Home > Faculty Senate > Meeting Documentation > Faculty Senate Minutes > February 18, 1999

February 18, 1999

Chairman

Vice Chairman

Executive Secretary

Parliamentarian

President H. C. Bailey

Vice-Pres. L. Benjamin

Dr. David Boyd

Dr. Robert Hull

(NO-ATTACHMENT VERSION)*

The Valdosta State University Faculty Senate meeting convened at 3:30 p.m. in the Magnolia Room, University Center. Members present were: President and Chair - Hugh C. Bailey (absent); Vice President, Academic Affairs - L. Benjamin (absent); Executive Secretary - D. Boyd; Parliamentarian - R. Hull ; Ex-officio Senators - J. Brignati, K. Ferrell, L. Milbrandt (proxy Clyde Edwards) , T. Dasher, K. Stanley (Ralph Allen) , F.D. Toth (absent), M.A. Reichenbach (absent) , E. Clark (absent) , G. Gaumond (proxy Sherrida Crawford) , P. Cleveland (absent) ; College of the Arts: V. Pennington (proxy Jacque Wheeler) , C. Edwards, M. Harbin, T.Harding (proxy D. Farwell) , D. Farwell, J. Wheeler; College of Arts and Sciences; S. Goel, J. Hiers, D. Bogyo, S. Childs (absent) , B. Derrick, L. Hanes, M. Hardin (absent) , A. Lazari, B. Bergstrom, D. Boyd, B. Brown, J. Elza (proxy D. Bogyo), B. Evans (absent) , T. Meyers (absent) , V. Soady (absent) , B. Adler, H. Harper (absent) , S. Seyfarth (proxy L. Hanes) ; College of Business Administration: A. Reddy (absent) , H. Ray (absent) , F. Ware, M. Holland; College of Education: C. Backes, J. D. Thomerson, R. McClung, M. Garber, B. Gerber (proxy M. Venn) , J. Hummel, P. Anderson (proxy R. Hull) , S. Andrews (proxy M. Garber) , T. Root-Sirmans (absent) , A. Gibbs, E. Gillis, K. Wells (absent) , R. Hull, F. Smith, M. Venn; College of Nursing: D. Ebron, D. Roush; Division of Social Work: R. Vodde (absent) ; Division of Learning Support :J. Wilkinson ; Odum Library: S. Crawford; Pres. Of SGA: Alan Ridge (absent) Guest: Charles Ferguson, Division of Institutional Effectiveness and Planning


  1. The meeting was called to order by D. Boyd since Dr. Bailey was out of town and proxies were identified.

  2. The minutes of the Nov. 19th, 1998 Faculty Senate meeting were approved.

  3. Unfinished Business

    • There was no unfinished business.

  4. New Business

    1. Report of Academic Committee - L. Levy reported on the busy last several months of the Academic Committee with most of the work including reprogramming courses that already exist. Many of these changes came from the College of Arts and from the college's advisory committee as they came to grips with common course numbers and descriptions. Dr. Levy reviewed with the Senate the minutes from the Nov. 9th, 1998, Dec. 14th, 1998 and Jan. 11th, 1999 meetings of the Committee. He reported some discussion of core curriculum assessment with some advice being given from the Committee to the administration about this in preparation for the visit from SACS. Dr. Levy opened the floor for discussion for questions about the minutes. There being no discussion, the minutes were approved.

    2. Report from Committee on Committees - S. Crawford reported on the Feb. 18th meeting of the Committee to certify the election of Senators and to review the elections to statutory committees. (These roster changes are furnished herein as Attachment #1). This committee's next meeting will be held March 4th at 8:15 am. At this meeting the committee will begin work on the "Volunteer Form" for Standing Committees to make other appointments on the roster to have it ready by May along with the Grievance Committee election ballot which will be sent out in March.

