The Faculty Senate of North Georgia College and State University met Thursday, March 16, 2000 in Room 019 of the Newton Oakes Center. The meeting was called to order by CEO Gessell at 12:31PM with the following senators present: Anthony, Barnett, Batchelder, Corotto, Democko, Gordon, Herbert, Kokkala, Link, Patten, Roberts-Betsch, Sisk, Smith, Spraker, Stahl, Szuminski, Temples, Tennis, Thurman, Weinberg, Wiedmann, Woods, and Yonts. Others present were VPAA Buckhiester, Ms. Peggy Inman (Staff Council Representative), Dr. Rufus Larkin, Dr. John Nardo, Dr. Kent Poff, Dr. Steve Ross, and Registrar Martha Tompkins. Absent were Senators Biddy, Carroll-Cobb, Margeson, and Senator Skelly was excused.

Minutes of the February 10, 2000, Meeting

The minutes for the February 10, 2000, meeting of the Faculty Senate were submitted for approval with the following clarification:

Under "New Business," Senator Roberts-Betsch wished to clarify that the question raised as to whether or not the official meeting time should be changed had been prompted by the difficulties the current meeting time creates for students who have off-campus practica.

There being no other clarifications, corrections, or additions, a motion was made by Senator Woods to approve the minutes as clarified. Senator Stahl seconded the motion. The motion carried.

President’s Report

The President’s Report was presented by VPAA Buckhiester. VPAA Buckhiester explained that President Hansford was attending the presidential inauguration ceremony at Reinhart College and, thus, was unable to attend the senate meeting.

VPAA Buckhiester delivered to the Senators copies of a BOR memorandum sent to the State University System Presidents. The memorandum, in part, announces the awarding of the contract for a statewide Preferred Provider Organization (PPO) to Medical Resource Network (MRN)/Georgia First. The memo goes on to state that members of the Central Office are continuing to work out "final plan design features, premium amounts, technology infrastructure issues, and employee information pieces." Two open enrollment periods are scheduled: April, 2000, with an effectiveness date of August 1, 2000, and November, 2000, with an effectiveness date of January 1, 2001. Included with the memo was a one-page fact sheet outlining and comparing various features of both the (current) Indemnity Plan and the proposed PPO.

VPAA Buckhiester then fielded a number of questions from the Senate. In response to an inquiry concerning which physicians will participate, VPAA Buckhiester explained that specific information on that point was not yet available. He suggested, however, that, given the number of potential patients under the PPO (all State of Georgia employees), he didn’t think this issue would be a problem. He pointed out that 30% of the population would be eligible for coverage under this plan. That constitutes a considerable patient pool, which is likely to attract participation on the part of many, if not most, physicians.

Senator Stahl pointed out that the first open enrollment period is coming up very soon. She inquired as to when employees might be able to expect full information regarding the proposed PPO plan. VPAA Buckhiester explained that he did not have a definite date regarding when all details of the plan would be finalized and available. He went on to inform the Senate that Ron Graham, Director of Human Resources was, himself, rather disappointed at the lack of hard information available at the last meeting he attended.

In response to a question concerning how pre-existing conditions would be handled under the new plan, VPAA Buckhiester explained that the answer to that was not yet known. Senator Woods then pointed out that, since the university is already withholding extra funds from the paychecks of nine month employees to cover the premium costs of the current plan over the summer months, he hoped that the current Blue Cross-Blue Shield plan would continue to cover such employees through the summer. VPAA Buckhiester explained that he was not certain how this issue was being handled, but it would be looked into.

VPAA Buckhiester remarked on a recent article in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. The article reported that NGCSU has been selected as the proposed site of a new GBI Crime Lab, which would serve twenty counties in north Georgia. VPAA Buckhiester explained that the article stated facts not yet determined. He went on to point out that, should the laboratory be located at NGCSU, it would offer potential benefits for both students and faculty members. It would also provide very good public exposure for the university. He cautioned that details remain unknown, although he is optimistic that NGCSU will eventually be chosen as the location.

