Call to Order

At 12:30 P.M., C.E.O. Jimmy Woods called the February 14, 2002 meeting of the NGCSU Faculty Senate to order.

• Members in Attendance: Dlynn Armstrong, Kaye Biddy, Jack Broman, V.P.A.A. Phil Buckhiester, Carl Cavalli, Noel Campbell, Daria Cronic, Robert Fuller, Donna Gessell, President Nathaniel Hansford, Rufus Larkin, Brian Mann, Georgia Mann, Vicki McCard, Bonnie Morris, Wayne Morris, Judy O'Neal, Harriette Richard, Ann Sumners, Ann Stucke, Carl Weinberg, C.E.O. Jimmy Woods, John Yeoman
• Members Excused:, Barry Friedman, Bill Shaw
• Members Absent: Loretta DeLargy, Susan Gannaway, Bud Reiselt, Dan Thompson, Mary Ann Westerfield
• Guests: Steve Ross

C.E.O. Jimmy Woods submitted the minutes of the January 10 meeting for approval and called for any additions or corrections. President Hansford asked to modify the enrollment figures he reported on January 10 from 3400-odd students enrolled to 3400-odd undergraduates, yielding a total enrollment figure of about 3800. Bonnie Morris moved to accept the minutes. Ann Sumners seconded, and the minutes were approved.