    3. Report from the Institutional Planning Committee - C. Backus gave the report of this Committee for V. Pennington who was absent. He reported that the IPC was presented at their last meeting with the proposed VSU Master Plan by Blake Ellis of Ellis Rickets & Associates. The plan will also be presented to a Board of Regents' cross-team and VSU administrators next week. During their meeting, the IPC also studied a draft of the revised Strategic Goals to be presented to the Faculty Senate at its March meeting. The committee made revisions and corrections and the final draft is now in preparation. B. Derrick questioned whether the Master Plan should go before the Environmental Committee as well. C. Backus was not sure if the plan had been, in fact, officially presented to the Committee and asked D. Bogyo, as head of that committee, if the plan had been presented.D. Bogyo said that it had been presented. B. Derrick asked if there should be some action taken on the plan. D. Bogyo reported his understanding was that the Environmental Committee would see the different drafts of the plan as they were being developed and the next step would be to have the document presented before the Board of Regents. Then there would be a few steps before they would draft a final document and that J. Brignati may want to comment on the matter from that point. J. Brignati stated that next week, members of the Board of Regents and several members of the staff would review the progress that has been made and amend the report and then send it to the Board for approval. He said he assumed there would be a step in between where the plan would come back to VSU for finalization. The President would then have to make a presentation to the Board and have them make a final decision. He said no date has been set for the proceedings but more would be known after next week's meeting.

    4. Report of Faculty Affairs Committee - B. Brown reported on the revised statement on Post-Tenure Review. He presented the statement for approval and on behalf of the Committee thanked Ralph Allen, who proposed the question and answer format for the document. J. Hummel stated that he found it difficult to determine what had been changed in the original document by looking at the revised statement. He did not feel comfortable voting on something without seeing how it differed from the original version. B. Brown stated that the original was circulated along with an earlier revised version of the document when it should not have been. The document was not circulated a third time with the thinking being that Senate members already had a copy of the original version. B. Derrick asked that B. Brown highlight the changes that were made in the revised document. B. Brown reported that most changes that had been made concerned format rather than substance and that most of what was happening was the clarification of things that were simply implied in the earlier version. He explained one substantive change that appears in page two of Attachment 4 in the agenda under the next to last question..When will the faculty member be reviewed? ...If a faculty member scheduled for post-tenure review applies for promotion and that application is denied, whether by department or college, that member shall be required to submit material for post-tenure review within fifteen working days of written notification to that effect. B. Brown reported that this statement was added because there were a couple of cases in which faculty members applied for promotion and were denied, and continued to apply every year. As long as the faculty member applied for promotion every year, they would not fall under a post-tenure review guideline schedule. This section was written to prevent that actuality, should it ever occur. Several other changes were made; the first being made in the same question which arose about faculty members on leave of absence. On page two (Attachment #4 in the agenda) in the next-to-last question-When will the faculty member be reviewed? Time spent on an approved leave of absence will not count toward this five-year period. Faculty members on approved leaves of absence during the scheduled review year will submit material for review during the following year. It was also reported that early in the revision process of the document, the three potential categories were changed to two (satisfactory and non-satisfactory). On page four of the attachment, procedures were specified in cases where faculty members were department heads. D. Bogyo stated the section on the amount of time during which a faculty member would be reviewed was very defined. He asked if a definite timetable could be placed in some of the other sections, for example, if the post-tenure review is judged satisfactorily, what happens (Attachment 4, page 4). If the post-tenure review is judged non-satisfactorily, what happens? He suggested that the post-tenure review committee, the department head and the dean be under a specified time line as well, whether it is ten working days or fifteen. B. Brown pointed out that the only deadline for that part of the document concerning a time frame for the review committee is that the decision becomes a part of the departmental evaluations so the post-tenure review would have to be completed by the departmental deadline. However, he stated it might be the wish of the faculty to alter the time allowed. A. Lazari questioned the definition of "appropriate sanctions" throughout the document. B.Brown explained that on page 6 (Attachment 4) under item 3 "....and forward it to the faculty member and the evaluating administrator with the recommendation that appropriate sanctions be implemented by the administration" was kept vague because the appropriate sanctions could not be defined in this document for every situation and that every situation would not always or necessarily end in dismissal. D. Bogyo questioned the wording of the first sentence on page 7 of Attachment 4. He suggested that the wording be changed to "....the faculty member can follow the appeals process established by the VSU Faculty Handbook Board of Regents." His understanding, after speaking with J. Elza, was that if one goes before the Board of Regents concerning a grievance, they would be referred back to the originating institution. Since the appeals process is listed in the Faculty Handbook, he thought that maybe that would be a clearer way of stating the process. B.Derrick recommended the phrase "appeals process" in the same section (page 7) of the document be changed to "appeals processes" because there is more than one process in place that may be more appropriate than going through the traditional appeals process. L. Levy agreed with B. Derrick and he wanted everyone present to understand that there were formal appeals and grievances and that there are a host of informal grievance procedures in place on campus, including mediation, and these informal procedures are considered a sub-part of the traditional grievance procedure. After this discussion, the Post-Tenure Review document was approved, with D. Boygo's suggestion in adding "VSU Faculty Handbook" and B. Derrick's addition of "appeals processes" to page 7 under the heading What if a faculty member disagrees with the Post-Tenure Review Committee's decision? (The amended sections are furnished herein as Attachment # 2).