VPAA Buckhiester next announced a change of name regarding the Division of Learning Support Services. The current name was chosen several years ago during reorganization. Shortly after the name was selected, the University System of Georgia replaced the name "Developmental Studies" with the name "Learning Support Services," thus creating confusion for some NGCSU students and their parents. The new name of the division is "Division of Academic Support Programs."

Regarding the position searches taking place, VPAA Buckhiester reported that the search for the position of Associate VPAA is "well underway," as are the searches for Dean of the School of Business and Government and the search for Director of Public Services. In addition, two other searches have recently gotten underway. These are the searches for Director of Academic Support Programs and Director of Admissions. VPAA Buckhiester also pointed out that a number of departmental searches are ongoing. These include searches for Departmental Chairpersons for the Department of Biology, Department of Teacher Education, Department of Fine Arts, and the Department of Health and Physical Education. The position of Departmental Chairperson for the Department of Language and Literature has been filled. Finally, VPAA Buckhiester stated that the search and screening committee for a new Vice President for Institutional Advancement had conducted several on-campus interviews and would soon be formulating its recommendations to President Hansford.

VPAA Buckhiester called attention to a recent e-mail sent out to all faculty and staff concerning the recent visit by the nursing accreditation body. He explained that the visit went very well. In fact, members of the accreditation group commented that they finished earlier than expected in the evening because the Department of Nursing faculty had prepared so well in advance of their arrival. The visiting committee is recommending reaccredidation of the B.S.N. program for eight years and initial accreditation of the M.S.N. program for five years. In both cases, the maximum number of years is being recommended.

In closing, VPAA Buckhiester urged all faculty members who have not already done so to take a look at the new graduate bulletin and complimented all those who worked on its production. As a final note, he asked if there were any further questions or comments. Senator Tennis took the opportunity to inform the Senate that the Lady Saints had won their first tournament game the previous evening.

CEO’s Report

CEO Gessell welcomed all non-Senators attending the meeting. She then explained that, previously, VPAA Buckhiester had requested that she appoint a representative for an upcoming Public Safety visit. CEO Gessell appointed Senator Yonts.

CEO Gessell announced that the first two items listed on the agenda under New Business were being postponed. Then, she explained that she had met with Dean Tom Fox, Chair, Ad Hoc Faculty Evaluation Committee, regarding recommendations related to faculty evaluation and the role of teaching at NGCSU. The following recommendations were forwarded to President Hansford, VPAA Buckhiester, and Acting Associate VPAA Roberts-Betsch:

1. That during the orientation of new faculty each fall, the VPAA's office emphasizes the teaching mission of NGCSU.
2. That each fall the VPAA's office conducts an orientation for all faculty entering the pre-tenure, tenure, promotion, and post-tenure process(es) that year; the orientation would lay out expectations and procedures and would provide opportunity for questions.
3. That the VPAA's office provides training -- either a workshop or a retreat -- for the Deans and Department Heads, during which Deans and Department Heads would collectively and collaboratively develop expectations for teacher scholars.
4. That the VPAA's office insists that Deans and Department Heads actively encourage faculty to become teacher scholars.
5. That each spring the VPAA's office publicizes a list of faculty receiving tenure and/or promotion.
6. That the VPAA's office formalizes the process by which each member of the Ad Hoc Faculty Evaluation Committee--composed of a representative from each department--provides pertinent information to the department represented.