President's Report: Dr. Nathaniel Hansford

• President Hansford began his report with by encouraging people to come to several upcoming events.
• He then mentioned that the budget hadn't yet been proposed, but that the Governor has cut funding of special initiatives from 30 million dollars to 4 million. For NGCSU, this impacts primarily the ICAPP program, health science programs, and access for off campus students (Forsyth County). Proposals for these programs are now being reformulated.
• Hansford reported that he had called the [House] Speaker when he found out these programs had not been included in the budget, and has visited both him and the Higher Education Committee. He also saw representatives of the Appropriations Committee. He told the Senate that to be restored, this funding would need to be put back into the budget by the legislature, and that there is about a 50/50 chance of this happening.
• Noel Campbell asked for clarifications on the cuts to ICAPP, and Hansford obliged by explaining the relationship between ICAPP funding and the current 750K/250K initiative.
• Bonnie Morris asked if the health science building was on schedule. The President replied that because it's not our building, we can't keep track of the progress easily. He assured that the contractor would turn it over to us in April. Classes will be held there in the fall, and the parking lot will be completed in August.
• Carl Weinberg pointed out the petition to save the Elementary School Model Foreign Language Program that Brian Mann had distributed, and urged that we should push to restore the program's funding.
• Vicki McCard lauded the improvements in the women's locker room, and Brian Mann echoed the same for the men's.
• Hansford graciously accepted this and all future compliments, and just a graciously referred their negative counterparts to the V.P.A.A.
• The President then brought up our association with the NAIA (National Association of Intercollegiate Athletics). Pointing out that NGCSU has been well served for decades, he suggested the possibility of moving to NCAA (National Collegiate Athletic Association) division 2.
• He then gave some historical background about past discussions of the whole conference moving to the NCAA. The NAIA's viability is apparently a pressing issue. If it were to collapse, he said, NGCSU would have no conference. Since an earlier migration effort, a number of state schools have moved, such as Kennesaw State, Georgia College & State University, and others, leaving NGCSU, GSW, and Southern Poly with the NAIA. The latter school doesn't meet NCAA requirements and can't move, but GSW has applied.
• The NCAA has apparently put a moratorium on new candidates, which, says Hansford, gives us time to think. The moratorium ends this summer, and the President believes that the institution should decide if it wants to move. He reported that he had asked Steve Ross, our NAIA representative, to form a committee, look into issue, and make recommendations. He explained that if we want to migrate, the procedure involves sending a letter of candidacy, at which point the NCAA will research the possibility and decide. The transition would take 5 years, and involves verifying such things as the number of women's sports, available scholarships, and the like.
• He then mentioned that GSW has never proceeded past its provisional status as an applicant. He said that he has considered the Peachbelt conference (within NCAA) for NGCSU, an organization that has looked favorably upon us. He then asked Steve Ross to make his committee's report.
• Steve Ross, with the aid of a transparency, explained that within the NAIA, NGCSU is a member of the Georgia-Alabama-Carolina conference, along with mostly religious & private schools. A list of current NCAA schools shows some old rivals & more of our peer institutions. He would like to see some of these rivalries rekindled.
• He said that his committee looked at several things, and decided that because NGCSU could apply to the NCAA for about $1000, and because the NAIA would let us stay with them provisionally during the transition period, the Committee unanimously recommended the initiation of the process.
• He then said that there are problems with the facilities in some NAIA schools. They're not up to standard, and even some high schools' facilities are better. On the other hand, we could earn considerable revenue by being in the NCAA. He then mentioned that our athletic budget would have to increase by approximately 30% ($300,000.00)in order to absorb the increased costs, and that such an increase couldn't fall on the backs of students. He suggested the possibility of a capital campaign, and recommended that a detailed study be done to discover ways to fund the initiative.
• Noel Campbell pointed out that the readers of the AJC are our students' parents, and that the NAIA doesn't get much AJC coverage. If we move to the NCAA, he suggests, we'll get more coverage and thus more recruiter interest.
• President Hansford then mentioned that the NAIA had put forth a resolution against dual membership for participating schools, but that the resolution had been defeated and probably would be again.
• Vicki McCard asked if the coaches were in favor of the idea. Ross replied that yes, they are, as it would help in recruiting.
• Noel Campbell asked if the NAIA was still losing money, even in championship games, at which time Hansford pointed out that the NAIA may fine members, and that it doesn't pay for travel to championships; the NCAA does.
• Dlynn Armstrong wondered if it was feasible to raise the 300K necessary to make the move.
• Hansford said that it had been discussed with the alumni, and that they would go with whatever the institution wanted. He added that athletics are funded with student fees and private gifts, and that no state money is involved. Student fees will go up, he said, but NGCSU fees are below average. They amount to $100 per semester right now, and are covered by HOPE. Baseball, for example, raises a lot of its own money, as does basketball.
• The institution will likely need a new type of coach, which is to say, more expensive. He then concluded with the information that the NAIA appears to be in better financial shape, and that its offices have moved back to Kansas under new leadership. After stressing the importance of the issue once again, more questions ensued:
• Vicki McCard asked if the committee considered the impact on academics. She wondered if more absences would be a result of NCAA mambership. More scandals? President Hansford noted (to a round of chuckles) that the coaches would be carefully checked out. To the questions regarding the possibility of more underprepared athletes, Hansford noted that not very many such scandals occur in division 2, and that the NCAA is more controlled than the NAIA. There are more rules. He mentioned the possibility of having to return to having a full-time athletic director.
• Vicki McCard asked who would pay for all this, and Hansford replied that funding could come from various sources. McCard asked if the potential for academic damage amounted to zero, and Hansford stated that yes, we would have to approach it that way.
• Noel Campbell stressed the deal as an investment in our "brand name capital," pointing out that commuter students would gain more of an "identity" under the new conference.
• The President asked again for continued input on this issue.
• Donna Gessell stated that she would like to see a study done on what the consequences to academics might be. Hansford agreed, mentioning that variables included the # of games, etc. He said again that he foresaw no negative impact on academics.
• Steve Ross pointed out that the NCAA limits the number of baseball games more than the NAIA, and reiterated that the NCAA has a lot of controls, but that these are not usually a division 2 issue.
• Dlynn Armstrong, changing the subject asked about the lack of classroom space. "Are we looking into a new building?" she wondered.
• Hansford replied that the new science building would help us, and that we are calculating the number of freshmen we can handle appropriately. Once we do, we can make some determinations as to our needs.
• Georgia Mann restated the dual consequences of having more coverage meant having more students, and Hansford replied that such studies would help us in determining the appropriate size of the freshmen class.
• Dlynn Armstrong pointed out that perhaps we should get on the funding list to get the process underway, and Hansford reminded of the 5-year period of time this involves.
• Harriette Richard asked about the process for requesting classroom space, intimating that perhaps it should change from departments having control of its allocation. Hansford replied the possibility of eventually using Lewis Hall as a classroom building and building a new dorm. We may, in the interim, he said, have to change our schedule to have more late afternoon and early morning classes.
• Richard then reiterated that groups of people seem to control groups of classrooms, and that this makes it hard to find classroom space. Phil Buckhiester replied that departments indeed do control groups of classrooms for the first registration period, and then they're opened up to everybody via the web-based space request process.
• Richard continued to maintained that such was not the way it works, but Buckhiester held that all one has to do is request a room on-line. Others in the room nodded or mumbled their agreement with the latter point.
• Dlynn Armstrong offered her experience that not every room comes up on the list when she tries to find space, and Donna Gessell pointed out that many English classes have outgrown their Dunlap Hall rooms, but said that she doesn't want to take over other people's rooms. She added that departmental control over certain should be secondary to pedagogy.
• Dlynn Armstrong replied that some rooms have affixed resources such as maps, and that certain instructors need those rooms.
• C.E.O. Jimmy Woods, noting the time, tried to hurry things along.
• Vicki McCard, however, returned to the NCAA/NAIA conference issue, saying that she would like to compare the graduation rates between the conferences and their schools.
• President Hansford reminded her that ours are good, and suggested that it has more to do with an institution's view of academics than it does the presence of a given conference. Money, he reiterated, is not an issue for division 2 schools.
• McCard then said she was glad we're not in the paper because "we're so bad" (in men's basketball). Hansford disagreed, saying that we're not going to be on the front page in any case.
• Judy O'Neal pointed out that when we present this to the faculty, we need to be cognizant of budgetary concerns. It can't be an either/or situation. What might we lose to the 30% increase? Is it a choice between NCAA and a new building? That'll be hard to sell to faculty.
• Hansford agreed, saying that funding efforts usually come to the athletic department.