    5. Report of Grievance Committee - B. Derrick stated that while there was no report from the committee, she wanted to comment to members of the Senate about the voting that will be taking place for election of members of the Grievance Committee. She wanted to remind the Senate as they vote that this committee should be a panel of their peers, comprised of persons which faculty members would chose if they found themselves in need of a grievance hearing. She suggested persons be elected that might have not been involved already in a grievance situation (not administrators, in most cases), and that they would want to elect people that they would trust to hear them or their faculty member's case and be fair in their judgement. She encouraged members to keep in mind what the committee does and think carefully for whom they are casting their votes.

    6. Report of Executive Secretary

      1. D. Boyd brought before the Senate a report on the election of the Nominating Committee. He explained the purpose of the committee being to place two names on the ballot for the Executive Secretary's position and two names for each vacancy on the Committee on Committees. The persons placed in nomination for this committee are: Sudhir Goel, John Hummel, and Deborah Roush. After making a request for nominations from the floor, and there being none, the nominations were closed. A voiced vote was taken and the three nominees were elected to the Nominating Committee.

      2. D. Boyd presented Agenda Item #2, Adjustment to the Schedule for Summer 1999. The basis of this proposal was given that, in order to receive $300,000 from the Board of Regents, the majority of VSU's credit hours must occur before June 30th. J. Brignati reported that more credit hours had to be reported before June 30th than after, and by moving 2 days forward we would have 13 days of class in June and 15 in July. The Maymester would be included in the Summer Session for the calculation of credit hours for this fiscal year. He stated that this would benefit the University since we suffered revenue losses earlier in the year. He thought if Maymester and the first part of the Summer Session registration was better than in previous semesters, there may be some additional funds at the end of the year. He said it was an opportunity to have a "one-shot" deal in putting additional credit hours into a year that was really "our" fault in credit reductions. From now on, the calendar would be altered permanently to be Fall, Spring, and Summer instead of Summer, Fall, Spring as concerns the fiscal year. Therefore, the Summer session will always be rolled forward and should cause little adjustment to the calendars that are already in place. M. Holland asked if this recommendation had gone before the Scheduling and Procedures Committee for their review. J. Brignati stated that in order to accomplish this procurement of funds, he would have to have the extra two days in place before he could release any funds. He did not know if the proper procedures were being violated, but he was requesting that June 18th and June 25th, which are non-scheduled long work days to be rescheduled as work days. These two days could be taken off anytime after June 30th. L. Levy spoke on behalf of Academic Affairs by thanking the Division of Business and Finance for pushing for this one time opportunity. He said that VSU is one of three institutions to state a course on this matter and that VSU is also one of the only institutions in the state to adopt 2001 target admission requirements several years early. He stated things that have happened to VSU have forced the University to look for alternative sources of revenue. He reminded the Senate that this money is not $300,000 dumped into the budget mix, because there are a number of institutional expenditures that will be taken out..... that there are expenditures for furniture, for new buildings, for example, which will not be met by the construction budgets. He also said there would be repairs and renovations that would need to be made each year. The Registrar's Office and the library are in need of staffing so the University would have been facing a desperate situation had this benefit from the Board of Regents' not occurred. He reported that soon the Deans would be meeting to talk about budgets for the rest of the year. Dr. Levy made the suggestion on behalf of Academic Affairs that the two days that are needed be added in June and July 1st and 5th be taken off the schedule. Another suggestion that was given was that two days be taken off at the end of the semester. However, he said this has been attempted before and it was not a pretty picture. He stressed that he didn't want to bring something to the Senate that was a closed matter, but he wanted to hear any comments its members had to offer. Once again, he thanked J. Brignati for his work. F. Smith asked how students enrolled in Summer sessions III and IV would be affected. L. Levy stated that these sessions would stay as they were. M. Holland stated that he understood that the first Friday was the first week of school and that it was being proposed to have three double sessions in the same week. If students had a Tuesday/Thursday schedule, they would attend class Tuesday, Thursday, and Friday. He did not think this was pedagogically wise. D. Roush asked if it would not be a change in class schedules and only a change in faculty schedules that would be reflected for budget purposes. M. Holland reflected his