New Business

Dr. Toni Barnett, Chair, Graduate Ad-Hoc Committee reported on the committee's recommendations regarding criteria for Graduate Faculty standing, Bylaws changes related to the makeup of the Graduate Council, and recommendations for future study. Concerning the criteria for Graduate Faculty standing, the following criteria were recommended by the committee:

Dr. Friedman raised a question regarding to whom these recommendations are to be made. CEO Gessell responded that the recommendations would be forwarded to whomever the Senate designates. Dr. Barnett then moved that the Senate approve the recommendations of the Ad Hoc Graduate Committee and forward them to the new Graduate Council. Senator Weinberg moved that the recommendations be amended as follows:

Senator Corotto then asked for clarification of the meaning of "in their field." He pointed out that this wording leaves out the scholarship of teaching. Senator Kokkala responded by saying, "we don't teach them that." Dr. Poff suggested that, by referring to "courses they teach," the subject of the scholarship of teaching was, in fact, included. Senator Tennis asked for clarification of the meaning of "the scholarship of teaching." Senator Smith suggested that these questions and clarifications be left to the Graduate Council. Senator Kokkala pointed out that being a "scholar of teaching" does not necessarily make a person a scholar in an academic field. Dr. Larkin asked the Senate to please consider the importance of a faculty member’s specific knowledge base matching the content of the courses they teach. He gave, as an example, the significant differences in knowledge base between clinical courses in psychology and courses in non-clinical psychology.

The vote on Senator Weinberg’s amendment was called. The amendment passed.

The vote was then called on the amended recommendations as a whole. Senator Patten moved that the criteria be amended by replacing "models" with "examples." Senator Corotto seconded the motion. Senator Corotto pointed out that "models" sounds good but is very general and could be misused. Dr. Nardo responded by saying that what we do as faculty can be as important as what we teach. Senator Patten suggested that "models" is too "nebulous" and could, ultimately, boil down to a judgment by a departmental chair.

The vote on Senator Patten’s amendment was called; the amendment failed.

CEO Gessell inquired how "superior" was to be defined. Is it going to be defined and/or measured in terms of specific acts, minimums and maximums, or some other standard? Senator Woods responded that the determination/definition is tied to the review process. Dr. Barnett explained that there would be no specific packet of information required for the process of establishing Graduate Faculty standing. The information used to determine whether such standing was to be granted or not would be the same documentation used for tenure, promotion, etc. CEO Gessell then asked if, once granted temporary authorization, a faculty member could keep such status without review. Dr. Friedman explained that such a decision by a departmental chair always goes up the chain and, thus, is regularly reviewed. Dr. Barnett explained that "Temporary Authorization" was included in the recommendations to allow non-tenured faculty members to teach, when necessary, certain, specific courses. Senator Woods raised a question concerning what would happen in the case where there was no departmental committee. In such cases, he pointed out, a school committee may not be fit to judge the individual’s credentials. Dr. Kokkala asked if the recommendations before the Senate ought also to include the review process. Dr. Barnett explained that the review process and committee are the same as those for tenure, promotion, etc. Dr. Friedman further explained that the Graduate Ad Hoc Committee wished to avoid the creation of new, additional committees and processes. VPAA Buckhiester asked if non-tenured faculty could be granted Graduate Faculty standing under the recommendations. Dr. Barnett explained that such faculty could be granted Temporary Authorization under the recommendations. Senator Sisk inquired if "temporary" could be replaced by "provisional?" Dr. Nardo pointed out that "provisional" might make it sound like the status could change. The vote on the amended and corrected recommendations was called.

The amended and corrected recommendations were approved.

Dr. Barnett then presented, for the Senate’s approval, a proposed change in the Bylaws regarding the makeup of the Graduate Council. The proposal read as follows (changes appear in bold type):

Purpose: The purpose of the Graduate Council shall be to guide the

Direction of graduate studies under the supervision of the

President of the University and the Vice President for

Academic Affairs.

Composition: The Graduate Council shall be composed of the

Coordinator of Graduate Studies and one graduate

faculty member from each of the following programs:

Education Specialist, Master of Education (from the

Department of Teacher Education), Master of Public

Administration, Master of Science in Community

Counseling, Master of Science in Nursing, and

Master of Science in Physical Therapy. Graduate

faculty from the departments that do not house

the degrees above shall collectively elect one

representative. The Coordinator of Graduate

Studies will conduct this election. The graduate

program with the largest number of students, as

measured by the full-time equivalency standard,

shall have one additional graduate faculty

representative. The Senate Committee on

Committees shall appoint one Senator who is a

graduate faculty member. The Graduate Student

Senate shall select one graduate student repre-

sentative. A department that is petitioning for a

new graduate degree program may select a graduate

faculty member to serve on the Graduate Council in

a non-voting capacity. The Chair of the Graduate

Council shall be the Coordinator of Graduate Studies.