• The C.E.O. pointed out that to eliminate confusion, he has added a link to the Senate website describing in more detail the various terms of each senator.
• Dlynn Armstrong wondered about the new communication regarding the Committee on Committees: "What are we supposed to do?"
• Donna Gessell, a member of the committee, reported that there was a feeling that there was some favoritism as to committee assignments, so the new document was prepared to alleviate these feelings, educate the faculty on the nature of the committees without making them look at the bylaws. The white spaces on the form, she explained, are for one's name and desirability ranking. She added that says there is a blank at the bottom for clarifications.
• C.E.O. Woods reminded us that that the form should not be sent to him but to the chair of the COC.

• Donna Gessell put up her overhead and reviewed rationale for the changes. The resolution regarding 4.6 (see P&T Proposals below) which, because it came from this committee did not need a second, had to do with requiring the inclusion of student comments in post-tenure dossiers.
• C.E.O. Woods said that he had gotten an e-mail from Susan Gannaway, who would like people not to return all of the comments. It is just too much.
• Daria Cronic, to some disagreement, felt that the IAS forms told the same thing as the student comments.
• Carl Weinberg asked if this only applies to post-tenure, and Donna Gessell said that it was the following proposal that would cover all dossiers.
• Vicki McCard said that for most people, student comments can't amount to too much, 2 or 3 notebooks perhaps, but Noel Campbell, who says he teaches 150 students per semester, doesn't want to make his colleagues read them all.
• Dlynn Armstrong reminded us that the post-tenure dossier is only supposed to be a check.
• Daria Cronic wondered how many classes are involved, to which Gessell replied that the individual and department head determine such things. Vicki McCard pointed out that these materials are often requested by the university-wide committee anyway, so why not just put them in?
• Dlynn Armstrong said that this is still not like a tenure review, because it's not reviewed outside the [academic] school, and Gessell added that all that's required is, infact, an analysis of the evaluations, not the evaluations themselves.
• Kaye Biddy suggested that a lot of the student comments were ridiculous, and that perhaps a selection should be included, but Vicki McCard replied that support is often required to assure the verity of the analyses. It's a pain, she maintained, to go back and ask for more information from the submitter.
• C.E.O. Woods agreed that either all or none of the evaluations should go in.
• John Yeoman said that the Department Head is supposed to contribute an analysis if the student information anyway through the DH evaluations, and asked why it should be put it in at all.
• Carl Weinberg pointed out that the post-tenure review, for all practical purposes, amounts to an attack on tenure, and that a lot of faculty interpret it as at least an undermining of it. He suggested that we not make it more stringent.
• Daria Cronic asked again why should these be reconsidered after the Department Head has evaluated them.
• The motion, accompanied by the 5 signatures from the committee, was then put forth, and Vicki McCard seconded, pointing out that it was pre-tenure and tenure files that needed to be examined much more closely. The motion did not pass.
• The second motion, 4.7, which involved these latter files, was put forth, and Robert Fuller seconded. Harriette Richard asked for some a clarification.  The motion carried.

