At 12:31 P.M., C.E.O. Jimmy Woods called the June 13, 2002 meeting of the NGCSU Faculty Senate to order.

• Senators in Attendance: Dlynn Armstrong-Williams, Jack Broman, V.P.A.A. Phil Buckhiester, Carl Cavalli, Barry Friedman, Donna Gessell, President Nathaniel Hansford, Kirk Heriot, Kristi Hislope, Scott Irwin, Aaron Lu, Brian Mann, Georgia Mann, Wayne Morris, Harriette Richard, Alice Sampson, Ann Sumners, C.E.O. Jimmy Woods
• Senators Excused: John Eggers, Bud Reiselt, Bill Shaw, Jeff Sommers
• Senators Absent: Kim Benton, Kaye Biddy, Noel Campbell, Robert Fuller, C. Michael Powell, Lindsay Reeves, Ann Stucke, Dan Thompson, Sally Wiedmann
• Guests: Marlene Anthony, Carl Weinberg

• C.E.O. Jimmy Woods submitted the minutes of the April 11^th meeting for approval and called for any additions or corrections. Scott Irwin moved to accept the minutes. Harriette Richard seconded, and the minutes were approved as submitted.

• The President showed a copy of the magazine Georgia Voyager with NGCSU featured on its cover and in an article. He said that among other public school personnel, many high school counselors would receive copies of the magazine. The featuring of NGCSU in the current issue coincides, said Hansford, with the University's 125^th anniversary and points out that the school was the first in Georgia to award a diploma to a woman.
• He then reminded the Senate that NGCSU has hired its new Vice President for Institutional Advancement, Mr. Bruce Howarton, who will assume his duties on July 1. Pointing out selected details of Mr. Howarton's past achievements (cf. NGCSU Faculty Digest, May 13, 2002), Hansford expressed confidence in the search committee's work that culminated in Howarton being its 1^st choice.
• Hansford then went on to discuss the current state of the 750K/250K special funding initiative (cf. Senate minutes of 2001-2002). Recounting its history, he said that last year, the initiative was included in the budget under the auspices of the NGCSU focus on leadership. The Governor then took it back out, but the House Speaker acted as NGCSU's advocate for the initiative in the special legislative session. Senator Jackson was also very helpful in having it reinstated. After reminding the Senate that NGCSU was to match the 750K allocation by raising 250K of its own, Hansford explained how the House Speaker had allocated 450K to NGCSU under this [fiscal] year’s budget. This money has, said Hansford, gone to the corps of cadets for the new military leadership center (250K) and for other projects (200K). Such projects include the summer transition program in math, English, and wellness, introductory activities and support systems, a physical training program, a leadership reaction course, and new P.T. uniforms.
• As for the 750K whose allocation period starts July 1 (next fiscal year), Hansford said that much of it would go toward establishing 3 new faculty positions in Business, Education, and Math/Computer Science. There would also be 4 new staff positions in the commandant’s office, of which one has already been filled. 90K will go toward scholarships, and Bob Thomas of the Georgia Leadership Alliance, who led the leadership retreat, will move from LaGrange College to NGCSU in order to teach leadership courses. This latter development, however, is being funded through a private donation, the President explained. He then asked for questions.
• Dlynn Armstrong-Williams asked if the funds (750K/250K) are in the budget permanently, and Hansford responded that no, the initiative is only for 3 years. He hopes, however, to keep the initiative going afterwards, although he confessed that the allocation would probably decrease to 500K at that time.
• Scott Irwin asked if the 90K (for scholarships) is just for cadets. The President said not necessarily, adding that there would be other programs and seminars and that some of the money would be allocated to the band. Irwin then asked if it amounted to an institutional scholarship for which one applies through his (the President's) office and Hansford replied that the application procedure is not yet "set in stone."
• Carl Weinberg then inquired as to what the Georgia Leadership Alliance (cf. above) was, and Hansford explained it to him. Dlynn Armstrong-Williams asked for clarification about the duration of the funding, and thePresident complied. Jack Broman wanted to know if he could inform the band about the funding, and Hansford said yes, going on to explain that he would soon be publicizing it and setting up a gala event in August to announce the project.
• He went on to announce that people are moving into the new Science Center, and acknowledged Scott Irwin’s experience with the move. The building is now open for visits. Rogers Hall is being renovated, and the new residence hall is nearing completion, he said. Students will move in in August, but landscaping and other final touches will take place during the fall. We are also, said Hansford, getting ready to send out contracts to begin the Lewis Hall renovation, and the elevator installation project in Hoag is only 2 weeks behind schedule.
• Carl Weinberg then asked about faculty employment contracts, and the President said that they would go out tomorrow (June 14).