The Vice President for Academic Affairs shall serve in

a non-voting capacity.

Duties: The Graduate Council shall be responsible for establishing

academic policies for the graduate program. The Graduate

Council shall review and approve new program proposals

as well as proposed revisions in the existing programs. After

approval by the Graduate Council, new proposals will be

forwarded to the Academic Activities Committee for final

approval. The Graduate Council shall institute criteria

for Graduate Faculty status and a process for selection

of Graduate Faculty.

Dr. Barnett pointed out that the changes would result in a Graduate Council of 12 members. Senator Corotto asked what the current membership number was. Dr. Barnett explained that the current by-laws establish a Graduate Council with 27 members. Senator Sisk reminded the Senate that graduate programs at NGCSU have grown from one program to six. She further suggested that this increase in graduate programs should also indicate a change in duties on the part of the Graduate Council. Dr. Barnett explained that the Graduate Ad Hoc Committee took their charge from the Senate very seriously and sought not to overstep the bounds of the initial Senate charge. Senator Sisk argued further that the duties of the Council should also dictate the membership of the Council. Dr. Barnett then pointed out that the recommendations presented by the committee and already approved by the Senate included items for further study—namely—"the relationship between the Graduate Council and Academic Activities in the governance structure" as well as "the overlap of faculty utilization" due to "the increase number and enrollment of graduate programs."

CEO Gessell thanked Dr. Barnett and the Graduate Ad Hoc Committee members for all their work. She also pointed out that the bylaws proposal was being presented for the first time and, therefore, would not be subject to a vote until the next meeting of the Senate.

As the next order of business, Acting Associate VPAA Roberts-Betsch presented a change regarding Academic Irregularities proposed by the Academic Integrity Council. The change involved the addition of a sixth Section under Article 1. The additional, new Section 6 read as follows:

"Section 6. No student shall sign class rolls for another student."

Roberts-Betsch asked the Senate’s approval to accept the additional. The approval to accept passed.

Dr. John Nardo then presented three proposals regarding changes in the by-laws. The first proposal involved the process of selection of the Senate Parliamentarian. The proposal was offered to bring the process in line with other, current selection processes. The proposal read as follows (changes are in bold type):

Change Article IV, Section 1, Subsection e:

The Committee on Committees shall recommend to the Faculty Senate

one faculty member to serve as Parliamentarian. The Parliamentarian

settles questions regarding parliamentary procedures, according to Robert’s

Rules of Order: Newly Revised.

Amend the Purpose of the Committee on Committees, (Article VII, Section 1):

Purpose: The purpose of the Committee on Committees shall be to

recommend to the Faculty Senate the appointment of faculty members

to all standing committees and to the offices of Parliamentarian and

Secretary to the Faculty.

Add to the Committee on Committees’ Duties:

In addition, the Committee on Committees shall nominate for

Senate approval a Parliamentarian and a Secretary to the

Faculty.

The second proposal concerned a correction of title in the by-laws to reflect a correction of title in fact. The proposal read as follows:

Change the title "Division of Learning Support Services" to "Division of Academic

Support Programs" throughout the Bylaws.

The third proposal dealt with the suspension of the Bylaws and called for the creation of a new, additional Article. The proposal was designed to solve the problem faced at the last general faculty meeting. The proposal read as follows:

Create a new article:

Article X

Suspension of the Bylaws

One or more of the provisions in Article IX may be suspended

at a general faculty meeting by a two thirds majority vote of

members present. Any such suspension of these provisions is

limited to matters of old business or current business pending

under Article IX.

Dr. Nardo thanked Senator Link for his assistance with the proposals.