concern that since the Senate didn't have a schedule in front of them; he was not sure what was being proposed. He thinks faculty members would have difficulty covering the appropriate amount of material with the hours available in that first week. L. Levy pointed out that July 1st and July 5th classes meeting those days would be moved to Friday, so there would be a five day week the first two weeks of summer term for classes meeting Monday through Thursday. J. Brignati stated since one week of Tuesday/Thursday classes would have a Friday class and one week of Monday/ Wednesday classes would have a Friday class, but not both. M. Holland stated again that he thought it pedagogically unwise to schedule that many class hours during that week. L. Levy suggested those classes meeting two days a week be looked at to see if a different modification could be met. He reminded the Senate that the balance of classes would still need to be shifted into June. D. Rousch agreed with the pedagogical concern of M. Holland, but stated that in the Nursing program, it was found that a ten week course could be taught in a five-week summer. She said the students excelled because the faculty did things in their pedagogy to make it possible. L. Levy suggested this matter be moved upon. R. Hull asked J. Brignati what kind of time frame the Senate was looking at. J. Brignati replied as quickly as it was possible. He said he would hate to put it off and then everyone would be scrambling at the end figuring out how to spend the money and then it might not be spent in the best possible way. A. Lazari asked if this adjustment to the schedule would only be for this summer. J. Brignati stated that VSU would have to have enough dates in the fiscal year but that he couldn't imagine there being more of an adjustment than is already being made. C. Backus stated that it would be a permanent change in that the Summer session would be shifted into this year. J. Brignati agreed and stated that the calendar would be changed to Fall, Spring, Summer for the fiscal year. C. Backus stated that the University would always have to have more hours before July 1 than after. L. Levy agreed, but said that it would be known about in advance from this point. C. Backus asked that since some senators are uncomfortable with these adjustments without seeing a calendar, if the Scheduling Committee could meet quickly, send the schedule to Senators via e-mail and then request a special meeting of the Senate to put the matter behind them and make sure that the suggestion would work. D. Boyd reminded the Senate that the idea was that this would be a permanent and one-time "fix". C. Backus stated that the Senate had heard that things may occur in subsequent years and what the Senate was being asked to do, they may have to do again. S. Goel stated that the Senate did not have to time to do this now. C. Backus said that the Senate might have enough time, but that J. Brignati had not given the Senate a specific time frame. J. Brignati stated that he could not give the Senate a specific time frame because what it amounted to was how quickly VSU could spend the money allotted. A. Lazari asked why the Senate could not just approve the motion to add days to the schedule, that the University was going to spend the money. He suggested that afterwards the Scheduling Committee could come up with the best solution. M. Gerber said that the Academic Scheduling Committee would meet Thursday, February 25th at 3:00pm in the Magnolia Room at the University Center. F. Smith offered a word of caution to those setting up the schedule to remember that there were too many "mini" sessions and that faculty members would be on different schedules, so the committee would need to be cautious as to what days were taken off the schedule. L. Levy pointed out that part of the problem in taking days off was keeping the days balanced out. J. Wheeler asked if the question posed before the Senate was does the University want $300,000 or if we say we will not change the schedule, we would not receive the money? J. Brignati stated that the money is not considered a gift, that VSU would be able to recognize revenue this year which will offset revenue loss that has already occurred. He said that the Board of Regents has given us the ability to roll over our schedule. J. Wheeler stated that then the question was not how the scheduling will be done, but is the Senate going to vote to change the schedule so we can receive the funds. She suggested that the question be called as to whether or not the Senate would change the schedule and let the Scheduling Committee come up with a proposal as to how the changes would be made. A. Lazari stated that everyone agreed that they wanted the money to be given to the University. He made the motion that the schedule be changed. Fred Ware seconded the motion. A. Lazari suggested that the Academic Scheduling Committee look at the schedule and decide how the two days should be added to the schedule in June. B. Bergstrom asked if the Senate was voting to trust the Academic Scheduling Committee to adjust the schedule. A. Lazari replied in the affirmative. B. Bergstrom stated that since the next Faculty Senate meeting was too late to vote on an amended schedule. J. Brignati stated that the next Faculty Senate Meeting would not be too late to pick the days that would be added in June. He said that the students would come to class 28 days, that it did not matter to them which days they came to class. B. Derrick