• Woods announced that the Senate web page is ready for the new academic year, but that some names are missing. Those in red, he said, are departing faculty, and those in orange are appointments not yet made.  He then explained that John Eggers (one of the departing faculty members) is assigned the task of calling the first meeting of the Committee on Committees, and that Donna Gessell (the other Senator on the COC) would call the first meeting in his place. Quoting the bylaws on how the COC vacancy should be filled with a vote at a faculty meeting, he explained how Eggers, having been elected to the Committee on Committees BY the Senate, should, in keeping with the intent of the bylaws, be replaced by the Senate and at a Senate meeting rather than at a faculty meeting.  He then opened the floor to discussion of how to correct the problem.
• Barry Friedman stated that perhaps the whole faculty need not elect a replacement, pointing out that the Senate indeed confirms COC appointments and elects two members of the COC.  He then suggested that perhaps nominations from the Senate could be made for the position, speculating that the intent of the bylaws is that the the replacement of an elected committee member be determined by the electorate (in this case, the Senate). This has been done at faculty meetings in the past, he said, since most elected committee members are elected by faculty vote (two COC members are elected by Senate vote).
• Scott Irwin protested that the bylaws should be followed, and that speculating on intent was not germane. Barry Friedman replied that the intent is known (several framers of the bylaws were present), and that such intent was not that the Senate should go back to the full faculty to replace a departing COC member that was elected bay the Senate in the first place.
• Carl Weinberg said that changes in the bylaws have often come to pass before the Senate due to oversights. Donna Gessell then carefully cited the bylaw in question. Scott Irwin suggested that the Senate could make an "editorial change" to the bylaws. C.E.O. Woods said that he thought we should hold the election before the Senate, and asked for disagreements. There were none, so he opened the floor for nominations. Dlynn Armstrong-Williams asked if the "editorial change" would have to go before the faculty. Indeed it would, confirmed Woods.  Georgia Mann asked for clarification on the process of editorial changes, and Scott Irwin explained that Robert’s Rules of Order allows such editorial changes for the purposes of clarification. Dlynn Armstrong-Williams said that we should make the editorial change as necessary.  C.E.O. Woods made the editorial change.  Barry Friedman nominated Ann Sumners and Armstrong-Williams seconded. No other nominations were made. Barry Friedman moved to close nominations, and Jack Broman seconded.  Sumners will replace Eggers as a Senator on the COC.

Agenda Item (Old Business): Child Development Center – Marlene Anthony & Kirk Heriot