As the next order of business, Senator Kokkala presented a proposed change in the Bylaws to reflect changes in titles. The proposal read as follows (changes in bold type):

INSTRUCTIONAL TECHNOLOGY COMMITTEE

Purpose: The purpose of the Instructional Technology Committee shall be to review and formulate recommendations related to Instructional Technology issues for the University.

Composition: The committee shall be composed of one regular faculty member from each school of the University (appointed by the Deans of the schools), one regular faculty member from the Division of Academic Support Programs (appointed by the Director of the Division of Academic Support Programs), one library representative (appointed by the Director of the Library), one support staff member from Instructional Technology (appointed by the Chief Information Officer), one undergraduate student representative and one graduate student representative (appointed by the Vice President of Student Affairs). One of the above committee members shall be a senator. Each member of this committee should have demonstrated interest in instructional technology issues. The outgoing chair of this committee shall attend the first meeting of the new committee for the purpose of briefing the committee on previous results.

Duties: The committee shall revisit annually the instructional technology needs of the University and make specific recommendations for their maintenance and enhancement. The committee shall review standing policies and procedures regarding the use of instructional technology for learning and recommend changes to the Senate as needed. Furthermore, the committee shall maintain and publicize an updated list of funding sources available to the faculty and the University to support instructional technology.

CEO Gessell reminded the Senators that all of the foregoing proposals to change the Bylaws would be voted on at the next meeting of the Senate on April 27, 2000.

Senator Batchelder then reported on the results of the survey conducted by the Commencement Ad Hoc Committee at the Spring general faculty meeting. Out of 190 full-time faculty eligible to respond, 132 completed the survey (a response rate of 69.47%). The survey results were as follows:

1. Do you believe the issuing of Blank Diplomas would diminish the prestige of the institution?


22% Yes 77% No

2. Which one of the following commencement plans do you endorse?

Registrar Tompkins inquired whether parents and/or alumni had been polled. Senator Sisk suggested that the Senate be very careful about bringing such a question to parents and/or alumni. Staff Council Representative Inman inquired about the surveying of the faculty on the issue. She suggested that the question of blank or actual diplomas has little or no impact of faculty members. Senator Wiedmann responded that the question does, in fact, have great impact on the faculty. Since the current practice is to issue actual diplomas, the Registrar’s Office requires a significant amount of time between the end of final exams and commencement in order to verify that all graduates have met all requirements. This, in turn, requires faculty to submit final grades as soon as final exams are completed. For example, this semester, final examinations run through Tuesday, May 9^th. Final grades, however, are due no later than 8:00 AM on Wednesday, May 10^th. This means, for some faculty members, less than 13 hours in which to grade exams and compute final grades. Senator Wiedmann went on to point out that, although the Administration will allow faculty members to submit final grades late in such cases, what is actually allowed is the submission of "change of grade" reports. Such reports must be completed, by hand, for each student and, in addition, must be signed by the Department Chair. The process does not solve the problem for the faculty member but merely exacerbates it. Senator Woods suggested that this problem should be a moot point if computerized academic audits are conducted. Registrar Tompkins requested, because of the short time remaining, that the discussion be continued to the next meeting of the Senate. CEO Gessell suggested that, since no formal proposal was being brought forward by the committee, it might be best to discuss the issue in a full and open forum. Senator Batchelder then inquired to whom such a formal recommendation should go. CEO Gessell suggested that the appropriate recipient would be the President of the University. Senator Weinberg suggested that an open forum might be a good idea but only after the issue was thoroughly discussed in the Senate. Senator Tennis advised that the question not go to parents or alumni without serious thought first. It was generally agreed that the issue required further discussion.

Announcements

Senator Smith reminded the members of the Senate of the upcoming presentation by Dr. Ray Baumeister as part of the Hoag Lecture Series.

CEO Gessell adjourned the Senate at 1:50 PM.

Respectfully submitted,
 
 
 
 
 
 

Sally Wiedmann, Secretary

NGCSU Faculty Senate