• Morris said that she had brought this issue before the Senate to find out the level of support behind it (See Childcare below). She mentioned that Carl Weinberg had worked on the committee that had originally researched it, and that a survey had been done in the past.
• Dlynn Armstrong cited an institution she had worked with that offered such services in the early childhood development curriculum, and said that they were heavily utilized. They were a benefit to pedagogy, she said.
• C.E.O. Woods pointed out the liability and space issues involved and Armstrong countered by mentioning the possibility of service learning projects and the fact that such a situation would serve the curriculum.
• Carl Weinberg reviewed his committee's work, which was was to look into the possibility of full-time daycare, and cited Kirk Heriot's cost analysis of the project. He mentioned that Mary Poland had put together a pamphlet about such efforts on other campuses, and that we could use the information in our discussions.
• C.E.O. Woods suggested that the Senate think about the issue some more and reminded us that the room was spoken for at 2:00.

• C.E.O. Woods then called for any further announcements. Carl Weinberg mentioned the Hoag lecture scheduled for the following day, and there being no other announcement, the meeting was adjourned at 1:51 p.m.

Overall Rationale: Discussion in the January NGCSU Faculty Senate meeting indicated that further changes in Promotion and Tenure Guidelines are necessary to ensure the integrity of evidence candidates present for teaching effectiveness.

Additions appear in italics and words to be deleted are underlined.

1) 4.6 Post-Tenure Review

IV. Documentation
The faculty member is responsible for assembling documentation and providing it to the Committee on Post-Tenure Review.  Documentation will be exactly as follows.

a. an up-to-date curriculum vitae
b. A written analysis of student evaluations over the past three year's student opinion surveys and copies of all student evaluation materials for the period
c. a letter of support from the faculty member's immediate supervisor

Rationale: Without consistency in the evidence to be evaluated, equitable and fair treatment is nearly impossible.  The student evaluation materials provide a basis for equitable comparison, while the written analysis allows faculty members explanation and interpretation to ensure fairness.
 

2) 4.7 Format for Dossier and Documentation File

Dossier
II. Curriculum Vitae
B. Teaching

8.  An written analysis of student evaluations over the past three years and copies of all student evaluation materials for the period

Rationale: Without consistency in the evidence to be evaluated, equitable and fair treatment is nearly impossible.  The student evaluation materials provide a basis for equitable comparison, while the written analysis allows faculty members explanation and interpretation to ensure fairness.

Faculty, staff, and students who have school age children often find themselves with a childcare problem on days that they work/go to school and their children have no school. Local daycares often cannot take children in on a one-day or even a few hours basis OR if they do they charge for an entire week. The faculty and students, especiallly, often need someone only long enough so they can teach/attend their classes. Few daycares compensate for this fact in any way, if they are even able to take the children on that day.

Many faculty/staff members feel like this is an issue that should be of concern to the NGCSU community, and one that could be remedied, at least partially, by the institution with the help of education majors and perhaps nursing or other students who could get credit for doing this. PE majors could perhaps offer more programs during the summer and get credit for it. The possibilities seem endless.

A full-time daycare with a fulltime, paid coordinator would be ideal, but if that wouldn't work out, we would like to see consideration given to at least some service for public school holidays, spring breaks, etc.
I was asked to bring it before the Senate to see if that body would be interested in throwing its support to the idea. Dr. Carl Weinberg, also a Senator, along with others, did some preliminary work a while back on this issue, but it sort of died out without ever coming to resolution. To the best of my knowledge, it was never brought to the Senate or the President. Since I have been asked to broach this subject, I have been contacted by several people on this campus with what I would call an "intense" interest in the matter. I have also heard of other schools where this has proven to be multi-successful for everyone involved.