• Marlene Anthony explained how she had come forward to take a leadership role in establishing the center and that she had had mixed emotions about doing so. She has, she said, a history of working in this area, and expressed her hope that the Senate would be receptive to the information she was about to offer and that it would will open our eyes to the possibilities. This information falls into 3 categories, she said; the history of the project, the pitfalls, and the options if we decide to move ahead.
• Years ago, she explained, there was a child development center run by the Home Economics Department. It apparently amounted to somewhat of a nursery school, but it was phased out when the Home Economics Department was phased out. About eleven years ago, there was an initiative to put together a child development center using some of the old equipment from the original facility. Apparently, it would have cost 100K at that time, and it was not done because there was no such money available. Seven years ago, Anthony continued, when the Georgia Pre-K Program started, there was lots of money available, and some individuals at NGCSU wrote a grant. Apparently, the State would have funded the project at 100% if NGCSU provided (renovated or built) a place for it. NGCSU couldn’t do so at the time, so a new grant was written to include a facility. It was too late. Three or four years ago, the project came up again for discussion, but nothing was done, she recounted.
• The issue has now resurfaced, she said, and stated that the lab programs would love [to have a center]. We (NGCSU) would need, she explained, to decide between a nursery school, a day-care center, or a laboratory school. There are, she said, significant differences between these needs, and there are regulations for every need. We would need lots of equipment, extensive teacher training, etc. If it is a lab school, we would need someone with an M.A. as a director and B.A.’s to do most of the work. She then asked: "Do we have start-up money?"
• She explained that we could get a "business line," that for us it would be non-profit, and that such projects need 8 or 10 years to break even. Then, she said, we’d have to start replacing equipment. The campus would have to really buy into it, and the Business Office would have to be prepared to process the payments. Cleaning would have to be done by Plant Operations at least 3 times a day, because the Center's staff would be occupied running the Center and planning. It would have to have extensive food service, she said, and asked: "can Aramark handle it?"
• The Center would be operated like a school, she said, and it would need substitutes who are properly trained. Those substitutes, like the regular staff, would need staff development opportunities. There are door & safety issues as well. And this is just scratching the surface, she added. She went on to suggest that we could get private donors, work with other county organisms, such as Lumpkin County Schools, perhaps. We could, she said, engage a private contractor. Apparently, Kirk Heriot had indicated that this is what Clemson did.
• Anthony continued, explaining that anytime a government entity (in this case NGCSU) is providing a service for faculty, there needs to be a needs assessment to see if the community is unable to provide the service. Otherwise, local private providers will "come out of the woodwork" to protest. Apparently, she said, state institutions that have these centers started them 40-60 years ago, and she knows of no new startups or private funding possibilities. Alice Sampson pointed out some of UGA’s experiences & Dlynn Armstrong-Williams said that in Gainesville, there are waiting lists (for such services). Anthony then pointed out more personnel administrative issues we would face.
• Dlynn Armstrong-Williams asked if Clemson still had its lab school, and Anthony said she didn’t know. Scott Irwin pointed out that we could run [the center] any way we wanted. Donna Gessell asked who would conduct the needs assessment, and Anthony replied that we could do it ourselves or hire another entity. Carl Weinberg, explaining that he was on the "old committee," said that many of these issues were covered during its deliberations. [They] did poll the campus, he said, but not the community. It’s just a matter of priorities, he said, adding that we should make this one of those priorities. The leadership initiative, he pointed out, is getting lots of money.  The President protested the word "lots," suggesting that the money for the leadership initiative was not as easily won as all that. Weinberg cautioned against accepting defeat, and urged that we mobilize support. Anthony agreed that such is an important part of the issue, reiterating that if [we] want a child-care facility, that’s one thing, but if [we] want a lab school, we'll need a much broader commitment.
• Dlynn Armstrong-Williams asked about the nature of need assessment procedures, wondering if the Business Department should do it or if we should contract outside help. "Can it make money?" she asked. Anthony replied that if NGCSU moves forward, it would have to be non-profit venture, reminding us that there are a lot of up-front expenses. There’s a difference, she explained, between what a business-for-profit venture may do and what a non-profit agency may do.
• Dlynn Armstrong-Williams pursued the nursery school idea, and asked for a ballpark figure. Not possible, said Anthony. We have to know what we already have in the way of facilities. Jimmy Woods pointed out that the Senate recommendation to the President was to form a committee to study the issue, that Anthony was here only in an informational capacity, and complimented her on her work. Barry Friedman suggested that the Senate leave the recommendation intact, and that interested parties should have a chance to bring together the necessary information and money to move forward. President Hansford explained that his calling on Anthony was to help determine if we really want to do this or perhaps narrow the recommendation to a more specific project.
• Kirk Heriot suggested that our investigation remain broad-based in order to allow for all possibilities. Dlynn Armstrong-Williams asked if the committee would have the resources to make a feasibility study. Barry Friedman asked how much in the way of resources would be necessary, and Kirk Heriot replied that we would need to start by collecting the facts, which in and of itself costs both time and money. There has to be a budget, Heriot insisted. President Hansford assured that he would try to provide what is needed in the way of travel funds, etc. Armstrong-Williams remarked that we would need guidance on what steps to follow. Hansford clarified the idea that our feasibility study would be different than the official organism itself, and Marlene Anthony reiterated that if the faculty and staff were to use [the Center], NGCSU would have to charge the going rate, as such a service cannot be a "benefit" of employment. It couldn't, in fact, be established at all if there’s plenty of capacity in the community. C.E.O. Woods then brought the discussion to a close to pursue other items, letting the Senate's motion stand.

• Weinberg summarized his proposal (cf. Senate Archives) and pointed out his experience on the ad-hoc committee on harassment, clarifying that this proposal had arisen from that committee's deliberations. According to Weinberg, the fact that there is no formal grievance procedure for students against faculty and staff represents a gap in the overall grievance policy, especially for students who are not University employees. Weinberg then recounted how he had presented the proposal before Student Life Committee (who unanimously approved it), is presenting it to the Senate now, and will present it to the Staff Council next, at which point the proposal would go to the President for approval.
• Barry Friedman proposed that the Senate support the motion and Donna Gessell seconded. Gessell then wanted to know who would run the elections; the Faculty Senate C.E.O., perhaps? Weinberg accepted this suggestion as a friendly amendment.
• President Hansford commented that this proposal follows the spirit of the grievance procedures already outlined for faculty & staff. Reminding the Senate that students already have recourse in case of a harassment complaint against another student, Weinberg pointed out that aside from assuring students of such recourse against faculty, the proposed procedure would assure faculty due process when students make such accusations against them. Barry Friedman said that he had witnessed such an incident and that the H.R. director had dealt with it. It would be good, Friedman said, to have such a procedure in place.
• Kirk Heriot mentioned that from a business perspective, there ought to be a clarification in the policy that the aggrieved party should let the offender know that his or her behavior is unwanted.
• Harriette Richard pointed out that such information would be going out with student materials, and Weinberg said that the existing policy already contains such details.
• At the request of CEO Woods, Barry Friedman restated the proposal.  Weinberg, "for the record," pointed out some minimal formatting changes (cf. Senate Archives).  The motion carried.

• Following a brief clarification for Dlynn Armstrong-Williams as to why the NGCSU web page does not have a "hot link" to the Senate web page, C.E.O. Jimmy Woods adjourned the meeting at 1:57 p.m.

D. Brian Mann, Secretary, NGCSU Faculty Senate