stated that for some students at the University it does matter and asked if it mattered from a legal standpoint. She said that she had been involved in a situation where there was an error in the way a course was scheduled. A student registered for a class thinking it was being held at a particular time and there was quite a disturbance initially. She said students were asked to attend class at times that were not listed and asked if VSU had a responsibility to have the information correct before it was distributed to students. J. Wheeler stated that, relevant to B. Derrick's point in VSU's commitment to students, it might be necessary to publicize changes in the schedule or problems might occur because students cannot come to class at the adjusted times. She suggested that advertising the changes be made part of the motion. B. Bergstrom asked if this motion would mean that the Academic Scheduling Committee's decisions were not subject to approval. D. Boyd stated that if it were made a part of the motion, then the Committee would be given approval to make the changes this time. J. Brignati stated that he doubted this information (the changes) could be in the hands of every student before registration-he thought they could be notified, but that the schedule had already been sent to the print shop. D. Boyd reminded the Senate of the advertisement done for the core classes offered in the Fall semester and stated that if the summer schedule changes are advertised as well, that people would be aware of them. B. Derrick made a substitute motion that the Senate go on record as approving in principle the idea for once and that the schedule would be brought before the Senate for formal approval. J. Brignati stated that if the Senate waited until the next Senate meeting to vote on the changes, the students would be notified after the fact. F. Smith asked if the Senate could be polled by e-mail. D. Boyd said he was not aware of any problems in doing this. F. Smith made the motion that the Academic Scheduling Committee e-mail the new schedule and the Faculty Senate members vote on the changes. D. Boyd suggested that the schedule, as well as a ballot, be distributed and returned via campus mail, so as to retain a record of the vote. J. Wheeler amended her motion and accepted F. Smith's motion . A. Lazari stated that how the students are to be notified and what dates would be changed were not pertinent to this motion. J. Hummel called the question to add two days to the schedule of classes in June. R. Hull, in order to clarify the motion, stated that the original motion included moving two days to the Summer schedule in June and allowing the Academic Scheduling Committee to decide which days would be added. After a vote, the motion carried. F. Smith made a motion to the Academic Scheduling Committee to circulate the schedule to the Senators and have them mail in their votes. J. Hummel reminded the Senate that this procedure might undo the motion that was passed. He recommended that the schedule be informative of what has been decided, rather than be sent to the Senate for approval. At this time, there was some confusion as to whether the original amendment voted on was to refer to the Academic Scheduling Committee but not allow them to choose the dates to be changed. R. Hull stated that it would be possible for the Senate to vote down the dates suggested by the Committee. B. Derrick stated that although this situation might be inefficient, the Senate does have by-laws that require committees to report to the Senate. D. Roush suggested that Senators send information, if contrary to Academic Affairs, to M. Garber of the Academic Scheduling Committee. M. Garber invited members of the Senate to come to the Committee's meeting the following week. S. Goel asked if the Faculty Senate meeting could be moved earlier in the month of March. D. Boyd stated that this would not be possible. The motion to allow the Academic Scheduling Committee to decide the dates that would be added to the schedule in June, that their decision would be circulated to Senators with a ballot and be returned by March 5 was voted upon and the motion carried. B. Derrick stated that this issue, came up, in part, as she understood, because the Board of Regents was not giving the right answers. She also thought the Senate might have acted with the preliminary proposal had the administration gotten their act together more quickly. She stated that it was known before the last Faculty Senate meeting that this situation might be an issue and the Senate would have had plenty of time to review its details. She suggested, that since calendars have been printed for the next several years, that the Vice President for Academic Affairs and the Vice President of Finance get to work now so the Senate does not need to have lengthy discussions on details later. J. Brignati apologized that this matter was considered a "mess". He stated that he sees it as an opportunity instead. He also stated that several months ago when this matter was first explored and approved, he was getting ready to present the matter to the Senate. Then the Board of Regents notified VSU that it would not be possible to roll the days forward. At that point, the matter was a dead issue. In further conversations with the auditor, the issue was reopened and approved. He stated there was no way to present this matter to the Senate any quicker. C. Boyd called time on the issue and proceeded to the next item on the agenda.

