the Senate, and that some faculty discouraged service for what
they thought were more important professional uses of time.
Senator Yaukey noted that service was another part of our workload problem.
Senator McKinney agreed that workload was involved, and since it appeared that
little that Senate proposed was ever acted on by administration, the frustration
of serving on Senate to no avail was a major problem.
Senator Weitz said that since Faculty Senate is a recommending body that can
neither make policy nor set procedure that it holds little or no power. She
also reminded senators that most committees and councils on campus are merely
recommending bodies and cannot make policy.
Senator Moore said that administration had a responsibility to work with Senate
as the representative body of the faculty and that appointing faculty members
to committees without working first with the Senate diminished the value of
the Senate. Thus, he concluded that Senate and administration should find ways
in which to work more cooperatively.
Senator Waring said he thought faculty would serve on Senate if they were convinced
that it was not just a waste of time.
Senator Staub suggested that the important issues should be put to a faculty
referendum. Senators Hall and Simon agreed.
Chair Gates expressed reservations about polling faculty via e-mail, since past
attempts to do this have not brought much response. He noted that faculty elections
via electronic balloting two years ago was a disaster. He thought faculty think
e-mail volume is excessive and they just use their delete key too quickly.
Senator Arnold encouraged greater faculty outreach by the Senate.
VI. BUDGET COMMITTEE – Report
Senator Anderson reported on a meeting she and Senator Staub had in December
with Provost Peacock and vice-chancellor Burwell where they argued that the
first priority is funding faculty positions that have come to the university
as a result of enrollment increases. She noted that Provost Peacock had agreed
this was a priority. A second issue raised was for budgeting to involve faculty
input on the front end and to be continuing throughout the year. She said that
Provost Peacock is supportive of the budget committee filling that role for
the time being – especially with the Chancellor and Provost’s positions
presently being interim appointments. A third issue was to have some sort of
faculty committee in place to advise on the use of tuition raises to fund faculty
and other salaries and student costs. She noted that Provost Peacock seemed
supportive of that as well and suggested it might well be the Budget Committee’s
responsibility.
Due to a lack of quorum, the meeting ended at 5:49 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Michael Moore, Secretary
APPALACHIAN STATE UNIVERSITY - FACULTY PRESENT AND VOTING SHEET
January 12, 2004
Voting Symbols: Y = yes N = no A = abstain
Name of Senator 1
ANDERSON, STELLA Y
ARNOLD, EDWIN Y
BUSH, ROBERT - excused
CRAMER, BETH - excused
DEL PLIEGO, BENITO -excused
GATES, PAUL Y
HALL, KIM Y
JAMISON, TOM - excused
KEASLER, TERRY Y
KOCH, ANDREW Y
LAMBERT, MONICA Y
MARKING, MARTHA Y
McCAUGHEY, MARTHA Y
McGARRY, RICK Y
McKINNEY, HAROLD Y
MOORE, MICHAEL Y
MUIR, KEN Y
OLSON, GEORGE - excused
RARDIN, PATRICK A
SIMON, KATHLEEN Y
STAUB, SUSAN Y
TRUETT, CAROL - excused
WARING, DOUG Y
WEISS, AMY -excused
WEITZ, GAYLE A
YAUKEY, MARGARET Y
Open seat
VOTE 1: Motion approve the December 8, 2003 Minutes (as amended)
VISITORS: Dr. Tim Burwell, Interim Associate Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs;
Dr. Bill Ward, Senior Associate Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs; Dr. Harry
Williams, Associate Vice Chancellor for Diversity