      3. D. Boyd brought before the Senate a recommendation from the Educational Policies Committee a request to grant priority registration for University Honors Program students. D. Ebron, from the Educational Policies Committee presented the request for priority registration from the Honors Program that had been approved by the Committee. D.Roush expressed her concern that if some groups were allowed priority registration, then all special interest groups would request this type of registration. She reminded the Senate that many special needs students have issues as well and asked if disabled students should be allowed to register early. She stated that she was very uncomfortable with this request. D. Boyd stated that the Senate had already passed this policy. D. Ebron stated that the policy had been through the procedures and had been approved. D. Boyd explained that this policy was one for the application process in requesting priority registration status. He stated that students would have to apply for approval for this status. D. Farwell asked if this request concerned all courses students were registering for or just Honors courses. D. Ebron stated that all courses would be included in the priority registration. R. Hull asked how many students were included. B. Adler, Director of the Honors Program, explained that this would involve 50-75 students. He stated that one reason for this request was that only a limited number of Honors courses were offered each semester and the classes are capped at 15 students which makes it very difficult to get into the classes. A vote was taken, and the policy was approved. (The approved policy is furnished herein as Attachment # 3).

      4. A request to establish a formal title for the moderator (s) of VSUFAC was remanded to the Committee on Committees. Additionally, policies are to be recommended for the appointment and term of service of those in this position.

      5. A request to consider changing the GPA requirement for being placed on the Dean's List was remanded to the Academic Committee. The Academic Honors and Scholarships Committee has been requested to visit related requirements for University-wide honors.

      6. A bill passed by the SGA to eliminate Saturday Exams and Dead Days was remanded to the Academic Scheduling and Procedures Committee. M. Garber asked for discussion among remaining Senators concerning the SGA's request to eliminate Saturday exams and Dead Days. Many Senators gave suggestions as to using weekends as Dead Days if Friday was the last class day, eliminating Dead Days altogether, and keeping Dead Days, as many faculty members use theses days to "tie up loose ends" after the semester and serious students use these days to study. The concern was raised as to some departmental exams being given during exam week and interfering with Dead Days.

  5. General Discussion

    1. D. Boyd reminded Senators of midterm posting week (February 22-February 26) for 1000 and 2000 level courses.

    2. D. Boyd also reminded Senators that Academic Honors Day being held April 7, 1999 at 11:00 AM in Whitehead Auditorium.

  6. There being no further discussion, the meeting adjourned at 5:10 PM.